Gliders and Transponders......again.

[[email protected]]

Washington DC Examiner January 15, 2009

Don't agree with everything Barb pushes, but she did her homework. The
whole article and reader feedback below. Thanks Frank for noting.

Please also post your comments at:

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Warnings_began_years_ago_011509.html

Not just at rec.aviation.soaring. Congressional staffers read and
publish this stuff.

Michael
__________________________________

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Gliding_toward_disaster_Tragedies_and_near-misses_continue_as_FAA_delays_011509.html

Gliding toward disaster: Tragedies and near-misses continue as FAA
delays

By Barbara Hollingsworth
Local Opinion Editor 1/15/09When 36-year-old Matthew Broadus of
Redmond, Washington climbed aboard the sleek Schleicher ASK-21 glider
three days after receiving an acrobatic plane ride as a Christmas
present, he had no idea Dec. 28, 2003 would be his last day on Earth.

Neither did 30-year-old Keith Coulliette - son of Roy Coulliette,
manager of the Pleasant Valley Airport outside Phoenix and owner of
the Turf Soaring School - who was planning on giving Broadus the ride
of his life.

Carl Remmer, an 82-year-old retired Marine Corps pilot and commercial
flight instructor, and his 80-year-old friend Bob Shaff, both
experienced pilots, were also out enjoying a flight in Remmer’s Piper
Cub when tragedy struck.

According to witnesses, the glider was coming out of a cloverleaf
maneuver at about 600 feet when Remmer’s left wing slammed into its
tail, sending the glider hurtling straight into the desert floor. The
impact also ripped off a three-foot-long section of the plane’s wing
and sent it into a death spiral.

A subsequent investigation of the fatal accident by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found the plane’s unexpected entry
into the imaginary “aerobatic box” used by the glider partially to
blame. However, neither aircraft had a transponder, and NTSB
investigators cited both pilots’ failure to see each other as the main
cause of the crash that killed all four men.
They weren’t the only ones. Over the past 20 years, nine people died
and three were injured in preventable mid-air collisions between
gliders and private and commercial aircraft.

Dozens of near-misses endangered many more. But the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) still doesn’t require gliders to carry life-
saving transponders, a simple way to eliminate the risk.

* In 2006, a Hawker commercial jet pilot told NTSB that even with a
collision avoidance system, he had less than a second to take evasive
action after a glider suddenly appeared in his windshield. The two
aircraft collided over Smith, Nevada, damaging one of the Hawker’s
engines and completely disabling the glider, whose pilot had turned
off his transponder to reserve battery power and had to parachute to
safety.

* A transponder would have alerted a commercial jet arriving at
Chicago’s busy O’Hare International Airport in 1989 that it was on a
collision course with a glider at 5,000 feet. O’Hare’s air traffic
controllers didn’t know the glider was there because it didn’t show up
on their radar screens. Catastrophe was averted only because one of
the commercial pilots spotted the glider less than a half-mile away
and took immediate evasive action.
This scenario has been repeated at least twice every year for the past
two decades, but the FAA still allows gliders to fly without
transponders, which one critic likened to “driving at night without
your headlights or tail lights on.”
Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner’s local opinion editor. She
can be reached by email at: .

4 Comments ***

Reader Comments:

POSTED Jan 15, 2009jlatc: "So, the big sky, little bitty airplane
theory doesn't hold up so well? Why single out gliders? No aircraft
except as required by FAR Part 91.215 and FAR Part 99.12 must have an
operating transponder."

POSTED Jan 15, 2009hantavirus: "Obviously the writer of the article
never had real life "encounter" with a glider. There is a good reason
for exemption. I have a transponder and a hefty battery to power it.
Guess what, after 6 hours of flight the battery is flat dead, and no
transponder in any case. So FAA is wise not to create false
expectations. Gliders are required to have transponders to enter some
airspace. The example of "Chicago" seems like the one that may fall
into that category, but then again the jet may well have been in a
place it should not have been in. Following Writers logic, we should
have equip all pedestrians with horns, flashing lights... How many
people die in crosswalks? Please Barbara, look for sensation in that
direction."

POSTED Jan 15, 2009ydg: "Anyone familiar with transponder technology
will immediately recognize that it can do very little to maintain
separation between two aircrafts maneuvering under Visual Flight Rules
at 600 feet. Barbara, I understand that Examiner owner Phil Anschutz
has a personal agenda (http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/
Gliding_toward_disaster_-_a_timeline_of_key_events_011509.html).
However, you really are bringing a wrong case here. NTSB's official
investigation cited "failure to see and avoid" as the main cause.
Transponders help neither see nor avoid."

POSTED Jan 15, 2009Andy: "I have flown at the accident airport for
over 20 years. I knew 2 of the people that died that day. The use or
absence of transponders had absolutely no significance in the
accident. Had both aircraft been fitted with transponders it could not
possibly have made any difference. Please do some research so that you
have some understanding of the subject before you publish your
opinions."

_____________________

Warnings began years ago
By Examiner Special Report
- 1/15/09

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was established by
Congress to investigate transportation accidents, determine their
specific cause, and make recommendations to prevent similar mishaps in
the future.
More than two decades ago, the agency warned FAA about the limitations
of the “see and avoid” method used by glider pilots and others flying
under VFR. The agency’s analysis of past accidents conclusively
determined that the use of VFR alone posed the highest risk of mid-air
collisions. Yet many glider pilots still rely on VFR exclusively,
putting themselves and other pilots at risk.

They’re not the only ones who fail to take advantage of the cushion of
safety transponders provide. Since 2001, NTSB has investigated 51
incidents in which the lack of a transponder – or the failure to use
one – played a significant role.
Accidents happen, even in wide-open spaces where mid-air collisions
seem impossibly improbable. For instance, in 2005 one person was
killed and two military pilots had to ditch their plane when a newly
manufactured Air Tractor crop duster being flown to its new owner
collided with an Air Force Cessna on a routine training flight in
Oklahoma. The crop duster’s transponder had not yet been installed.
Last year, 31 near mid-air collisions were reported to the FAA. If
every aircraft carried a transponder, that number would probably be
much lower.

Glider pilots speak almost rhapsodically about the feeling of freedom
they get when soaring above the Earth and “reading” the wind currents
to keep aloft. Sailplanes are also a great way to teach student pilots
basic aviation skills.
Retired Navy pilot and AOPA member Mark Danielson, who flies for
FedEx, believes all student pilots should be required to spend some
time in unpowered flight, which he says “is the true teacher of both
aerodynamics and weather.”

Danielson noted several incidents in which commercial airliners
crashed, even though their pilots did exactly what they were trained
to do in an emergency, because the aircraft did not respond
accordingly. In such cases, he says, the kind of airmanship uniquely
acquired by learning to fly a non-motorized glider might have averted
a tragedy.

So restricting gliders is not the answer. But for everybody’s safety,
including their own, they do need to be “visible” to other pilots at
all times. --- Barbara Hollingsworth

3 Comments ***

*
Reader Comments:
POSTED Jan 15, 2009FT Pilot: "As a former military pilot with several
thousand hours flight time, I must disagree with most of this article.
Visually recognizing other aircraft has saved my life many more times
than the full array of technology I had in the cockpit. As for
transponders, they do nothing to help a pilot recognize other air
traffic if they don't have the other equipment that goes along with
them. The weight and high cost of this equipment would prevent any
small plane from being manufactured, especially gliders."

POSTED Jan 15, 2009: "I don't understand how the mere installation of
a transponder would have prevented the accident discussed or what the
author is proposing regarding transponders and gliders."

POSTED Jan 15, 2009Ray C.: "Barbra, a couple of things about your
series. First, you refer to the Hawker pilot as 'He" in another
article but in fact is was a female pilot flying that jet. In that
incident there were other very significant factors including a real
lack of training on the part of the local flight controllers, who
directed the aircraft to an area that is populated with gliders on a
regular (almost daily) basis. Something you have yet to bring up is
that military aircraft lack some of the essential gear (TCAS)which
means there are blind to all other air traffic. A transponder will not
help you with those guys unless ATC has you AND is talking to them.
The fact is that some gliders just will not be safer with a
transponder and can't operate with them, due to battery and other
issues. Other gliders really should have them. I just installed one in
my glider."

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 15, 8:31*pm, wrote:
> Washington DC Examiner January 15, 2009
>
> Don't agree with everything Barb pushes, but she did her homework. The
> whole article and reader feedback below. Thanks Frank for noting.
>
> Please also post your comments at:
>
> http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Warnings_began_years_ago_011509.html
>
> Not just at rec.aviation.soaring. Congressional staffers read and
> publish this stuff.
>
> Michael
> __________________________________
>
> http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Gliding_toward_disaster_Tragedies_a...
>
> Gliding toward disaster: Tragedies and near-misses continue as FAA
> delays
>
> By Barbara Hollingsworth
> Local Opinion Editor 1/15/09When 36-year-old Matthew Broadus of
> Redmond, Washington climbed aboard the sleek Schleicher ASK-21 glider
> three days after receiving an acrobatic plane ride as a Christmas
> present, he had no idea Dec. 28, 2003 would be his last day on Earth.
>
> Neither did 30-year-old Keith Coulliette - son of Roy Coulliette,
> manager of the Pleasant Valley Airport outside Phoenix and owner of
> the Turf Soaring School - who was planning on giving Broadus the ride
> of his life.
>
> Carl Remmer, an 82-year-old retired Marine Corps pilot and commercial
> flight instructor, and his 80-year-old friend Bob Shaff, both
> experienced pilots, were also out enjoying a flight in Remmer’s Piper
> Cub when tragedy struck.
>
> According to witnesses, the glider was coming out of a cloverleaf
> maneuver at about 600 feet when Remmer’s left wing slammed into its
> tail, sending the glider hurtling straight into the desert floor. The
> impact also ripped off a three-foot-long section of the plane’s wing
> and sent it into a death spiral.
>
> A subsequent investigation of the fatal accident by the National
> Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found the plane’s unexpected entry
> into the imaginary “aerobatic box” used by the glider partially to
> blame. However, neither aircraft had a transponder, and NTSB
> investigators cited both pilots’ failure to see each other as the main
> cause of the crash that killed all four men.
> They weren’t the only ones. Over the past 20 years, nine people died
> and three were injured in preventable mid-air collisions between
> gliders and private and commercial aircraft.
>
> Dozens of near-misses endangered many more. But the Federal Aviation
> Administration (FAA) still doesn’t require gliders to carry life-
> saving transponders, a simple way to eliminate the risk.
>
> * In 2006, a Hawker commercial jet pilot told NTSB that even with a
> collision avoidance system, he had less than a second to take evasive
> action after a glider suddenly appeared in his windshield. The two
> aircraft collided over Smith, Nevada, damaging one of the Hawker’s
> engines and completely disabling the glider, whose pilot had turned
> off his transponder to reserve battery power and had to parachute to
> safety.
>
> * A transponder would have alerted a commercial jet arriving at
> Chicago’s busy O’Hare International Airport in 1989 that it was on a
> collision course with a glider at 5,000 feet. O’Hare’s air traffic
> controllers didn’t know the glider was there because it didn’t show up
> on their radar screens. Catastrophe was averted only because one of
> the commercial pilots spotted the glider less than a half-mile away
> and took immediate evasive action.
> This scenario has been repeated at least twice every year for the past
> two decades, but the FAA still allows gliders to fly without
> transponders, which one critic likened to “driving at night without
> your headlights or tail lights on.”
> Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner’s local opinion editor. She
> can be reached by email at: .
>
> 4 Comments ***
>
> Reader Comments:
>
> POSTED Jan 15, 2009jlatc: "So, the big sky, little bitty airplane
> theory doesn't hold up so well? Why single out gliders? No aircraft
> except as required by FAR Part 91.215 and FAR Part 99.12 must have an
> operating transponder."
>
> POSTED Jan 15, 2009hantavirus: "Obviously the writer of the article
> never had real life "encounter" with a glider. There is a good reason
> for exemption. I have a transponder and a hefty battery to power it.
> Guess what, after 6 hours of flight the battery is flat dead, and no
> transponder in any case. So FAA is wise not to create false
> expectations. Gliders are required to have transponders to enter some
> airspace. The example of "Chicago" seems like the one that may fall
> into that category, but then again the jet may well have been in a
> place it should not have been in. Following Writers logic, we should
> have equip all pedestrians with horns, flashing lights... How many
> people die in crosswalks? Please Barbara, look for sensation in that
> direction."
>
> POSTED Jan 15, 2009ydg: "Anyone familiar with transponder technology
> will immediately recognize that it can do very little to maintain
> separation between two aircrafts maneuvering under Visual Flight Rules
> at 600 feet. Barbara, I understand that Examiner owner Phil Anschutz
> has a personal agenda (http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/
> Gliding_toward_disaster_-_a_timeline_of_key_events_011509.html).
> However, you really are bringing a wrong case here. NTSB's official
> investigation cited "failure to see and avoid" as the main cause.
> Transponders help neither see nor avoid."
>
> POSTED Jan 15, 2009Andy: "I have flown at the accident airport for
> over 20 years. I knew 2 of the people that died that day. The use or
> absence of transponders had absolutely no significance in the
> accident. Had both aircraft been fitted with transponders it could not
> possibly have made any difference. Please do some research so that you
> have some understanding of the subject before you publish your
> opinions."
>
> _____________________
>
> Warnings began years ago
> *By Examiner Special Report
> *- 1/15/09
>
> The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was established by
> Congress to investigate transportation accidents, determine their
> specific cause, and make recommendations to prevent similar mishaps in
> the future.
> More than two decades ago, the agency warned FAA about the limitations
> of the “see and avoid” method used by glider pilots and others flying
> under VFR. The agency’s analysis of past accidents conclusively
> determined that the use of VFR alone posed the highest risk of mid-air
> collisions. Yet many glider pilots still rely on VFR exclusively,
> putting themselves and other pilots at risk.
>
> They’re not the only ones who fail to take advantage of the cushion of
> safety transponders provide. Since 2001, NTSB has investigated 51
> incidents in which the lack of a transponder – or the failure to use
> one – played a significant role.
> Accidents happen, even in wide-open spaces where mid-air collisions
> seem impossibly improbable. For instance, in 2005 one person was
> killed and two military pilots had to ditch their plane when a newly
> manufactured Air Tractor crop duster being flown to its new owner
> collided with an Air Force Cessna on a routine training flight in
> Oklahoma. The crop duster’s transponder had not yet been installed.
> Last year, 31 near mid-air collisions were reported to the FAA. If
> every aircraft carried a transponder, that number would probably be
> much lower.
>
> Glider pilots speak almost rhapsodically about the feeling of freedom
> they get when soaring above the Earth and “reading” the wind currents
> to keep aloft. Sailplanes are also a great way to teach student pilots
> basic aviation skills.
> Retired Navy pilot and AOPA member Mark Danielson, who flies for
> FedEx, believes all student pilots should be required to spend some
> time in unpowered flight, which he says “is the true teacher of both
> aerodynamics and weather.”
>
> Danielson noted several incidents in which commercial airliners
> crashed, even though their pilots did exactly what they were trained
> to do in an emergency, because the aircraft did not respond
> accordingly. In such cases, he says, the kind of airmanship uniquely
> acquired by learning to fly a non-motorized glider might have averted
> a tragedy.
>
> So restricting gliders is not the answer. But for everybody’s safety,
> including their own, they do need to be “visible” to other pilots at
> all times. --- Barbara Hollingsworth
>
> 3 Comments ***
>
> *
> Reader Comments:
> POSTED Jan 15, 2009FT Pilot: "As a former military pilot with several
> thousand hours flight time, I must disagree with most of this article.
> Visually recognizing other aircraft has saved my life many more times
> than the full array of technology I had in the cockpit. As for
> transponders, they do nothing to help a pilot recognize other air
> traffic if they don't have the other equipment that goes along with
> them. The weight and high cost of this equipment would prevent any
> small plane from being manufactured, especially gliders."
>
> POSTED Jan 15, 2009: "I don't understand how the mere installation of
> a transponder would have prevented the accident discussed or what the
> author is proposing regarding transponders and gliders."
>
> POSTED Jan 15, 2009Ray C.: "Barbra, a couple of things about your
> series. First, you refer to the Hawker pilot as 'He" in another
> article but in fact is was a female pilot flying that jet. In that
> incident there were other very significant factors including a real
> lack of training on the part of the local flight controllers, who
> directed the aircraft to an area that is populated with gliders on a
> regular (almost daily) basis. Something you have yet to bring up is
> that military aircraft lack some of the essential gear (TCAS)which
> means there are blind to all other air traffic. A transponder will not
> help you with those guys unless ATC has you AND is talking to them.
> The fact is that some gliders just will not be safer with a
> transponder and can't operate with them, due to battery and other
> issues. Other gliders really should have them. I just installed one in
> my glider."

The journalist kind of shot herself in the foot with the ASK-21
Accident which to the first order is irrelevant. Even if a more
nuanced discussion that also brought in PCAS type devices could make
it somewhat relevant. However I think she made a good attempt to try
to cover lots of different things, including pulling in some of the
issues glider pilots claim. Pity she missed the discrete nationwide
transponder code issue.

I'd encourage people to thing carefully and take a little time before
replying to the articles. Clearly the journalist had some problems
getting all the details correct, but it seem that some of the early
reply comments also contain as many errors as they try to clear up.
And think carefully whether a non-glider pilot reader is likely to
follow any line of reasoning.

For example average Joe airline passenger is not goign to care whether
that extra battery capacity for a transponder is awkward to install or
might cost a few $K etc. I think the journalist already covered that
enough in our favor. And eventually somebody is going to do some
analysis and show how it is not too hard for most gliders.

I more disagree with going after Phil Anschutz as having an axe to
grind or similar. Claiming this does not help and may backfire - I'd
imagine many readers might look at this and think... the guy lickilly
avoided a mid-air collision and he is trying to help spread the word
about a concern about transponders and gliders and should be
commended. It's likely a mistake to attack the journalist or media
organization, it's better to focus on the issue. (and in this case
besides the obvious errors, given the length of the article I think
the journalist tried to cover quite a few angles and did OK).

Anschutz was in a private jet and he and the flight crew were probably
surprised as all hell to almost tangle with a glider. One to find
there are gliders at these altitudes at all and then to find they are
not transponders equipped. After the Hawker collision it was clear on
discussion boards for corporate jet and airline pilots that many of
them also did not "get" this. I think it is quite reasonable that
Anschutz be surprised by this and quite reasonable that he stirs up
discussion about this in an opinion piece in one of his newspapers
(assuming that he directly did, but so what if he did). I think
average airline passengers would be surprised there are gliders flying
around near airlines that are virtually invisible to the flight crew
and don't have all the magic technology bells and whistles that people
assume they do (without knowing what those bells and whistles are in
the least).


Claiming controllers are Reno have a "lack of training" and steered an
aircraft into an area "populated with gliders" seem pretty harsh. I
think it would be better if we avoided publically disparaging FAA
staff, some of who have been very supportive and worked with the
glider community. The problem may be much more that inbound traffic is
following standard approach paths that take them over areas like the
Pinenut mountains. Individual flight controllers don't design those
approaches. Those approaches bring traffic through areas of high
glider traffic (and that may be unavoidable, they have got to come in
some way). Of course if the glider had a transponder then the same FAA
controllers might have been able to do something to help avoid the
collision. Do we want to get into a slanging match with people like
FAA controllers? - if so then (as a glider pilot) I'd argue that large
numbers of glider pilots are irresponsible for not understanding
standard approach traffic patterns etc. and where they should be
looking, where they should try to avoid flying, and where they really
need transponders insttaled and turned on.

"military aircraft lack some of... " is misleading -- *some* Military
aircraft lack TCAS, others can identify traffic. In high traffic areas
like near Reno military aircraft will often be being vectored by Reno
approach (I've heard and seen F18's out of Fallon NAS vector around me
near Reno). When flying near Travis AFB I always use flight following
in my glider and get and hear traffic advisories from the (military)
controllers for military and civil traffic. And a lot of that USAF
airlift traffic has TCAS AFAIK. The point is that I think where there
is heavy other traffic the military traffic *is* likely to be talking
to a controller who can see your transponder. Down low out in the
boondocks things may be different.


Darryl

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 15, 11:29*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> > Don't agree with everything Barb pushes, but she did her homework.

I do not agree and felt strongly enough about it that I commented on
the article.

> POSTED Jan 15, 2009Andy: "I have flown at the accident airport for
> over 20 years. I knew 2 of the people that died that day. The use or
> absence of transponders had absolutely no significance in the
> accident. Had both aircraft been fitted with transponders it could not
> possibly have made any difference. Please do some research so that you
> have some understanding of the subject before you publish your
> opinions."

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 16, 8:18*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:29*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > Don't agree with everything Barb pushes, but she did her homework.
>
> I do not agree and felt strongly enough about it that I commented on
> the article.

I incorrectly atributed the quoted comment to Darryl. I snipped in
the wrong places and appologize for the error.

Andy

[Jim[_18_]]

On Jan 17, 5:42*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 8:18*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 15, 11:29*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > > Don't agree with everything Barb pushes, but she did her homework.
>
> > I do not agree and felt strongly enough about it that I commented on
> > the article.
>
> I incorrectly atributed the quoted comment to Darryl. *I snipped in
> the wrong places and appologize for the error.
>
> Andy

I've been running a transponder in my gliders for the last dozen years
and have not found lack of battery power to be a problem. I've been
flying long flights, usually between 6 and 10 hours in the air. The
issue most people have with installing a transponder is cost, how much
is your life worth?

The military pilot that say's that the transponder wouldn't help with
collision avoidance is living in the past. All airliners and most high
performance airplanes have tcas, even my piper cub has a zaon unit
that picks up nearby transponders. It works great and is very
comforting as my cub is so slow that being hit from behind is a very
real possibility. tcas does help as it gives the crew climb or descend
instructions helping them avoid the traffic.

A lot of us live and fly near large cities with not only heavy airline
traffic but a lot of corporate and private jets that are hard to see.
I believe that flying around a major airport without a transponder is
reckless. The next glider without a transponder that is hit by a jet
will likely kill some people (we've been very lucky so far) and do
major damage to our sport.

Jim

[RichardFreytag]

What I find interesting is that this story is popping up in multiple
outlets. SF Examiner just had this article on 1/14/2009:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Bureaucracy_on_the_ground_could_kill_you_in_the_ai r.html

Did it hit the wires last week for some reason?

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 17, 4:31*pm, RichardFreytag > wrote:
> What I find interesting is that this story is popping up in multiple
> outlets. *SF Examiner just had this article on 1/14/2009:http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Bureaucracy_on_the_ground_could_kil...
>
> Did it hit the wires last week for some reason?

It is not a wire service article. It is an Examiner article. DC
Examiner and SF Examiner is owned by the same company and they will
reuse content in multiple places. That's two places - are there more?

Darryl

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Both places accept comments; write one.

At 05:56 18 January 2009, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>On Jan 17, 4:31=A0pm, RichardFreytag wrote:
>> What I find interesting is that this story is popping up in multiple
>> outlets. =A0SF Examiner just had this article on
>1/14/2009:http://www.sfe=
>xaminer.com/opinion/Bureaucracy_on_the_ground_could_kil...
>>
>> Did it hit the wires last week for some reason?
>
>It is not a wire service article. It is an Examiner article. DC
>Examiner and SF Examiner is owned by the same company and they will
>reuse content in multiple places. That's two places - are there more?
>
>Darryl
>

[309]

Did the geese in New York have transponders?

[Jim[_18_]]

On Jan 17, 10:16*pm, 309 > wrote:
> Did the geese in New York have transponders?

The New York Port Authority shoots birds near the airport, what will
they do with us glider pilots that get in the way.

Jim

[YFCpilots]

Just pointing out that the owner of the Examiner where these articles
are coming from was the guy in the back seat of the jet that got hit
in 2006 - so given the fact that he miraculously came out unscathed,
he's got a vested interest for pushing this content.

As many point out though, even if every GA aircraft (including
gliders) had a transponder, unless you've got a linked in PCAS/TCAS or
independent FLARM, its not going to help much. One or both a/c HAVE to
have one of those systems to make this whole transponder issue
actually make an impact in providing a degree of collision avoidance
protection.
a
- P

On Jan 18, 9:38*am, Jim > wrote:
> On Jan 17, 10:16*pm, 309 > wrote:
>
> > Did the geese in New York have transponders?
>
> The New York Port Authority shoots birds near the airport, what will
> they do with us glider pilots that get in the way.
>
> Jim

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 18, 12:41*pm, YFCpilots > wrote:
> Just pointing out that the owner of the Examiner where these articles
> are coming from was the guy in the back seat of the jet that got hit
> in 2006 - so given the fact that he miraculously came out unscathed,
> he's got a vested interest for pushing this content.
>
> As many point out though, even if every GA aircraft (including
> gliders) had a transponder, unless you've got a linked in PCAS/TCAS or
> independent FLARM, its not going to help much. One or both a/c HAVE to
> have one of those systems to make this whole transponder issue
> actually make an impact in providing a degree of collision avoidance
> protection.
> a
> - P

Can we try to get basic facts right? Phil Anshuz the owner of the
Examiner media mentioned earlier was *not* in the Hawker 800 that
collided with the ASG-29 Glider near Minden. There was a separate near
call involving a jet Anshutz was a passenger in over Colorado. Which
has been mentioned before and in the comments in the article. There
were two flight crew and three passengers aboard the Minden Hawker
800, Steve DiZio, and Evy and Mike Chipman.

The danger to our sport is the collision that takes out a fast jet or
airliner and kills innocent people. So far we've been lucky. Most fast
jets and airliners have TCAS (like the Minden Hawker 800) or are under
active control/communicating with ATC (also like the Minden Hawker
800) and could "see"/respond to gliders that have transponders. If the
glider community keeps up this bull**** about transponders not
providing a significant increase in collision avoidance then the best
thing would be for for the FAA to require transponders for all gliders
before we suffer the effects much worse restrictions when a glider-
airliner collision kills hundreds of innocent people.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 18, 8:39*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jan 18, 12:41*pm, YFCpilots > wrote:
>
> > Just pointing out that the owner of the Examiner where these articles
> > are coming from was the guy in the back seat of the jet that got hit
> > in 2006 - so given the fact that he miraculously came out unscathed,
> > he's got a vested interest for pushing this content.
>
> > As many point out though, even if every GA aircraft (including
> > gliders) had a transponder, unless you've got a linked in PCAS/TCAS or
> > independent FLARM, its not going to help much. One or both a/c HAVE to
> > have one of those systems to make this whole transponder issue
> > actually make an impact in providing a degree of collision avoidance
> > protection.
> > a
> > - P
>
> Can we try to get basic facts right? *Phil Anshuz the owner of the
> Examiner media *mentioned earlier was *not* in the Hawker 800 that
> collided with the ASG-29 Glider near Minden. There was a separate near
> call involving a jet Anshutz was a passenger in over Colorado. Which
> has been mentioned before and in the comments in the article. There
> were two flight crew and three passengers aboard the Minden Hawker
> 800, Steve DiZio, and Evy and Mike Chipman.
>
> The danger to our sport is the collision that takes out a fast jet or
> airliner and kills innocent people. So far we've been lucky. Most fast
> jets and airliners have TCAS (like the Minden Hawker 800) or are under
> active control/communicating with ATC (also like the Minden Hawker
> 800) and could "see"/respond to gliders that have transponders. If the
> glider community keeps up this bull**** about transponders not
> providing a significant increase in collision avoidance then the best
> thing would be for for the FAA to require transponders for all gliders
> before we suffer the effects much worse restrictions when a glider-
> airliner collision kills hundreds of innocent people.
>
> Darryl

Oops I spotted a typo, its Phil Anschutz

[bumper]

"YFCpilots" > wrote in message news:a6b548f4-34b9-As
many point out though, even if every GA aircraft (including
gliders) had a transponder, unless you've got a linked in PCAS/TCAS or
independent FLARM, its not going to help much. One or both a/c HAVE to
have one of those systems to make this whole transponder issue
actually make an impact in providing a degree of collision avoidance
protection.
a
- P


I disagree. If the conflicting aircraft have transponder only, as long as
they are on and operating in a radar environment, and at least one is
talking to ATC (IFR or receiving flight following - - which is likely in a
busy area like Reno/Minden), there is a substantial "degree of collision
avoidance protection" - - and without PCAS or TCAS.

If one or both also have PCAS or TCAS, that's better yet. Now the protection
becomes more autonomous, with no need either aircraft be talking with ATC.
If there is an interrogating aircraft (TCAS), then the protection may extend
beyond the radar environment.

Transponders are the bottom line in terms of safety, at least in the US for
now. To fly, especially high, without one in an area like Reno/Minden is
irresponsible, IMO. It risks the safety of innocent people and places in
jeopardy those freedoms we still enjoy as soaring pilots.

bumper
Minden
zz
PCAS and transponder

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

As a UK glider pilot, I would be happy to fit a Mode S transponder to my
glider if only they where cheap, ran all day on a small battery, gave ME
some form of collision warning (TCAS?) from other gliders and light
aircraft, and didn't fry my n*ts off with 120 Watt Radio Freqency being
emitted from an antenna 6 inches behind my unshielded backside.

There is a GPS based collision avoidance system called Flarm which meets
most of my requirements and could be cheaply fitted to all aircraft
including airliners. Our CAA won't even countenance this, as it is not
compatable with their existing WW2 technology Radar Systems. The push to
fly UAVs all over our isle may also come into this.

I should add that in the UK commercial aircraft generally fly in
segregated Class A, B, and D airspace, and gliders in the rest, so
conflicts are exceedingly rare.

Derek Copeland


At 04:46 19 January 2009, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>On Jan 18, 8:39=A0pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 12:41=A0pm, YFCpilots wrote:
>>
>> > Just pointing out that the owner of the Examiner where these
articles
>> > are coming from was the guy in the back seat of the jet that got hit
>> > in 2006 - so given the fact that he miraculously came out unscathed,
>> > he's got a vested interest for pushing this content.
>>
>> > As many point out though, even if every GA aircraft (including
>> > gliders) had a transponder, unless you've got a linked in PCAS/TCAS
or
>> > independent FLARM, its not going to help much. One or both a/c HAVE
to
>> > have one of those systems to make this whole transponder issue
>> > actually make an impact in providing a degree of collision avoidance
>> > protection.
>> > a
>> > - P
>>
>> Can we try to get basic facts right? =A0Phil Anshuz the owner of the
>> Examiner media =A0mentioned earlier was *not* in the Hawker 800 that
>> collided with the ASG-29 Glider near Minden. There was a separate near
>> call involving a jet Anshutz was a passenger in over Colorado. Which
>> has been mentioned before and in the comments in the article. There
>> were two flight crew and three passengers aboard the Minden Hawker
>> 800, Steve DiZio, and Evy and Mike Chipman.
>>
>> The danger to our sport is the collision that takes out a fast jet or
>> airliner and kills innocent people. So far we've been lucky. Most
fast
>> jets and airliners have TCAS (like the Minden Hawker 800) or are under
>> active control/communicating with ATC (also like the Minden Hawker
>> 800) and could "see"/respond to gliders that have transponders. If
the
>> glider community keeps up this bull**** about transponders not
>> providing a significant increase in collision avoidance then the best
>> thing would be for for the FAA to require transponders for all gliders
>> before we suffer the effects much worse restrictions when a glider-
>> airliner collision kills hundreds of innocent people.
>>
>> Darryl
>
>Oops I spotted a typo, its Phil Anschutz
>

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 19, 12:00*am, Derek Copeland > wrote:
> As a UK glider pilot, I would be happy to fit a Mode S transponder to my
> glider if only they where cheap, ran all day on a small battery, gave ME
> some form of collision warning (TCAS?) from other gliders and light
> aircraft, and didn't fry my n*ts off with 120 Watt Radio Freqency being
> emitted from an antenna 6 inches behind my unshielded backside.
>
> There is a GPS based collision avoidance system called Flarm which meets
> most of my requirements and could be cheaply fitted to all aircraft
> including airliners. Our CAA won't even countenance this, as it is not
> compatable with their existing WW2 technology Radar Systems. The push to
> fly UAVs all over our isle may also come into this.
>
> I should add that in the UK commercial aircraft generally fly in
> segregated Class A, B, and D airspace, and gliders in the rest, so
> conflicts are exceedingly rare.
>
> Derek Copeland

I really don't want to get into a debate about UK and USA transponder
issues. I think some of the issues facing the UK are different,
including issues with attempts to grab airspace and UK specfic UAVs
issues (we may have some of our own here) etc. However yet again in
this transponder debate people keep raising red herrings or offering
misinformation. I hope the BGA and others in the UK are not using all
these sorts of arguments in their debate, because some of them are
embarrassingly silly and would take away from other valid points.

So lets waste more space on this..

There is no reason to believe that you would get excessive RF exposure
form a properly installed transponder antenna. Most antennas are 1/4
wave stubs or blades that require a ground plane and when mounted
where glider manufactures recommend (on the underbody of the fuselage
near the undercarriage) just won't expose the pilot to significant RF
radiation. If your glider is metal or carbon fibre you have even more
isolation. Also be careful when comparing to other RF sources -- the
power specifications of transponders are the peak pulse power. The
duty cycle is quite low even in an environments with lots of active
TCAS interrogations. I've seen transponder antennas installed between
pilots legs, nearly in contact with he pilot. Darwin has something to
say about that.

As for power requirements there are several choices of transponder
that along with an encoder draw ~0.5 A. This is the sort of power
consumption that if your glider's batteries are absolutely already at
the maximum could usually be met by the addition of a small 7Ah
battery VRLA batttery. Say derating the battery 7Ah spec by 50% (for
operating temps below 20C and the load being above 0.05C) would gives
7 hours of run time. Mode-S transponders like the Becker will work
fine down to 10V (which at a 0.5 A load is lower then the discharge
point voltage used to calculate VRLA battery specs). How long are
typical flying days in the UK? The worse case is going to be long cold
wave flights and they may well need a larger battery or use a more
advanced technology battery. But these devices are already in the "use
small battery" category in my book. And I know installing that
battery (or even better a 12Ah battery if you have space) may be a
pain in the neck and cost some money but it is a tough argument to try
to push onto the traveling public, airline and jet owners etc. If I
was the CAA and having to put up with these arguments. I'd be making
the point by showing actual 7Ah battery sizes to highlight the (small)
problem glider pilots and owners are facing.

It is likely unrealistic to expect airliners and fast jets to use
flarm. Most of these aircraft have sophisticate TCAS systems. I hope
glider pilots are not presuming somebody just installs a flarm into
the airliner cockpit. Any flarm type input would need to be integrated
into the TCAS so it can provide s single traffic display and issue a
single RA. This is unlikely to be a low cost modification and why
should those owners do something to accommodate gliders which could
just "get with the system" and install transponders? Then there may be
technical issues with flarm like effective range (can flarm be
modified to respond to airliner interrogations at tens of km? TCAS can
work over distances like that, giving pilots a head's up of traffic
before a RA is required). While flarm seems a fantastic technology
where it is used (not in the USA) I suspect it is a read herring when
talking about providing airliners and fast jets tools to avoid
collisions with gliders.

As for wanting a Mode-S transponder with "TCAS" display. You can get
this today. In the USA PCAS units like the Zaon MRX are popular and
use very low power and relatively low cost (~$500). They provide an
alert but no RA or direction information. But they are impresssively
effective at highlighting traffic (I've flow with one for three
years). They work fine with Mode-S transponders. Yes I know this may
seem a waste of money if you already have a flarm unit. But back to
where I think the Examiner opinion article was trying to focus and
where I'd argue the higher risk to our aport is -- avoiding a
collison with a airliner or passenger carrying jet -- then the glider
does *not* need PCAS or TCAS type capablities. Letting ATC, and if
that fails, TCAS-II in the jet, deal with the conflict is going to be
highly effective.

Darryl

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:25:29 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> As for wanting a Mode-S transponder with "TCAS" display. You can get
> this today. In the USA PCAS units like the Zaon MRX are popular and use
> very low power and relatively low cost (~$500). They provide an alert
> but no RA or direction information.
>
I, for one, appreciate that Mode-S plus PCAS will do the full electronic
see-and-be-seen bit, but its a two box solution with any instruments I've
seen advertised.

Some of us just don't have the panel space for that. I fly a Libelle and
currently have all panel holes bar one full. The blanking plate in the
remaining one supports my GPS on a stalk. Nonetheless, I think I can get
a 57mm transponder in alongside the stalk mount, but that will certainly
need a replacement panel chassis and may need my 80mm altimeter to be
replaced with a 57mm unit.

That exercise leaves me with the transponder, but where can I put the
PCAS? In a Libelle there's no way it can be put on top of the panel and
there is little if any available space along the cockpit sides. This is
why I, for one, really need a single, 57mm instrument combines both
transponder and PCAS and is low power enough to run off a glider battery.

If such an instruments exists I'd love to know the details.

Derek is right about our airspace: I've never met anything other than
other gliders, GA aircraft, a few helicopters, the odd hang glider/
parascender and one or two military aircraft when I've been on an xc
task. The usual opposition to a glider on an xc task is GA pilots. I bet
they don't carry PCAS/TCAS and I'm not under ATC control. Under these
conditions the introduction of transponders does not reduce my changes of
a collision unless I have PCAS onboard. Hence my interest in the combined
instrument.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Mike Schumann]

The ultimate solution to the transponder issue in the US is going to be a
low cost ADS-B transceiver. These units will be able to connect to a PDA or
other GPS navigation unit which will show all transponder equipped traffic
(both ADS-B and Mode C/S) if you are flying within range of an ADS-B ground
station.

Mike Schumann

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:25:29 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>> As for wanting a Mode-S transponder with "TCAS" display. You can get
>> this today. In the USA PCAS units like the Zaon MRX are popular and use
>> very low power and relatively low cost (~$500). They provide an alert
>> but no RA or direction information.
>>
> I, for one, appreciate that Mode-S plus PCAS will do the full electronic
> see-and-be-seen bit, but its a two box solution with any instruments I've
> seen advertised.
>
> Some of us just don't have the panel space for that. I fly a Libelle and
> currently have all panel holes bar one full. The blanking plate in the
> remaining one supports my GPS on a stalk. Nonetheless, I think I can get
> a 57mm transponder in alongside the stalk mount, but that will certainly
> need a replacement panel chassis and may need my 80mm altimeter to be
> replaced with a 57mm unit.
>
> That exercise leaves me with the transponder, but where can I put the
> PCAS? In a Libelle there's no way it can be put on top of the panel and
> there is little if any available space along the cockpit sides. This is
> why I, for one, really need a single, 57mm instrument combines both
> transponder and PCAS and is low power enough to run off a glider battery.
>
> If such an instruments exists I'd love to know the details.
>
> Derek is right about our airspace: I've never met anything other than
> other gliders, GA aircraft, a few helicopters, the odd hang glider/
> parascender and one or two military aircraft when I've been on an xc
> task. The usual opposition to a glider on an xc task is GA pilots. I bet
> they don't carry PCAS/TCAS and I'm not under ATC control. Under these
> conditions the introduction of transponders does not reduce my changes of
> a collision unless I have PCAS onboard. Hence my interest in the combined
> instrument.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 19, 9:27*am, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:25:29 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > As for wanting a Mode-S transponder with "TCAS" display. You can get
> > this today. In the USA PCAS units like the Zaon MRX are popular and use
> > very low power and relatively low cost (~$500). They provide an alert
> > but no RA or direction information.
>
> I, for one, appreciate that Mode-S plus PCAS will do the full electronic
> see-and-be-seen bit, but its a two box solution with any instruments I've
> seen advertised.
>
> Some of us just don't have the panel space for that. I fly a Libelle and
> currently have all panel holes bar one full. The blanking plate in the
> remaining one supports my GPS on a stalk. Nonetheless, I think I can get
> a 57mm transponder in alongside the stalk mount, but that will certainly
> need a replacement panel chassis and may need my 80mm altimeter to be
> replaced with a 57mm unit.
>
> That exercise leaves me with the transponder, but where can I put the
> PCAS? In a Libelle there's no way it can be put on top of the panel and
> there is little if any available space along the cockpit sides. This is
> why I, for one, really need a single, 57mm instrument combines both
> transponder and PCAS and is low power enough to run off a glider battery.
>
> If such an instruments exists I'd love to know the details.
>
> Derek is right about our airspace: I've never met anything other than *
> other gliders, GA aircraft, a few helicopters, the odd hang glider/
> parascender and one or two military aircraft when I've been on an xc
> task. The usual opposition to a glider on an xc task is GA pilots. I bet
> they don't carry PCAS/TCAS and I'm not under ATC control. Under these
> conditions the introduction of transponders does not reduce my changes of
> a collision unless I have PCAS onboard. Hence my interest in the combined
> instrument. *
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

I know nothing about UK airspace (besides being stuck in it for far
too much time as a passenger holding over Heathrow), but it sounds
like the existing separation of airliner and jets in UK airspace is a
key point you folks should be arguing.

And again only one of the transponder aircraft needs to be talking to
ATC/radar facilities or have PCAS or higher. I don't know PCAS (and
higher-end systems) adoption in low-end GA aircraft in the UK, but in
the USA it seems pretty high (purely an anecdotal impression). I've
asked before but could not get adoption numbers for the USA.

Companies who make panel mounted transponders usually do so for the
larger GA market and they have to coexist with all sorts of PCAS,
active systems (like the Avidyne) and full on TCAS. I would not hold
my breath for a transponder with integrated PCAS. But maybe now
manufacturers will be making them mostly for UAVs and those UAVs could
do with integrated PCAS :-(

In the Libelle you might be able to make up a mount for a Zaon MRX
under the opaque areas of the front of the canopy, it might be canted
over parallel to the surface, and use an antenna mounted on suction
cups on the canopy. Obviously paying attention to canopy jettison
issues. I'd be kind of surprised it is impossible, but not saying its
going to be trivial.

Darryl

[Chris Reed[_2_]]

The part of the discussion about UK use of transponders has missed out
what I consider the main point, which is the complex regulatory
requirements placed on us for fitting transponders.

First, you can now only install approved kit, and our CAA imposes more
stringent requirements for approval than other aviation regulators.

Second, installation can only be done, as I understand it, if either (a)
the manufacture has issued an approved scheme for installation (I
believe none have, other than for motor gliders), or (b) if you pay an
installer to produce a formal modification scheme (fees) and then pay
our CAA substantial "major modification" fees to have the scheme approved.

On top of this there are further substantial fees for annual tests.

Currently, it is unlawful just to fit a transponder yourself or to get a
knowledgeable person to do so for you (or maybe it's lawful to do this,
but then unlawful to fly the aircraft).

Far be it from me to say that preventing voluntary transponder carriage
is foolish, but ...

Darryl Ramm wrote:
> I know nothing about UK airspace (besides being stuck in it for far
> too much time as a passenger holding over Heathrow), but it sounds
> like the existing separation of airliner and jets in UK airspace is a
> key point you folks should be arguing.
>
> And again only one of the transponder aircraft needs to be talking to
> ATC/radar facilities or have PCAS or higher. I don't know PCAS (and
> higher-end systems) adoption in low-end GA aircraft in the UK, but in
> the USA it seems pretty high (purely an anecdotal impression). I've
> asked before but could not get adoption numbers for the USA.
>
> Companies who make panel mounted transponders usually do so for the
> larger GA market and they have to coexist with all sorts of PCAS,
> active systems (like the Avidyne) and full on TCAS. I would not hold
> my breath for a transponder with integrated PCAS. But maybe now
> manufacturers will be making them mostly for UAVs and those UAVs could
> do with integrated PCAS :-(
>
> In the Libelle you might be able to make up a mount for a Zaon MRX
> under the opaque areas of the front of the canopy, it might be canted
> over parallel to the surface, and use an antenna mounted on suction
> cups on the canopy. Obviously paying attention to canopy jettison
> issues. I'd be kind of surprised it is impossible, but not saying its
> going to be trivial.
>
> Darryl
>

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

There are a number of other issues associated with Mode S Transponders. BTW
they would have to be Mode S in the UK, not Mode A/C. They would also have
to be professionally fitted and tested by a licenced radio engineer, which
is unlikely to be cheap!

1) Would they still work if a glider is in a tightly banked thermal turn,
with the ground plane at a considerable angle, and the glider just moving
with the wind? Don't they (ATC) filter out slow moving objects anyway so
they don't see clouds, flocks of birds, etc.

2) Would a glider climbing rapidly in a thermal or wave towards the base
of an airway or controlled upper airspace (with no intention of entering
it), or flying just below it, generate spurious TCAS alarms that might
unnecessary frighten the jet jockeys into making violent avoidance
manoeuvres and upsetting their passengers?

3) What effect would a whole gaggle of competition gliders have on ground
radar services or TCAS? Indeed the CAA has suggested turning them off in
such circumstances, but then what's the point of having them fitted in
the first place? I understand that Air Traffic Control can selectively
filter out some returns, but again what would happen if they selected the
one that was an actual threat?

Basically I object to having to pay out the best part of £2k to fit
unproven (for gliders) technology to my £8k glider, that will probably be
out of date anyway in a few years time.

I am also unconvinced that an unshielded 120 Watt RF output is not a
health hazard, when even 4 watt microwaves are considered dangerous.

I understand that some of the UAVs will be operated in the Poodle 51st
State (i.e. the UK) by the good ol' USAF, which is another reason to hate
the Yanks, if Iraq and Afghanistan aren't already bad enough!

Derek C

At 16:25 19 January 2009, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>On Jan 19, 12:00=A0am, Derek Copeland wrote:
>> As a UK glider pilot, I would be happy to fit a Mode S transponder to
my
>> glider if only they where cheap, ran all day on a small battery, gave
ME
>> some form of collision warning (TCAS?) from other gliders and light
>> aircraft, and didn't fry my n*ts off with 120 Watt Radio Freqency
being
>> emitted from an antenna 6 inches behind my unshielded backside.
>>
>> There is a GPS based collision avoidance system called Flarm which
meets
>> most of my requirements and could be cheaply fitted to all aircraft
>> including airliners. Our CAA won't even countenance this, as it is
not
>> compatable with their existing WW2 technology Radar Systems. The push
to
>> fly UAVs all over our isle may also come into this.
>>
>> I should add that in the UK commercial aircraft generally fly in
>> segregated Class A, B, and D airspace, and gliders in the rest, so
>> conflicts are exceedingly rare.
>>
>> Derek Copeland
>
>I really don't want to get into a debate about UK and USA transponder
>issues. I think some of the issues facing the UK are different,
>including issues with attempts to grab airspace and UK specfic UAVs
>issues (we may have some of our own here) etc. However yet again in
>this transponder debate people keep raising red herrings or offering
>misinformation. I hope the BGA and others in the UK are not using all
>these sorts of arguments in their debate, because some of them are
>embarrassingly silly and would take away from other valid points.
>
>So lets waste more space on this..
>
>There is no reason to believe that you would get excessive RF exposure
>form a properly installed transponder antenna. Most antennas are 1/4
>wave stubs or blades that require a ground plane and when mounted
>where glider manufactures recommend (on the underbody of the fuselage
>near the undercarriage) just won't expose the pilot to significant RF
>radiation. If your glider is metal or carbon fibre you have even more
>isolation. Also be careful when comparing to other RF sources -- the
>power specifications of transponders are the peak pulse power. The
>duty cycle is quite low even in an environments with lots of active
>TCAS interrogations. I've seen transponder antennas installed between
>pilots legs, nearly in contact with he pilot. Darwin has something to
>say about that.
>
>As for power requirements there are several choices of transponder
>that along with an encoder draw ~0.5 A. This is the sort of power
>consumption that if your glider's batteries are absolutely already at
>the maximum could usually be met by the addition of a small 7Ah
>battery VRLA batttery. Say derating the battery 7Ah spec by 50% (for
>operating temps below 20C and the load being above 0.05C) would gives
>7 hours of run time. Mode-S transponders like the Becker will work
>fine down to 10V (which at a 0.5 A load is lower then the discharge
>point voltage used to calculate VRLA battery specs). How long are
>typical flying days in the UK? The worse case is going to be long cold
>wave flights and they may well need a larger battery or use a more
>advanced technology battery. But these devices are already in the "use
>small battery" category in my book. And I know installing that
>battery (or even better a 12Ah battery if you have space) may be a
>pain in the neck and cost some money but it is a tough argument to try
>to push onto the traveling public, airline and jet owners etc. If I
>was the CAA and having to put up with these arguments. I'd be making
>the point by showing actual 7Ah battery sizes to highlight the (small)
>problem glider pilots and owners are facing.
>
>It is likely unrealistic to expect airliners and fast jets to use
>flarm. Most of these aircraft have sophisticate TCAS systems. I hope
>glider pilots are not presuming somebody just installs a flarm into
>the airliner cockpit. Any flarm type input would need to be integrated
>into the TCAS so it can provide s single traffic display and issue a
>single RA. This is unlikely to be a low cost modification and why
>should those owners do something to accommodate gliders which could
>just "get with the system" and install transponders? Then there may be
>technical issues with flarm like effective range (can flarm be
>modified to respond to airliner interrogations at tens of km? TCAS can
>work over distances like that, giving pilots a head's up of traffic
>before a RA is required). While flarm seems a fantastic technology
>where it is used (not in the USA) I suspect it is a read herring when
>talking about providing airliners and fast jets tools to avoid
>collisions with gliders.
>
>As for wanting a Mode-S transponder with "TCAS" display. You can get
>this today. In the USA PCAS units like the Zaon MRX are popular and
>use very low power and relatively low cost (~$500). They provide an
>alert but no RA or direction information. But they are impresssively
>effective at highlighting traffic (I've flow with one for three
>years). They work fine with Mode-S transponders. Yes I know this may
>seem a waste of money if you already have a flarm unit. But back to
>where I think the Examiner opinion article was trying to focus and
>where I'd argue the higher risk to our aport is -- avoiding a
>collison with a airliner or passenger carrying jet -- then the glider
>does *not* need PCAS or TCAS type capablities. Letting ATC, and if
>that fails, TCAS-II in the jet, deal with the conflict is going to be
>highly effective.
>
>Darryl
>

[Bruce]

To get away from the hot air and spoil the argument with some hard facts.

Transponders and Flarm are similar ideas, but for completely different
scenarios.

So the anal response is - Why not have a Mode-S transponder for those
fast heavy things, and Flarm for the light slow targets.

Best of both worlds and the top of the line for each of those represents
2.06% of the total purchase price of a new two seater. Real numbers for
a January 2009 delivery aircraft. That is adding the Flarm option to an
LX8000, and fitting a TRT800 transponder and encoder. Both with remote
displays for the RSO...

OK - that is not counting the extra battery and the solar panel for
ensuring one never runs out of electrons. Add an antenna and all the
labour and it is still <3%.

Now compared to the total worth of my 38 year old Std Cirrus the cost is
quite substantial and I can see it might push people out of the sport,
but there really is no justification for not fitting these in a new
airframe.

Percentage wise the fancy urethane paint is a bigger investment than the
safety / compliance stuff. Lets not get emotional about this. Rationally
there is no question.

Bruce

Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Jan 19, 12:00 am, Derek Copeland > wrote:
>> As a UK glider pilot, I would be happy to fit a Mode S transponder to my
>> glider if only they where cheap, ran all day on a small battery, gave ME
>> some form of collision warning (TCAS?) from other gliders and light
>> aircraft, and didn't fry my n*ts off with 120 Watt Radio Freqency being
>> emitted from an antenna 6 inches behind my unshielded backside.
>>
>> There is a GPS based collision avoidance system called Flarm which meets
>> most of my requirements and could be cheaply fitted to all aircraft
>> including airliners. Our CAA won't even countenance this, as it is not
>> compatable with their existing WW2 technology Radar Systems. The push to
>> fly UAVs all over our isle may also come into this.
>>
>> I should add that in the UK commercial aircraft generally fly in
>> segregated Class A, B, and D airspace, and gliders in the rest, so
>> conflicts are exceedingly rare.
>>
>> Derek Copeland
>
> I really don't want to get into a debate about UK and USA transponder
> issues. I think some of the issues facing the UK are different,
> including issues with attempts to grab airspace and UK specfic UAVs
> issues (we may have some of our own here) etc. However yet again in
> this transponder debate people keep raising red herrings or offering
> misinformation. I hope the BGA and others in the UK are not using all
> these sorts of arguments in their debate, because some of them are
> embarrassingly silly and would take away from other valid points.
>
> So lets waste more space on this..
>
> There is no reason to believe that you would get excessive RF exposure
> form a properly installed transponder antenna. Most antennas are 1/4
> wave stubs or blades that require a ground plane and when mounted
> where glider manufactures recommend (on the underbody of the fuselage
> near the undercarriage) just won't expose the pilot to significant RF
> radiation. If your glider is metal or carbon fibre you have even more
> isolation. Also be careful when comparing to other RF sources -- the
> power specifications of transponders are the peak pulse power. The
> duty cycle is quite low even in an environments with lots of active
> TCAS interrogations. I've seen transponder antennas installed between
> pilots legs, nearly in contact with he pilot. Darwin has something to
> say about that.
>
> As for power requirements there are several choices of transponder
> that along with an encoder draw ~0.5 A. This is the sort of power
> consumption that if your glider's batteries are absolutely already at
> the maximum could usually be met by the addition of a small 7Ah
> battery VRLA batttery. Say derating the battery 7Ah spec by 50% (for
> operating temps below 20C and the load being above 0.05C) would gives
> 7 hours of run time. Mode-S transponders like the Becker will work
> fine down to 10V (which at a 0.5 A load is lower then the discharge
> point voltage used to calculate VRLA battery specs). How long are
> typical flying days in the UK? The worse case is going to be long cold
> wave flights and they may well need a larger battery or use a more
> advanced technology battery. But these devices are already in the "use
> small battery" category in my book. And I know installing that
> battery (or even better a 12Ah battery if you have space) may be a
> pain in the neck and cost some money but it is a tough argument to try
> to push onto the traveling public, airline and jet owners etc. If I
> was the CAA and having to put up with these arguments. I'd be making
> the point by showing actual 7Ah battery sizes to highlight the (small)
> problem glider pilots and owners are facing.
>
> It is likely unrealistic to expect airliners and fast jets to use
> flarm. Most of these aircraft have sophisticate TCAS systems. I hope
> glider pilots are not presuming somebody just installs a flarm into
> the airliner cockpit. Any flarm type input would need to be integrated
> into the TCAS so it can provide s single traffic display and issue a
> single RA. This is unlikely to be a low cost modification and why
> should those owners do something to accommodate gliders which could
> just "get with the system" and install transponders? Then there may be
> technical issues with flarm like effective range (can flarm be
> modified to respond to airliner interrogations at tens of km? TCAS can
> work over distances like that, giving pilots a head's up of traffic
> before a RA is required). While flarm seems a fantastic technology
> where it is used (not in the USA) I suspect it is a read herring when
> talking about providing airliners and fast jets tools to avoid
> collisions with gliders.
>
> As for wanting a Mode-S transponder with "TCAS" display. You can get
> this today. In the USA PCAS units like the Zaon MRX are popular and
> use very low power and relatively low cost (~$500). They provide an
> alert but no RA or direction information. But they are impresssively
> effective at highlighting traffic (I've flow with one for three
> years). They work fine with Mode-S transponders. Yes I know this may
> seem a waste of money if you already have a flarm unit. But back to
> where I think the Examiner opinion article was trying to focus and
> where I'd argue the higher risk to our aport is -- avoiding a
> collison with a airliner or passenger carrying jet -- then the glider
> does *not* need PCAS or TCAS type capablities. Letting ATC, and if
> that fails, TCAS-II in the jet, deal with the conflict is going to be
> highly effective.
>
> Darryl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

At 20:28 19 January 2009, Bruce wrote:
>To get away from the hot air and spoil the argument with some hard
facts.
>
>Transponders and Flarm are similar ideas, but for completely different
>scenarios.
>
>So the anal response is - Why not have a Mode-S transponder for those
>fast heavy things, and Flarm for the light slow targets.
>
>Best of both worlds and the top of the line for each of those represents

>2.06% of the total purchase price of a new two seater. Real numbers for
>a January 2009 delivery aircraft. That is adding the Flarm option to an
>LX8000, and fitting a TRT800 transponder and encoder. Both with remote
>displays for the RSO...
>
>OK - that is not counting the extra battery and the solar panel for
>ensuring one never runs out of electrons. Add an antenna and all the
>labour and it is still On Jan 19, 12:00 am, Derek Copeland wrote:
>>> As a UK glider pilot, I would be happy to fit a Mode S transponder to
>my
>>> glider if only they where cheap, ran all day on a small battery, gave
>ME
>>> some form of collision warning (TCAS?) from other gliders and light
>>> aircraft, and didn't fry my n*ts off with 120 Watt Radio Freqency
being
>>> emitted from an antenna 6 inches behind my unshielded backside.
>>>
>>> There is a GPS based collision avoidance system called Flarm which
>meets
>>> most of my requirements and could be cheaply fitted to all aircraft
>>> including airliners. Our CAA won't even countenance this, as it is
not
>>> compatable with their existing WW2 technology Radar Systems. The push
>to
>>> fly UAVs all over our isle may also come into this.
>>>
>>> I should add that in the UK commercial aircraft generally fly in
>>> segregated Class A, B, and D airspace, and gliders in the rest, so
>>> conflicts are exceedingly rare.
>>>
>>> Derek Copeland
>>
>> I really don't want to get into a debate about UK and USA transponder
>> issues. I think some of the issues facing the UK are different,
>> including issues with attempts to grab airspace and UK specfic UAVs
>> issues (we may have some of our own here) etc. However yet again in
>> this transponder debate people keep raising red herrings or offering
>> misinformation. I hope the BGA and others in the UK are not using all
>> these sorts of arguments in their debate, because some of them are
>> embarrassingly silly and would take away from other valid points.
>>
>> So lets waste more space on this..
>>
>> There is no reason to believe that you would get excessive RF exposure
>> form a properly installed transponder antenna. Most antennas are 1/4
>> wave stubs or blades that require a ground plane and when mounted
>> where glider manufactures recommend (on the underbody of the fuselage
>> near the undercarriage) just won't expose the pilot to significant RF
>> radiation. If your glider is metal or carbon fibre you have even more
>> isolation. Also be careful when comparing to other RF sources -- the
>> power specifications of transponders are the peak pulse power. The
>> duty cycle is quite low even in an environments with lots of active
>> TCAS interrogations. I've seen transponder antennas installed between
>> pilots legs, nearly in contact with he pilot. Darwin has something to
>> say about that.
>>
>> As for power requirements there are several choices of transponder
>> that along with an encoder draw ~0.5 A. This is the sort of power
>> consumption that if your glider's batteries are absolutely already at
>> the maximum could usually be met by the addition of a small 7Ah
>> battery VRLA batttery. Say derating the battery 7Ah spec by 50% (for
>> operating temps below 20C and the load being above 0.05C) would gives
>> 7 hours of run time. Mode-S transponders like the Becker will work
>> fine down to 10V (which at a 0.5 A load is lower then the discharge
>> point voltage used to calculate VRLA battery specs). How long are
>> typical flying days in the UK? The worse case is going to be long cold
>> wave flights and they may well need a larger battery or use a more
>> advanced technology battery. But these devices are already in the
"use
>> small battery" category in my book. And I know installing that
>> battery (or even better a 12Ah battery if you have space) may be a
>> pain in the neck and cost some money but it is a tough argument to try
>> to push onto the traveling public, airline and jet owners etc. If I
>> was the CAA and having to put up with these arguments. I'd be making
>> the point by showing actual 7Ah battery sizes to highlight the (small)
>> problem glider pilots and owners are facing.
>>
>> It is likely unrealistic to expect airliners and fast jets to use
>> flarm. Most of these aircraft have sophisticate TCAS systems. I hope
>> glider pilots are not presuming somebody just installs a flarm into
>> the airliner cockpit. Any flarm type input would need to be integrated
>> into the TCAS so it can provide s single traffic display and issue a
>> single RA. This is unlikely to be a low cost modification and why
>> should those owners do something to accommodate gliders which could
>> just "get with the system" and install transponders? Then there may
be
>> technical issues with flarm like effective range (can flarm be
>> modified to respond to airliner interrogations at tens of km? TCAS can
>> work over distances like that, giving pilots a head's up of traffic
>> before a RA is required). While flarm seems a fantastic technology
>> where it is used (not in the USA) I suspect it is a read herring when
>> talking about providing airliners and fast jets tools to avoid
>> collisions with gliders.
>>
>> As for wanting a Mode-S transponder with "TCAS" display. You can get
>> this today. In the USA PCAS units like the Zaon MRX are popular and
>> use very low power and relatively low cost (~$500). They provide an
>> alert but no RA or direction information. But they are impresssively
>> effective at highlighting traffic (I've flow with one for three
>> years). They work fine with Mode-S transponders. Yes I know this may
>> seem a waste of money if you already have a flarm unit. But back to
>> where I think the Examiner opinion article was trying to focus and
>> where I'd argue the higher risk to our aport is -- avoiding a
>> collison with a airliner or passenger carrying jet -- then the glider
>> does *not* need PCAS or TCAS type capablities. Letting ATC, and if
>> that fails, TCAS-II in the jet, deal with the conflict is going to be
>> highly effective.
>>
>> Darryl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

So now I have to buy two bits of kit, instead of one! Not everyone (even
syndicates) can afford a new, top of the range, two seater sailplane. One
of the gliders I fly on a regular basis, and enjoy doing so, is probably
worth less than a transponder!

Derek C


At 20:28 19 January 2009, Bruce wrote:
>To get away from the hot air and spoil the argument with some hard
facts.
>
>Transponders and Flarm are similar ideas, but for completely different
>scenarios.
>
>So the anal response is - Why not have a Mode-S transponder for those
>fast heavy things, and Flarm for the light slow targets.
>
>Best of both worlds and the top of the line for each of those represents

>2.06% of the total purchase price of a new two seater. Real numbers for
>a January 2009 delivery aircraft. That is adding the Flarm option to an
>LX8000, and fitting a TRT800 transponder and encoder. Both with remote
>displays for the RSO...
>
>OK - that is not counting the extra battery and the solar panel for
>ensuring one never runs out of electrons. Add an antenna and all the
>labour and it is still

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:06:40 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> I know nothing about UK airspace (besides being stuck in it for far too
> much time as a passenger holding over Heathrow), but it sounds like the
> existing separation of airliner and jets in UK airspace is a key point
> you folks should be arguing.
>
Yes, agreed. The public will be with us on noise grounds if the commuter
airlines get their way and start flying direct routes through class G
airspace - this is something they can't do at present, but the CAA's
transponder consultation seems designed to let them do it.

> And again only one of the transponder aircraft needs to be talking to
> ATC/radar facilities or have PCAS or higher. I don't know PCAS (and
> higher-end systems) adoption in low-end GA aircraft in the UK, but in
> the USA it seems pretty high (purely an anecdotal impression). I've
> asked before but could not get adoption numbers for the USA.
>
I've not seen figures either, but the GA density is probably lower here.
There are flying schools on either side of our club field and there's no
doubt that our weekend movements vastly outnumber both of theirs.

> In the Libelle you might be able to make up a mount for a Zaon MRX under
> the opaque areas of the front of the canopy.
>
There's less space there than you might imagine. The panel is inset no
more than 65mm (2.5"), so an end-on cigarette pack would not fit under in
font of the panel while anything thicker would start to hide the top row
instruments.

> It might be canted over parallel to the surface,
>
It would have to be. If it was in the center it would interfere with the
canopy lock. On the other hand, the antenna is probably not an issue - a
remote one could be mounted above the instrument tray that forms the
front of the panel. My GPS antenna is mounted there and gets an excellent
view of the sky.

I wouldn't want anything much bigger than a MH flowmeter on the cockpit
wall in front of me: lets just say the cockpit is 'snug'.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 19, 11:45 am, Derek Copeland > wrote:
[snip[
> 1) Would they still work if a glider is in a tightly banked thermal turn,
> with the ground plane at a considerable angle, and the glider just moving
> with the wind? Don't they (ATC) filter out slow moving objects anyway so
> they don't see clouds, flocks of birds, etc.

With a transponder you should be seen. Velocity filtering is exactly
one of the reasons you want a transponder. Having a transponder
ensures that velocity filtering of primary targets does not filter
your glider. Cars on highways is one issue, another significant
problem one in some location is power generating windmill farms. Non-
transponder equipped aircraft are effectively invisible in some pretty
busy airspace due to this (e.g. to Travis Approach, over the
Sacramento Delta in California, this transponder caution finally made
it onto sectional charts.

I would encourage pilots to try to go visit a radar facility (I have
no idea how hard this is nowadays), and see how the rest of the world
operates. It may be eye opening how outside the system you are without
a transponder.

> 2) Would a glider climbing rapidly in a thermal or wave towards the base
> of an airway or controlled upper airspace (with no intention of entering
> it), or flying just below it, generate spurious TCAS alarms that might
> unnecessary frighten the jet jockeys into making violent avoidance
> manoeuvres and upsetting their passengers?

Still fishing for more of those red herrings? :-) I suspect in reality
TCAS works pretty well, but I'm sure some pilots feel they may already
get too many false alerts. TCAS-II would give an TA (traffic advisory)
or RA (resolution alert) based on predicted time to impact or being
within a certain altitude band. The fixed band and predicted miss
altitudes are pretty small (e.g. I believe 600' for RA and 850' for TA
at 10,000'). The predictive part is essential time to closest approach
based (e.g. 30 seconds at 10,000'?) and I suspect this is what would
actually alert in the scenario described. For more info on the
predictive alerts look at the closure speed and rate of climb charts
in the FAA document "Introduction to TCAS-II" (e.g. at
http://www.sisadminov.net/tcas/docs/TCAS_II_V7.pdf).

And if even if a glider was climbing rapidly just below the base of
airspace in the vicinity of an airliner or similar and this did
trigger a TA or RA? Is this really going to happen that often? I am
guessing that if this is an issue at all it will already be more so
with jets descending (at potentially several thousand fpm) near the
bottom of their airspace and GA aircraft flying level under that
airspace. And if the pilot's can't see the gliders even after a TA and
the system ends up issuing an RA then that may be all good, they after
all don't want to need to know or guess what your intentions may or
may not be.

Maybe some of the airline or corporate jet pilots might want to
comment on these possible excessive TCAS alerts (paging Captain
Jim...).

> 3) What effect would a whole gaggle of competition gliders have on ground
> radar services or TCAS? Indeed the CAA has suggested turning them off in
> such circumstances, but then what's the point of having them fitted in
> the first place? I understand that Air Traffic Control can selectively
> filter out some returns, but again what would happen if they selected the
> one that was an actual threat?

I am guessing the issue here is more likely to be TCAS limits (systems
are required to process up to 30 targets at a time I believe) than SSR
systems, but maybe they also have local problems, but can clearly
handle larger numbers of targets. How rare are large gaggles outside
of a few large competitions? Has anybody talked to the TCAS
manufacturers about how their systems would actually handle this? I
agree the CAA response seems a little Monty Python-esque.

> Basically I object to having to pay out the best part of £2k to fit
> unproven (for gliders) technology to my £8k glider, that will probably be
> out of date anyway in a few years time.

Unproven? The ability of a transponder to help avoid collision with
fast jets and airliners is very well proven technology...
transponders, SSR radar equipped ATC and TCAS have been well
demonstrated to avoid all sorts of collisions between all sorts of
aircraft... The development of TCAS was motivated by collisions of
passenger jets and relatively slow flying GA aircraft. Whether that is
the real motivation for the CAA requiring mode-S in the UK or not is
something I cannot judge, but I have some level of skepticism about.
Many of us who do fly gliders with transponders and operate around
busy airspace and/or communicate with ATC prove all the time that
transponders work well. Traffic advisories, hearing and seeing heavy
iron vectored around you happens enough to convince you quickly that
the system works. At the other end of the spectrum, away from busy
airspace, we are often reminded of other gliders or GA traffic by our
PCAS systems.

I do sympathize with the cost issue, and even more so with bureaucracy
around the installation process. It sound like you have to do much
more work than say compared to a 337 form in the USA. But I suspect
the traveling public won't care what your glider costs. And I'm not
sure this is an argument I'd be making publicly.

> I am also unconvinced that an unshielded 120 Watt RF output is not a
> health hazard, when even 4 watt microwaves are considered dangerous.

Unshielded? The point is there is an RF ground plane between you and
the antenna. The 120W (or 250 or whatever) pulse power and the
(presumably continuous wave) 4W microwave power you are talking about
is like comparing apples and snow globes and we are *not* talking
about exposures or a pilot with properly installed antenna that
normally should be within orders of magnitude of direct exposure to
the transponder antenna RF radiated field. If this really worries you
in a fiberglass (not carbon) or wood glider have the installer add
some extra adhesive ground plane material (more than the normal ground
plane) around the antenna or under your seat. There may be lots of
complex technical debate around safe RF exposure levels, population
vs. occupational exposure, etc. in the microwave frequencies but you
get a lot of exposure in other places as well (door openers, cell
phones, your handheld VHF radio, nearby VHF/UHF radio transmitters,
etc.). The ground plane is the key thing here. There is significantly
more credibility in raising issues in not mounting the antenna in
plain sight of the pilot, and in applications like hang gliders or
paragliders where there may be no way to install a ground plane and
orient this away from the pilot but with a ground plane and 1/4 wave
antenna shielded from the pilot I think this is stretching credibility
a long way.

Darryl

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

I happen to know that tests on a lightweight, low powered transponder for
hang gliders and paragliders proved unsuccessful, because most of the RF
output was being absorbed by their pilots' bodies! Ground radar and TCAS
where unable to detect these aircraft at any significant distance at all.

Derek C


At 22:08 19 January 2009, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>> I am also unconvinced that an unshielded 120 Watt RF output is not a
>> health hazard, when even 4 watt microwaves are considered dangerous.
>
>Unshielded? The point is there is an RF ground plane between you and
>the antenna. The 120W (or 250 or whatever) pulse power and the
>(presumably continuous wave) 4W microwave power you are talking about
>is like comparing apples and snow globes and we are *not* talking
>about exposures or a pilot with properly installed antenna that
>normally should be within orders of magnitude of direct exposure to
>the transponder antenna RF radiated field. If this really worries you
>in a fiberglass (not carbon) or wood glider have the installer add
>some extra adhesive ground plane material (more than the normal ground
>plane) around the antenna or under your seat. There may be lots of
>complex technical debate around safe RF exposure levels, population
>vs. occupational exposure, etc. in the microwave frequencies but you
>get a lot of exposure in other places as well (door openers, cell
>phones, your handheld VHF radio, nearby VHF/UHF radio transmitters,
>etc.). The ground plane is the key thing here. There is significantly
>more credibility in raising issues in not mounting the antenna in
>plain sight of the pilot, and in applications like hang gliders or
>paragliders where there may be no way to install a ground plane and
>orient this away from the pilot but with a ground plane and 1/4 wave
>antenna shielded from the pilot I think this is stretching credibility
>a long way.
>
>Darryl
>
>
>

[brianDG303[_2_]]

On Jan 19, 10:18*am, Chris Reed > wrote:



Second, installation can only be done, as I understand it, if either
(a)
the manufacture has issued an approved scheme for installation
(Ibelieve none have,

--------------------------------------------------------------------

DG has a TN for the installation, probably others do as well, but you
have to dig a bit for it.

I agree that the power issue might not be that important. Selecting a
lower current encoder (ACK?) can help. For my installation I installed
wiring for a second battery but am waiting to see if it's really
needed. It might only be required for unusually long flights, and in
those cases might be avoided by using a 'load shedding' check list- by
using the back-up battery in the vario, shifting the PDA to it's
internal battery, and avoiding idle chatter on the radio you get some
extra hours.

[Big Wings]

Schempp-Hirth has TNs for transponders as well - permitting three different
antenna types - blade, rod or bendy.

The new Trig Avionics TT21 transponder, with built-in altitude encoder is
estimated by the makers to consume 320 mA from a 12 V battery when busy.
Assuming the 7Ah battery is only delivering 50% of nominal capacity this
equates to 10 hours continuous use.

The controller that needs to be accessed by the pilot is 6.4 x 4.5 x 4.5
cm, the transponder itself can be installed anywhere convenient in the
glider so will fit most gliders. (And I don't have an interest in it.)

At 22:47 19 January 2009, brianDG303 wrote:
>On Jan 19, 10:18=A0am, Chris Reed wrote:
>
>
>
>Second, installation can only be done, as I understand it, if either
>(a)
>the manufacture has issued an approved scheme for installation
>(Ibelieve none have,
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>DG has a TN for the installation, probably others do as well, but you
>have to dig a bit for it.
>
>I agree that the power issue might not be that important. Selecting a
>lower current encoder (ACK?) can help. For my installation I installed
>wiring for a second battery but am waiting to see if it's really
>needed. It might only be required for unusually long flights, and in
>those cases might be avoided by using a 'load shedding' check list- by
>using the back-up battery in the vario, shifting the PDA to it's
>internal battery, and avoiding idle chatter on the radio you get some
>extra hours.
>
>

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

So do the many wooden and vintage gliders still flying have TNs from their
manufacturers for fitting Mode S transponders then? Somehow I rather doubt
it!

Derek C

At 00:15 20 January 2009, Big Wings wrote:
>Schempp-Hirth has TNs for transponders as well - permitting three
different
>antenna types - blade, rod or bendy.
>
>The new Trig Avionics TT21 transponder, with built-in altitude encoder
is
>estimated by the makers to consume 320 mA from a 12 V battery when busy.

>Assuming the 7Ah battery is only delivering 50% of nominal capacity this
>equates to 10 hours continuous use.
>
>The controller that needs to be accessed by the pilot is 6.4 x 4.5 x 4.5
>cm, the transponder itself can be installed anywhere convenient in the
>glider so will fit most gliders. (And I don't have an interest in it.)

>
>At 22:47 19 January 2009, brianDG303 wrote:
>>On Jan 19, 10:18=A0am, Chris Reed wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>Second, installation can only be done, as I understand it, if either
>>(a)
>>the manufacture has issued an approved scheme for installation
>>(Ibelieve none have,
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>DG has a TN for the installation, probably others do as well, but you
>>have to dig a bit for it.
>>
>>I agree that the power issue might not be that important. Selecting a
>>lower current encoder (ACK?) can help. For my installation I installed
>>wiring for a second battery but am waiting to see if it's really
>>needed. It might only be required for unusually long flights, and in
>>those cases might be avoided by using a 'load shedding' check list-
by
>>using the back-up battery in the vario, shifting the PDA to it's
>>internal battery, and avoiding idle chatter on the radio you get some
>>extra hours.
>>
>>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Derek Copeland wrote:
> I happen to know that tests on a lightweight, low powered transponder for
> hang gliders and paragliders proved unsuccessful, because most of the RF
> output was being absorbed by their pilots' bodies! Ground radar and TCAS
> where unable to detect these aircraft at any significant distance at all.

Those are not the transponders that would be installed in your glider,
so it's not clear to me what your point is.

Are you worried about running into a paraglider because it doesn't have
transponder?

--
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

[vontresc]

On Jan 19, 6:45*pm, Derek Copeland > wrote:
> So do the many wooden and vintage gliders still flying have TNs from their
> manufacturers for fitting Mode S transponders then? Somehow I rather doubt
> it!
>
> Derek C *
>
> At 00:15 20 January 2009, Big Wings wrote:
>
>
>
> >Schempp-Hirth has TNs for transponders as well - permitting three
> different
> >antenna types - blade, rod or bendy.
>
> >The new Trig Avionics TT21 transponder, with built-in altitude encoder
> is
> >estimated by the makers to consume 320 mA from a 12 V battery when busy.
> >Assuming the 7Ah battery is only delivering 50% of nominal capacity this
> >equates to 10 hours continuous use.
>
> >The controller that needs to be accessed by the pilot is 6.4 x 4.5 x 4.5
> >cm, the transponder itself can be installed anywhere convenient in the
> >glider so will fit most gliders. *(And I don't have an interest in it.)
>
> >At 22:47 19 January 2009, brianDG303 wrote:
> >>On Jan 19, 10:18=A0am, Chris Reed *wrote:
>
> >>Second, installation can only be done, as I understand it, if either
> >>(a)
> >>the manufacture has issued an approved scheme for installation
> >>(Ibelieve none have,
>
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>DG has a TN for the installation, probably others do as well, but you
> >>have to dig a bit for it.
>
> >>I agree that the power issue might not be that important. Selecting a
> >>lower current encoder (ACK?) can help. For my installation I installed
> >>wiring for a second battery but am waiting to see if it's really
> >>needed. It might only be required for unusually long flights, and in
> >>those cases might be avoided by using a 'load shedding' check list-
> by
> >>using the back-up battery in the vario, shifting the PDA to it's
> >>internal battery, and avoiding idle chatter on the radio you get some
> >>extra hours.

Well Schleicher has a TM concerning the installation of a transponder
for my Ka-6

http://alexander-schleicher.de/tm/06/060_TM24_D.pdf

Still doesn't address the cost issue though

Pete

[brtlmj]

My guess is that, sooner or later, airspace class E will be split into
two. E1 will be just like current E, and a transponder will be
necessary to enter class E2. We could expect class E2 to be
established wherever there is a high probability of encountering jet
traffic.

And we might find it worthwhile to actually support the change.

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

The point is that in the UK the CAA want everything that flies to carry
Mode S Transponders, including gliders, hang gliders, paragliders and even
balloons (as if they are not easy enough to see and avoid!). The low power
transponder units were suggested as a possible solution for gliders, but
these were found to be ineffective and a possible health hazard.

There is no problem (apart from cost) in fitting Mode S transponders to
conventional powered, metal skinned light aircraft. It's a much bigger
problem for microlights and unpowered aircraft.

Derek C


At 04:12 20 January 2009, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Derek Copeland wrote:
>> I happen to know that tests on a lightweight, low powered transponder
>for
>> hang gliders and paragliders proved unsuccessful, because most of the
RF
>> output was being absorbed by their pilots' bodies! Ground radar and
TCAS
>> where unable to detect these aircraft at any significant distance at
>all.
>
>Those are not the transponders that would be installed in your glider,
>so it's not clear to me what your point is.
>
>Are you worried about running into a paraglider because it doesn't have

>transponder?
>
>--
>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
>

[Big Wings]

Regarding the " possible health hazard".

The UK Health Protection Agency's Radiation Protection Division published
the results of a study into the health risks associated with transponders
for use in light aircraft, gliders balloons and microlights in September
2007:
http://tinyurl.com/9aptc3

They concluded that as long as the antenna of an 80 W peak power
transponder was at least 10cm from the pilot that the exposure level was
within the Public permitted limits now, and those expected in 2020. This
was a conservative opinion and in reality they thought that about half
that distance would be safe. One result of this report was that the CAA
dropped their idea of pilots carrying portable transponders on ther laps
which would not have been safe.

As long as the antenna is a 'reasonable' distance from the pilot with
the necessary ground plane between pilot and antenna the exposure will be
much less than that assumed in the report.

Which part of their report do you disagree with?

By the way I don't want to have to fit a transponder to my glider because
of cost and space etc - so I'm on the same side, but we have to argue
based on facts and if we still think that there is a health risk we have
to challenge the above report that basically says there is not.


At 07:45 20 January 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>The point is that in the UK the CAA want everything that flies to carry
>Mode S Transponders, including gliders, hang gliders, paragliders and
even
>balloons (as if they are not easy enough to see and avoid!). The low
power
>transponder units were suggested as a possible solution for gliders, but
>these were found to be ineffective and a possible health hazard.

[DRN]

On Jan 19, 1:18*pm, Chris Reed > wrote:
> Second, installation can only be done, as I understand it, if either (a)
> the manufacture has issued an approved scheme for installation (I
> believe none have, other than for motor gliders), or (b) if you pay an
> installer to produce a formal modification scheme (fees) and then pay
> our CAA substantial "major modification" fees to have the scheme approved..

Lange gliders have transponder antenna mount built-in, and
most are delivered with antenna and wiring installed with
transponder... Includes Antares 18 pure glider...

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 22:08 19 January 2009, Darryl Ramm wrote:

>If this really worries you
>in a fiberglass (not carbon) or wood glider have the installer add
>some extra adhesive ground plane material (more than the normal ground
>plane) around the antenna or under your seat.

Or just wear your tinfoil shorts.

Jim Beckman

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I contacted Trig regarding the availability of their new TT21 in the USA.
Their response is below.

"Thank you for your interest in the TT21, the worlds smallest and lightest
Mode S transponder which also features ADS-B Out by the way, at no extra
cost. We probably will get certification for the TT21 for the US in April,
although I should warn you that the certification process is a long one, and
final approval dates are not completely in our control."



I plan to sell them in the USA if possible.

http://www.trig-avionics.com/tt21.html



Good Soaring,


Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

[vontresc]

On Jan 20, 9:05*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I contacted Trig regarding the availability of their new TT21 in the USA.
> Their response is below.
>
> "Thank you for your interest in the TT21, the worlds smallest and lightest
> Mode S transponder which also features ADS-B Out by the way, at no extra
> cost. We probably will get certification for the TT21 for the US in April,
> although I should warn you that the certification process is a long one, and
> final approval dates are not completely in our control."
>
> I plan to sell them in the USA if possible.
>
> http://www.trig-avionics.com/tt21.html
>
> Good Soaring,
>
> Paul Remde
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

Looks like a neat unit. Any info on the cost though???

Pete

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 12:16*am, 309 > wrote:
> Did the geese in New York have transponders?

Actually the geese did show up on radar according to the NTSB
interview with the controller. Geese show up on ATC's radar often,
especially when in large flocks. Unfortunately, these geese popped up
on the radar scope just a few seconds before the Airbus was struck by
them. Anytime I'm at the controls, and the ATC controller says they
are picking up a return on a likely groups of birds, I turn the
continuous ignition on, just incase we ingest alot of them, it wont
flame out the engines. Seem's to be common practice with most people
I've flown with over my 9 years in the airlines.

Back to transponders. I can't tell you how many of my friends have
had near misses going into Elmira, NY. At each city my airline flies
to, which is around 130 destinations, I have had the training
department put into our charts that their is high glider traffic in
"X" area, between these radials and DME's ie. I think transponders
are a must, especially if you are flying in Wave or higher thermals.
Down in the ridges, or thermals only going to 3-4000 feet, I don't
think it will help much.

I plan on putting a transponder in my sailplane soon. I think it will
be a good safety investment. Along with an extra battery for it.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 20, 7:38*am, vontresc > wrote:
> On Jan 20, 9:05*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I contacted Trig regarding the availability of their new TT21 in the USA.
> > Their response is below.
>
> > "Thank you for your interest in the TT21, the worlds smallest and lightest
> > Mode S transponder which also features ADS-B Out by the way, at no extra
> > cost. We probably will get certification for the TT21 for the US in April,
> > although I should warn you that the certification process is a long one, and
> > final approval dates are not completely in our control."
>
> > I plan to sell them in the USA if possible.
>
> >http://www.trig-avionics.com/tt21.html
>
> > Good Soaring,
>
> > Paul Remde
> > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com
>
> Looks like a neat unit. Any info on the cost though???
>
> Pete

Their press releases spoke of street price expected to be around 1,300
UK Pounds, doing a simple conversion puts that at $1,800 at current
rates. It does look like a nice product for installation in gliders
and other small aircraft.

Darryl

[Robert Danewid]

In Germany the call E2 TMZ (Transponder MAndatory Zone).

Robert
ASW 28-18E RD


brtlmj skrev:
> My guess is that, sooner or later, airspace class E will be split into
> two. E1 will be just like current E, and a transponder will be
> necessary to enter class E2. We could expect class E2 to be
> established wherever there is a high probability of encountering jet
> traffic.
>
> And we might find it worthwhile to actually support the change.

[Richard[_9_]]

On Jan 20, 7:38*am, vontresc > wrote:
> On Jan 20, 9:05*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I contacted Trig regarding the availability of their new TT21 in the USA.
> > Their response is below.
>
> > "Thank you for your interest in the TT21, the worlds smallest and lightest
> > Mode S transponder which also features ADS-B Out by the way, at no extra
> > cost. We probably will get certification for the TT21 for the US in April,
> > although I should warn you that the certification process is a long one, and
> > final approval dates are not completely in our control."
>
> > I plan to sell them in the USA if possible.
>
> >http://www.trig-avionics.com/tt21.html
>
> > Good Soaring,
>
> > Paul Remde
> > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com
>
> Looks like a neat unit. Any info on the cost though???
>
> Pete- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

TT21 Mode S Transponder/encoder $1700 US

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 20, 10:02*am, Richard > wrote:

Are a dealer? There is only one US delaer listed on manufacturer's
web site and I don't have a reply from them yet.

Andy

[Ian Gutsel]

help

how does a transponder assist me in not having a mid air collision with
another glider ? or a light aircraft/microlight in class g airspace.

[Brian Bange[_2_]]

At 11:00 21 January 2009, Ian Gutsel wrote:
>help
>
>how does a transponder assist me in not having a mid air
collision with
>another glider ? or a light aircraft/microlight in class g
airspace.
>
Zaon MRX. It will alert you to the presence of another
transponder in your vicinity. If the other aircraft does not have
a transponder, then it is as dangerous to you as you are to it if
you do not carry one.
Instead of thinking about how a transponder can protect you,
think about how you can protect the hundreds of people that will
die should an airliner run over you. I have seen airliners below
me on numerous occasions, and I am not usually able to climb
above 6000'. Finally my conscience forced me to install one. The
way I see it, each of us accepts the risks involved when we
choose to fly. The traveling public does not, nor would they
care whose fault it was if an airliner were brought down by a
sailplane. It is interesting that we gladly pay $1600 for a
parachute that we hope we will never need, but we can't fathom
paying $2000 to install a transponder that could save hundreds
of lives and will, over the course of its service life, vector many
fast movers around us.

[cernauta]

On 21 Jan 2009 11:00:05 GMT, Ian Gutsel >
wrote:

>help
>
>how does a transponder assist me in not having a mid air collision with
>another glider ? or a light aircraft/microlight in class g airspace.

It doesn't. It's the other aircraft's xpdr that helps you avoid a
collision, but only if you were wise enough to install a PCAS also.

The choice between installing an xpdr+pcas, or an xpdr+flarm, or the
three of them is yours, and depends on the environment you fly in.

Aldo Cernezzi

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 4:24*pm, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:06:40 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > I know nothing about UK airspace (besides being stuck in it for far too
> > much time as a passenger holding over Heathrow), but it sounds like the
> > existing separation of airliner and jets in UK airspace is a key point
> > you folks should be arguing.
>
> Yes, agreed. The public will be with us on noise grounds if the commuter
> airlines get their way and start flying direct routes through class G
> airspace - this is something they can't do at present, but the CAA's
> transponder consultation seems designed to let them do it.
>
> > And again only one of the transponder aircraft needs to be talking to
> > ATC/radar facilities or have PCAS or higher. *I don't know PCAS (and
> > higher-end systems) adoption in low-end GA aircraft in the UK, but in
> > the USA it seems pretty high (purely an anecdotal impression). I've
> > asked before but could not get adoption numbers for the USA.
>
> I've not seen figures either, but the GA density is probably lower here.
> There are flying schools on either side of our club field and there's no
> doubt that our weekend movements vastly outnumber both of theirs.
>
> > In the Libelle you might be able to make up a mount for a Zaon MRX under
> > the opaque areas of the front of the canopy.
>
> There's less space there than you might imagine. The panel is inset no
> more than 65mm (2.5"), so an end-on cigarette pack would not fit under in
> font of the panel while anything thicker would start to hide the top row
> instruments.
>
> > It might be canted over parallel to the surface,
>
> It would have to be. If it was in the center it would interfere with the
> canopy lock. On the other hand, the antenna is probably not an issue - a
> remote one could be mounted above the instrument tray that forms the
> front of the panel. My GPS antenna is mounted there and gets an excellent
> view of the sky.
>
> I wouldn't want anything much bigger than a MH flowmeter on the cockpit
> wall in front of me: lets just say the cockpit is 'snug'.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

The proponents of transponders in gliders should study a recent
Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigation report into a
tragic mid-air collision between a Cessna 182 and a Cessa near Toronto
in August 2006. Three people died in the collision. The full
investigation report is available on the TSB web site at
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2006/a06o0206/a06o0206.asp

The TSB report states: "Both aeroplanes were operating in accordance
with visual flight rules in Class E airspace....Both aeroplanes were
equipped with functioning transponders. C-GCHN was also equipped with
a traffic information service (TIS) system that can provide a display
of nearby aircraft using information provided by ground-based radar;
this service is not available in Canada."

A transponder can reduce the risk of collision with Traffic Collision
Advisory System (TCAS) equipped aircraft, i.e. mostly air transport
category aircraft. Maybe that reduction in risk is worth the cost in
some places.

However, as this accident shows, simply installing a transponder gives
no guarantee against collision with non-TCAS equipped aircraft.

Ian Grant
Ottawa Canada

[kd6veb]

Hi Gang
Without belaboring it I think it has been said enough times that
currently there is no single fool proof way to guaranty avoiding mid
airs. Having an operating transponder, without argument, will diminish
your chance of a mid air since both ATC and aircraft with TCAS or PCAS
will see you. You may not see them and that is why in my world,
without argument, you should also have, at the minimum, a PCAS so that
you will see another aircraft with an operating transponder. A Zaon
PCAS can be had for only $500 - a trivial amount when it comes to
safety. I don't know why we are still discussing these issues -
transponders and PCAS are mandatory safety devices in my world. I
can't think of a reason why anyone would think otherwise.
Dave

On Jan 22, 11:35*am, wrote:
> On Jan 19, 4:24*pm, Martin Gregorie
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:06:40 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > I know nothing about UK airspace (besides being stuck in it for far too
> > > much time as a passenger holding over Heathrow), but it sounds like the
> > > existing separation of airliner and jets in UK airspace is a key point
> > > you folks should be arguing.
>
> > Yes, agreed. The public will be with us on noise grounds if the commuter
> > airlines get their way and start flying direct routes through class G
> > airspace - this is something they can't do at present, but the CAA's
> > transponder consultation seems designed to let them do it.
>
> > > And again only one of the transponder aircraft needs to be talking to
> > > ATC/radar facilities or have PCAS or higher. *I don't know PCAS (and
> > > higher-end systems) adoption in low-end GA aircraft in the UK, but in
> > > the USA it seems pretty high (purely an anecdotal impression). I've
> > > asked before but could not get adoption numbers for the USA.
>
> > I've not seen figures either, but the GA density is probably lower here..
> > There are flying schools on either side of our club field and there's no
> > doubt that our weekend movements vastly outnumber both of theirs.
>
> > > In the Libelle you might be able to make up a mount for a Zaon MRX under
> > > the opaque areas of the front of the canopy.
>
> > There's less space there than you might imagine. The panel is inset no
> > more than 65mm (2.5"), so an end-on cigarette pack would not fit under in
> > font of the panel while anything thicker would start to hide the top row
> > instruments.
>
> > > It might be canted over parallel to the surface,
>
> > It would have to be. If it was in the center it would interfere with the
> > canopy lock. On the other hand, the antenna is probably not an issue - a
> > remote one could be mounted above the instrument tray that forms the
> > front of the panel. My GPS antenna is mounted there and gets an excellent
> > view of the sky.
>
> > I wouldn't want anything much bigger than a MH flowmeter on the cockpit
> > wall in front of me: lets just say the cockpit is 'snug'.
>
> > --
> > martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie. | Essex, UK
> > org * * * |
>
> The proponents of transponders in gliders should study a recent
> Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigation report into a
> tragic mid-air collision between a Cessna 182 and a Cessa near Toronto
> in August 2006. Three people died in the collision. The full
> investigation report is available on the TSB web site athttp://www.tsb.gc..ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2006/a06o0206/a06o...
>
> The TSB report states: "Both aeroplanes were operating in accordance
> with visual flight rules in Class E airspace....Both aeroplanes were
> equipped with functioning transponders. C-GCHN was also equipped with
> a traffic information service (TIS) system that can provide a display
> of nearby aircraft using information provided by ground-based radar;
> this service is not available in Canada."
>
> A transponder can reduce the risk of collision with Traffic Collision
> Advisory System (TCAS) equipped aircraft, i.e. mostly air transport
> category aircraft. Maybe that reduction in risk is worth the cost in
> some places.
>
> However, as this accident shows, simply installing a transponder gives
> no guarantee against collision with non-TCAS equipped aircraft.
>
> Ian Grant
> Ottawa Canada

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:

> The proponents of transponders in gliders should study a recent
> Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigation report into a
> tragic mid-air collision between a Cessna 182 and a Cessa near Toronto
> in August 2006.

snip

>
> A transponder can reduce the risk of collision with Traffic Collision
> Advisory System (TCAS) equipped aircraft, i.e. mostly air transport
> category aircraft. Maybe that reduction in risk is worth the cost in
> some places.
>
> However, as this accident shows, simply installing a transponder gives
> no guarantee against collision with non-TCAS equipped aircraft.

The proponents of transponders in gliders don't have to read a report to
know this. We've been saying it for years. Do you know a proponent of
transponders that doesn't know this?

Proponent's biggest worry is a glider collision with a *TCAS equipped*
aircraft, because of the potential loss of hundreds of lives and the
devastating effect it would have on soaring. That's why I installed a
transponder over 5 years ago.

Of course, I'd like to avoid colliding with anyone, so I also encourage
pilots to put a Zaon MRX or similar into their gliders. Helps me, helps
them, and at $500 it's an easy sell compared to $2000 and up for a
transponder.

--
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

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 22, 11:35*am, wrote:
> On Jan 19, 4:24*pm, Martin Gregorie
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:06:40 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > I know nothing about UK airspace (besides being stuck in it for far too
> > > much time as a passenger holding over Heathrow), but it sounds like the
> > > existing separation of airliner and jets in UK airspace is a key point
> > > you folks should be arguing.
>
> > Yes, agreed. The public will be with us on noise grounds if the commuter
> > airlines get their way and start flying direct routes through class G
> > airspace - this is something they can't do at present, but the CAA's
> > transponder consultation seems designed to let them do it.
>
> > > And again only one of the transponder aircraft needs to be talking to
> > > ATC/radar facilities or have PCAS or higher. *I don't know PCAS (and
> > > higher-end systems) adoption in low-end GA aircraft in the UK, but in
> > > the USA it seems pretty high (purely an anecdotal impression). I've
> > > asked before but could not get adoption numbers for the USA.
>
> > I've not seen figures either, but the GA density is probably lower here..
> > There are flying schools on either side of our club field and there's no
> > doubt that our weekend movements vastly outnumber both of theirs.
>
> > > In the Libelle you might be able to make up a mount for a Zaon MRX under
> > > the opaque areas of the front of the canopy.
>
> > There's less space there than you might imagine. The panel is inset no
> > more than 65mm (2.5"), so an end-on cigarette pack would not fit under in
> > font of the panel while anything thicker would start to hide the top row
> > instruments.
>
> > > It might be canted over parallel to the surface,
>
> > It would have to be. If it was in the center it would interfere with the
> > canopy lock. On the other hand, the antenna is probably not an issue - a
> > remote one could be mounted above the instrument tray that forms the
> > front of the panel. My GPS antenna is mounted there and gets an excellent
> > view of the sky.
>
> > I wouldn't want anything much bigger than a MH flowmeter on the cockpit
> > wall in front of me: lets just say the cockpit is 'snug'.
>
> > --
> > martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie. | Essex, UK
> > org * * * |
>
> The proponents of transponders in gliders should study a recent
> Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigation report into a
> tragic mid-air collision between a Cessna 182 and a Cessa near Toronto
> in August 2006. Three people died in the collision. The full
> investigation report is available on the TSB web site athttp://www.tsb.gc..ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2006/a06o0206/a06o...
>
> The TSB report states: "Both aeroplanes were operating in accordance
> with visual flight rules in Class E airspace....Both aeroplanes were
> equipped with functioning transponders. C-GCHN was also equipped with
> a traffic information service (TIS) system that can provide a display
> of nearby aircraft using information provided by ground-based radar;
> this service is not available in Canada."
>
> A transponder can reduce the risk of collision with Traffic Collision
> Advisory System (TCAS) equipped aircraft, i.e. mostly air transport
> category aircraft. Maybe that reduction in risk is worth the cost in
> some places.
>
> However, as this accident shows, simply installing a transponder gives
> no guarantee against collision with non-TCAS equipped aircraft.
>
> Ian Grant
> Ottawa Canada

"simply installing a transponder gives no guarantee against collision
with non-TCAS equipped aircraft."

We'll I don't recall anybody claiming that there are any collision
avoidance guarantees anywhere. And how transponders *can* help reduce
collision risks with non-TCAS etc. equipped traffic has been discussed
in this thread already.

So let's go over this again. Can a transponder help with traffic
avoidance even if the involved aircraft don't have TCAS -- very
clearly yes -- A transponder equipped aircraft under control (or in
communications with) a radar facility can be provided avoidance
information or traffic information by that facility. Those of us who
fly in high traffic areas see and hear these ttaffic advisories all
the time. In addtion there are alternatives to TCAS available,
starting with Zaon MRX type PCAS systems, up through the active
interrogation Avidyne and other systems, right through to full on
TCAS. Since it seems neither aircraft in this fatal crash were in
touch with a radar facility, maybe lives could have been saved by one
of the aircraft having a $500 Zaon MRX. I assume the families of the
three people killed would have wished that at least one person had at
least believed enough in PCAS technology to be using one. At some
point somebody had spent $10k or so to have TIS in one aircraft, even
it it was not supported by any SSR facility near where they were
flying. There are no guarentees in life, or death, and who knows for
sure if the PCAS would have avoided this accident but at an amortized
cost per death of $170 or so in hindsight is seems a tragically cheap
insurance.

Now back to where this thread started, I think the concern from the op-
ed piece seemed to be more focused on private jets and airliners but
it lost the thread along the way. Maybe I'm projecting too much on
that, because that, and the damage that a collision with large numbr
of fatalities would do to soaring, is where my concern is. That
traffic, with high percentage of TCAS installations, especially in the
large iron, is going to be well warned of transponder equipped
gliders. And those fast moving TCAS-II equipped jets are much better
handled to avoid a transponder equipped glider than the glider is to
avoid them. So while I'm happy to keep correcting incorrect claims
like the "need TCAS" above I really don't care about the risk to
individual glider pilots in mid-air collisions. It's your choice to
install a PCAS or not, but if you fly in or near high-traffic areas
with airlines/jets please help reduce the risk of a disaster and
install and use a transponder.

BTW the Canadian report does go over soem goo issues with "see and
avoid". But it is a little bizarre as it widely mentions things like
ADS-B, glider transponder exemptions and even FLARM but does not
mention PCAS or similar systems.

Darryl

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 20:29 22 January 2009, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>Proponent's biggest worry is a glider collision with a *TCAS equipped*
>aircraft, because of the potential loss of hundreds of lives and the
>devastating effect it would have on soaring. That's why I installed a
>transponder over 5 years ago.

I'm not a big fan of transponders in gliders, mainly because I fly such
cheap equipment. But this is the argument that resonates the most with
me, and is making me reconsider the whole question.

Jim Beckman

[Eric Greenwell]

kd6veb wrote:
> Hi Gang
> Without belaboring it I think it has been said enough times that
> currently there is no single fool proof way to guaranty avoiding mid
> airs. Having an operating transponder, without argument, will diminish
> your chance of a mid air since both ATC and aircraft with TCAS or PCAS
> will see you. You may not see them and that is why in my world,
> without argument, you should also have, at the minimum, a PCAS so that
> you will see another aircraft with an operating transponder. A Zaon
> PCAS can be had for only $500 - a trivial amount when it comes to
> safety. I don't know why we are still discussing these issues -
> transponders and PCAS are mandatory safety devices in my world. I
> can't think of a reason why anyone would think otherwise.

And, where I fly in southeastern Washington state, you don't even need
to have either to benefit from transponder technology. Just contact the
area's Approach Control - Free! - and they are happy to alert other
aircraft they are talking to about your location. Often, they can track
your primary target and warn YOU of approaching aircraft that are not
talking to ATC.

After 5 years of not seeing an airliner, light jet, or even a big twin
near me, the transponder seems like cheap insurance. I've had the MRX
for only two years, and it's pretty good at catching the Cessna types,
which I still see now and then.

This stuff works.

--
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

[Jim White[_2_]]

From this side of the pond (UK) I think there are few pilots who don't
support measures to reduce the risk of mid-airs.

What we pretty much agree on is that it is unreasonable for the men in
suits to mandate the installation of expensive, heavy, power hungry,
outdated (nearly) equipment in our gliders to fix a problem many think is
invented by the suits to justify technology to enable a covert agenda to
the benefit of CAT and UAVs who could pay for it but are not being asked
to.

Cheaper, better, low power technology is here now and in the pipeline that
can do this better and can be fitted easily in gliders.

Jim

ps: I'll bet that, on average, those that have transponders and PCAS look
out less.

[Scott[_7_]]

kd6veb wrote:
I don't know why we are still discussing these issues -
> transponders and PCAS are mandatory safety devices in my world. I
> can't think of a reason why anyone would think otherwise.
> Dave

One reason I worry about is that some people who would have them
installed start to depend on them to "alert" them of other traffic
rather than looking for traffic visually. A similar example of
something that happened to me once...I was in my Aeronca Chief (powered
aircraft, NO radio) on (extended) base leg of the approach. A guy in a
(faster) aircraft was about a mile out on final (after going way down on
downwind, giving him a about 3 miles of final approach). With my slow
Chief, he should have been down and clear of the runway before I even
turned final. All of a sudden, he makes a left turn and is heading
straight for me. Assuming he sees me, I turn to the right and descend,
assuming he would go right and pull up (I went down because I could
change altitude faster than pulling up). I cleared the area (WAY clear
of this guy), watch him land from afar and then came in to land. I go
up to him and asked him if he saw me and why he made that turn right at
me. His answer..."Nope didn't see you. Were you on the radio? I made
a missed approach and at uncontrolled airports, turns are made to the
left." I then explained that he should have continued down the runway,
climb and rejoin the pattern on crosswind leg and that not all aircraft
have radios (or electrical systems to support them). To me, it was
apparent that if he didn't hear anybody call in on the radio, there was
nobody else there.

Scott

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

Scott makes a very good point. Some of our club 2 seater gliders are fitted
with Flarm units. A few weeks ago I very nearly had a mid-air collision
because I was looking for a contact showing on my right hand side (which
could have been several kilometres away) and failed to spot a non-Flarm
equipped glider converging from the left, until it was almost too late.
The technology was actually a distraction from keeping a good scanning
lookout!

Derek Copelaand

At 11:34 23 January 2009, Scott wrote:
>kd6veb wrote:
>I don't know why we are still discussing these issues -
>> transponders and PCAS are mandatory safety devices in my world. I
>> can't think of a reason why anyone would think otherwise.
>> Dave
>
>One reason I worry about is that some people who would have them
>installed start to depend on them to "alert" them of other traffic
>rather than looking for traffic visually. A similar example of
>something that happened to me once...I was in my Aeronca Chief (powered
>aircraft, NO radio) on (extended) base leg of the approach. A guy in a
>(faster) aircraft was about a mile out on final (after going way down on

>downwind, giving him a about 3 miles of final approach). With my slow
>Chief, he should have been down and clear of the runway before I even
>turned final. All of a sudden, he makes a left turn and is heading
>straight for me. Assuming he sees me, I turn to the right and descend,
>assuming he would go right and pull up (I went down because I could
>change altitude faster than pulling up). I cleared the area (WAY clear
>of this guy), watch him land from afar and then came in to land. I go
>up to him and asked him if he saw me and why he made that turn right at
>me. His answer..."Nope didn't see you. Were you on the radio? I made

>a missed approach and at uncontrolled airports, turns are made to the
>left." I then explained that he should have continued down the runway,

>climb and rejoin the pattern on crosswind leg and that not all aircraft
>have radios (or electrical systems to support them). To me, it was
>apparent that if he didn't hear anybody call in on the radio, there was

>nobody else there.
>
>Scott
>

[jcarlyle]

I'll bet, on average, that people that have a PCAS look out MORE than
those that don't have one. The reason is feedback. When you don't have
a PCAS you scan, but mostly you don't find anything. Lacking positive
feedback (a reward), your scan degrades. When a PCAS alerts during
your scan, you naturally increase your visual lookout until you find
the target. This is reward based training, and over time you learn to
look harder and better.

-John

On Jan 23, 3:30 am, Jim White > wrote:
> ps: I'll bet that, on average, those that have transponders and PCAS look
> out less.

[Eric Greenwell]

Scott wrote:
> kd6veb wrote:
> I don't know why we are still discussing these issues -
>> transponders and PCAS are mandatory safety devices in my world. I
>> can't think of a reason why anyone would think otherwise.
>> Dave
>
> One reason I worry about is that some people who would have them
> installed start to depend on them to "alert" them of other traffic
> rather than looking for traffic visually. A similar example of
> something that happened to me once...I was in my Aeronca Chief (powered
> aircraft, NO radio) on (extended) base leg of the approach. A guy in a
> (faster) aircraft was about a mile out on final (after going way down on
> downwind, giving him a about 3 miles of final approach). With my slow
> Chief, he should have been down and clear of the runway before I even
> turned final. All of a sudden, he makes a left turn and is heading
> straight for me. Assuming he sees me, I turn to the right and descend,
> assuming he would go right and pull up (I went down because I could
> change altitude faster than pulling up). I cleared the area (WAY clear
> of this guy), watch him land from afar and then came in to land. I go
> up to him and asked him if he saw me and why he made that turn right at
> me. His answer..."Nope didn't see you. Were you on the radio? I made
> a missed approach and at uncontrolled airports, turns are made to the
> left." I then explained that he should have continued down the runway,
> climb and rejoin the pattern on crosswind leg and that not all aircraft
> have radios (or electrical systems to support them). To me, it was
> apparent that if he didn't hear anybody call in on the radio, there was
> nobody else there.

It's easier for me to understand the pilot that thinks everyone has a
radio and uses it, than the pilot that doesn't carry a $200 handheld in
his Aeronca for the times he lands at an airport.

Scott, I've some bad news for you: what you fear is already here. Almost
all of us expect pilots to have and use a radio near an airport. Even
the cowboy ultralight guys I know have radios.

If it's the money that stops you from using a radio, tell us how much
you are willing to spend on a radio. I'm sure we can get up a collection
to make up the difference between that and a shiny new handheld.

--
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

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 23, 8:18*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > kd6veb wrote:
> > I don't know why we are still discussing these issues -
> >> transponders and PCAS are mandatory safety devices in my world. I
> >> can't think of a reason why anyone would think otherwise.
> >> Dave
>
> > One reason I worry about is that some people who would have them
> > installed start to depend on them to "alert" them of other traffic
> > rather than looking for traffic visually. *A similar example of
> > something that happened to me once...I was in my Aeronca Chief (powered
> > aircraft, NO radio) on (extended) base leg of the approach. *A guy in a
> > (faster) aircraft was about a mile out on final (after going way down on
> > downwind, giving him a about 3 miles of final approach). *With my slow
> > Chief, he should have been down and clear of the runway before I even
> > turned final. *All of a sudden, he makes a left turn and is heading
> > straight for me. *Assuming he sees me, I turn to the right and descend,
> > assuming he would go right and pull up (I went down because I could
> > change altitude faster than pulling up). *I cleared the area (WAY clear
> > of this guy), watch him land from afar and then came in to land. *I go
> > up to him and asked him if he saw me and why he made that turn right at
> > me. *His answer..."Nope didn't see you. *Were you on the radio? *I made
> > a missed approach and at uncontrolled airports, turns are made to the
> > left." *I then explained that he should have continued down the runway,
> > climb and rejoin the pattern on crosswind leg and that not all aircraft
> > have radios (or electrical systems to support them). *To me, it was
> > apparent that if he didn't hear anybody call in on the radio, there was
> > nobody else there.
>
> It's easier for me to understand the pilot that thinks everyone has a
> radio and uses it, than the pilot that doesn't carry a $200 handheld in
> his Aeronca for the times he lands at an airport.
>
> Scott, I've some bad news for you: what you fear is already here. Almost
> all of us expect pilots to have and use a radio near an airport. Even
> the cowboy ultralight guys I know have radios.
>
> If it's the money that stops you from using a radio, tell us how much
> you are willing to spend on a radio. I'm sure we can get up a collection
> to make up the difference between that and a shiny new handheld.
>
> --
> 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" atwww.motorglider.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have to agree on that. I used to own an Aeronca Chief and had it
based at a controlled airport. There was no problem at all with using
a hand held radio, external antenna, and headphones and yoke mounted
PTT switch. Also used a similar setup in a J3 before that.

Andy

[Scott[_7_]]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

>
>
> It's easier for me to understand the pilot that thinks everyone has a
> radio and uses it, than the pilot that doesn't carry a $200 handheld in
> his Aeronca for the times he lands at an airport.
>
> Scott, I've some bad news for you: what you fear is already here. Almost
> all of us expect pilots to have and use a radio near an airport. Even
> the cowboy ultralight guys I know have radios.
>
> If it's the money that stops you from using a radio, tell us how much
> you are willing to spend on a radio. I'm sure we can get up a collection
> to make up the difference between that and a shiny new handheld.
>
The radio cost wasn't the issue for me. I had unshielded Eisemann
magnetos. I had a handheld (Icom A-21 Nav/Com) (and still do and USE it
in my Corben). I tested it once with a towered airport and all they got
was ignition noise hash. Now you're getting into BIG bucks to get
shielded mags and harnesses and STC, etc. I maintain my question...why
didn't the guy see me when I was at his 12 )'Clock and about a half a
mile after he made the turn toward me. My Chief was Aeronca Yellow with
Maroon stripe. I should have filled his windshield about the same as he
filled mine. I guess we were even...he expected to hear me and I
expected him to see me.

I had him in sight before I got in the pattern and followed his progress
throughout the pattern. He did surprise me with the left turn, but I
was able to react with enough time to get out of HIS way. His admission
that he NEVER saw me was what disturbed me. I am NOT anti-radio or
anti-transponder. I just worry that people rely on them WAY too much
and let their guard down for that 30 seconds that can lead up to a mid-air.

Scott

[Scott[_7_]]

Andy wrote:

> On Jan 23, 8:18 am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>>kd6veb wrote:
>>>I don't know why we are still discussing these issues -
>>>
>>>>transponders and PCAS are mandatory safety devices in my world. I
>>>>can't think of a reason why anyone would think otherwise.
>>>>Dave
>>
>>>One reason I worry about is that some people who would have them
>>>installed start to depend on them to "alert" them of other traffic
>>>rather than looking for traffic visually. A similar example of
>>>something that happened to me once...I was in my Aeronca Chief (powered
>>>aircraft, NO radio) on (extended) base leg of the approach. A guy in a
>>>(faster) aircraft was about a mile out on final (after going way down on
>>>downwind, giving him a about 3 miles of final approach). With my slow
>>>Chief, he should have been down and clear of the runway before I even
>>>turned final. All of a sudden, he makes a left turn and is heading
>>>straight for me. Assuming he sees me, I turn to the right and descend,
>>>assuming he would go right and pull up (I went down because I could
>>>change altitude faster than pulling up). I cleared the area (WAY clear
>>>of this guy), watch him land from afar and then came in to land. I go
>>>up to him and asked him if he saw me and why he made that turn right at
>>>me. His answer..."Nope didn't see you. Were you on the radio? I made
>>>a missed approach and at uncontrolled airports, turns are made to the
>>>left." I then explained that he should have continued down the runway,
>>>climb and rejoin the pattern on crosswind leg and that not all aircraft
>>>have radios (or electrical systems to support them). To me, it was
>>>apparent that if he didn't hear anybody call in on the radio, there was
>>>nobody else there.
>>
>>It's easier for me to understand the pilot that thinks everyone has a
>>radio and uses it, than the pilot that doesn't carry a $200 handheld in
>>his Aeronca for the times he lands at an airport.
>>
>>Scott, I've some bad news for you: what you fear is already here. Almost
>>all of us expect pilots to have and use a radio near an airport. Even
>>the cowboy ultralight guys I know have radios.
>>
>>If it's the money that stops you from using a radio, tell us how much
>>you are willing to spend on a radio. I'm sure we can get up a collection
>>to make up the difference between that and a shiny new handheld.
>>
>>--
>>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" atwww.motorglider.org- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> I have to agree on that. I used to own an Aeronca Chief and had it
> based at a controlled airport. There was no problem at all with using
> a hand held radio, external antenna, and headphones and yoke mounted
> PTT switch. Also used a similar setup in a J3 before that.
>
> Andy
See my other post about unshielded ignition. I DID try the radio in my
Chief. No go according to the La Crosse (WI) tower. Just ignition hash
on my transmitted signal. I could receive fairly well (a bit of noise
but mostly copied all others).

Scott

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 23, 12:30*am, Jim White > wrote:
> From this side of the pond (UK) I think there are few pilots who don't
> support measures to reduce the risk of mid-airs.
>
> What we pretty much agree on is that it is unreasonable for the men in
> suits to mandate the installation of expensive, heavy, power hungry,
> outdated (nearly) equipment in our gliders to fix a problem many think is
> invented by the suits to justify technology to enable a covert agenda to
> the benefit of CAT and UAVs who could pay for it but are not being asked
> to.
>
> Cheaper, better, low power technology is here now and in the pipeline that
> can do this better and can be fitted easily in gliders.
>
> Jim
>
> ps: I'll bet that, on average, those that have transponders and PCAS look
> out less.

I think we've been over many of these claimed objections before but
currently available transponders have manageable low power consumption
(<500mA), are quite compact, weight 1-2 pounds and their mode-S
technology will do good service for many years. I would expect a Mode-
S with 1090ES (Extended Squitter) should give you forward
compatibility for many decades. 1090ES is not going away and is a safe
forward technology bet. UK/Europe has not even settled on mixing in
UAT (or VDL-4) right? What's the amortized annual cost for a decade
(or likely more) of use for a Mode-S 1090ES transponder? Likewise the
amortized cost of a PCAS (if you want one) is very low, arguably even
lower if the UK sticks with 1090ES only. UAT systems and all the
ground infrastructure, ADS-B-in/FIS-B/TIS-B etc. might all be
interesting in future but are a long way away from being available
today for use in a sailplane, in the meantime the 1090ES system
(eventually with a ADS-B GPS input) offers all the ADS-B output
compatibility you will need.

There may be other concerns about what is happening with UK airspace
and mandatory transponder requirements etc. and maybe the paperwork/
bureaucracy burden is unreasonable (I don't know) but I'll keep
reiterating that if these things are concerns to UK glider pilots you
are not credibly advancing your argument by continuing to raise
concerns that are either just not technically correct or will appear
trivial to other aviation folks or lay people.

Why do you think glider pilots flying with transponders and PCAS look
out less? Do you have any observations/experience that supports this?
All I can offer is that just about every glider pilot flying with a
PCAS (almost all with the Zaon MRX) that I know have made some
combination of the following comments --
1. There is a lot more traffic out there than they had realized
(especially around Reno and the SF Bay Area).
2. The MRX never seems to give a false positive. i.e. if it beeps,
something *is* out there and you need to find it.

For my own flying, there is nothing interesting inside the cockpit on
the transponder or Zaon MRX to look at. If the Zaon beeps I'll look at
the altitude display (on my glareshield) and use that to help scan in
the likely area to identify the traffic.


Darryl

[Bruce]

I am hardly a transponder proponent, but Darryl makes the valid point
that it is the fast heavy aircraft that the transponder in a glider is
useful to. The glider moves too slowly to be able to effectively avoid
the heavy metal - but with enough warning they should be able to do it
without even using the seatbelt sign. The alternative could spoil your
whole day.

PCAS and all the rest are useful for the intermediate stuff that you
have limited chance of seeing with the naked eye in time to avoid, and
Flarm is perfect for the rest.

Personally I can't see the logic of not spending the transponder money
in a new glider. Older gliders? Well - it depends where you fly, there
are lots of places where there is no primary radar, let alone SSR.
However, I have to wonder at people who devalue the value of collision
avoidance in linear proportion to the value of the glider they are
flying. It implies that they place zero value on their life. Such a
person may be a little scary to be near in the sky. Or may just not
agree with my thesis that my life is infinitely more valuable than the
aircraft it is installed in. Irrespective of the retail value of said
contraption.

One thing I wonder about is - What should you prioritise? In general I
would suggest Flarm because the predominant threat to a glider pilot is
other glider pilots. If you fly where there is the prospect of meeting
other traffic then you would have to consider whether a transponder or
PCAS would be more valuable next.

Of course the Mk1 eyeball is a much under estimated and underutilised
safety device...

Just my 2c.

Bruce

> On Jan 22, 11:35 am, wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 4:24 pm, Martin Gregorie
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:06:40 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>>> I know nothing about UK airspace (besides being stuck in it for far too
>>>> much time as a passenger holding over Heathrow), but it sounds like the
>>>> existing separation of airliner and jets in UK airspace is a key point
>>>> you folks should be arguing.
>>> Yes, agreed. The public will be with us on noise grounds if the commuter
>>> airlines get their way and start flying direct routes through class G
>>> airspace - this is something they can't do at present, but the CAA's
>>> transponder consultation seems designed to let them do it.
>>>> And again only one of the transponder aircraft needs to be talking to
>>>> ATC/radar facilities or have PCAS or higher. I don't know PCAS (and
>>>> higher-end systems) adoption in low-end GA aircraft in the UK, but in
>>>> the USA it seems pretty high (purely an anecdotal impression). I've
>>>> asked before but could not get adoption numbers for the USA.
>>> I've not seen figures either, but the GA density is probably lower here.
>>> There are flying schools on either side of our club field and there's no
>>> doubt that our weekend movements vastly outnumber both of theirs.
>>>> In the Libelle you might be able to make up a mount for a Zaon MRX under
>>>> the opaque areas of the front of the canopy.
>>> There's less space there than you might imagine. The panel is inset no
>>> more than 65mm (2.5"), so an end-on cigarette pack would not fit under in
>>> font of the panel while anything thicker would start to hide the top row
>>> instruments.
>>>> It might be canted over parallel to the surface,
>>> It would have to be. If it was in the center it would interfere with the
>>> canopy lock. On the other hand, the antenna is probably not an issue - a
>>> remote one could be mounted above the instrument tray that forms the
>>> front of the panel. My GPS antenna is mounted there and gets an excellent
>>> view of the sky.
>>> I wouldn't want anything much bigger than a MH flowmeter on the cockpit
>>> wall in front of me: lets just say the cockpit is 'snug'.
>>> --
>>> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>>> gregorie. | Essex, UK
>>> org |
>> The proponents of transponders in gliders should study a recent
>> Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigation report into a
>> tragic mid-air collision between a Cessna 182 and a Cessa near Toronto
>> in August 2006. Three people died in the collision. The full
>> investigation report is available on the TSB web site athttp://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2006/a06o0206/a06o...
>>
>> The TSB report states: "Both aeroplanes were operating in accordance
>> with visual flight rules in Class E airspace....Both aeroplanes were
>> equipped with functioning transponders. C-GCHN was also equipped with
>> a traffic information service (TIS) system that can provide a display
>> of nearby aircraft using information provided by ground-based radar;
>> this service is not available in Canada."
>>
>> A transponder can reduce the risk of collision with Traffic Collision
>> Advisory System (TCAS) equipped aircraft, i.e. mostly air transport
>> category aircraft. Maybe that reduction in risk is worth the cost in
>> some places.
>>
>> However, as this accident shows, simply installing a transponder gives
>> no guarantee against collision with non-TCAS equipped aircraft.
>>
>> Ian Grant
>> Ottawa Canada
>
> "simply installing a transponder gives no guarantee against collision
> with non-TCAS equipped aircraft."
>
> We'll I don't recall anybody claiming that there are any collision
> avoidance guarantees anywhere. And how transponders *can* help reduce
> collision risks with non-TCAS etc. equipped traffic has been discussed
> in this thread already.
>
> So let's go over this again. Can a transponder help with traffic
> avoidance even if the involved aircraft don't have TCAS -- very
> clearly yes -- A transponder equipped aircraft under control (or in
> communications with) a radar facility can be provided avoidance
> information or traffic information by that facility. Those of us who
> fly in high traffic areas see and hear these ttaffic advisories all
> the time. In addtion there are alternatives to TCAS available,
> starting with Zaon MRX type PCAS systems, up through the active
> interrogation Avidyne and other systems, right through to full on
> TCAS. Since it seems neither aircraft in this fatal crash were in
> touch with a radar facility, maybe lives could have been saved by one
> of the aircraft having a $500 Zaon MRX. I assume the families of the
> three people killed would have wished that at least one person had at
> least believed enough in PCAS technology to be using one. At some
> point somebody had spent $10k or so to have TIS in one aircraft, even
> it it was not supported by any SSR facility near where they were
> flying. There are no guarentees in life, or death, and who knows for
> sure if the PCAS would have avoided this accident but at an amortized
> cost per death of $170 or so in hindsight is seems a tragically cheap
> insurance.
>
> Now back to where this thread started, I think the concern from the op-
> ed piece seemed to be more focused on private jets and airliners but
> it lost the thread along the way. Maybe I'm projecting too much on
> that, because that, and the damage that a collision with large numbr
> of fatalities would do to soaring, is where my concern is. That
> traffic, with high percentage of TCAS installations, especially in the
> large iron, is going to be well warned of transponder equipped
> gliders. And those fast moving TCAS-II equipped jets are much better
> handled to avoid a transponder equipped glider than the glider is to
> avoid them. So while I'm happy to keep correcting incorrect claims
> like the "need TCAS" above I really don't care about the risk to
> individual glider pilots in mid-air collisions. It's your choice to
> install a PCAS or not, but if you fly in or near high-traffic areas
> with airlines/jets please help reduce the risk of a disaster and
> install and use a transponder.
>
> BTW the Canadian report does go over soem goo issues with "see and
> avoid". But it is a little bizarre as it widely mentions things like
> ADS-B, glider transponder exemptions and even FLARM but does not
> mention PCAS or similar systems.
>
> Darryl

[Eric Greenwell]

Scott wrote:

>> If it's the money that stops you from using a radio, tell us how much
>> you are willing to spend on a radio. I'm sure we can get up a
>> collection to make up the difference between that and a shiny new
>> handheld.
>>
> The radio cost wasn't the issue for me. I had unshielded Eisemann
> magnetos. I had a handheld (Icom A-21 Nav/Com) (and still do and USE it
> in my Corben). I tested it once with a towered airport and all they got
> was ignition noise hash. Now you're getting into BIG bucks to get
> shielded mags and harnesses and STC, etc.

OK, it's not about $200, but it's still about the money. Did you borrow
and try another brand/model of handheld? And another? The A-21 isn't the
latest and greatest, is it? Did you check on the Aeronca or similar
forums for solutions? You aren't the only one that's had this problem,
and there are numerous people out there that didn't quit until they
solved it. Find them, get their help. Find something that works, use
it, and I'll send you $20 to help pay for it.

> I maintain my question...why
> didn't the guy see me when I was at his 12 )'Clock and about a half a
> mile after he made the turn toward me. My Chief was Aeronca Yellow with
> Maroon stripe. I should have filled his windshield about the same as he
> filled mine. I guess we were even...he expected to hear me and I
> expected him to see me.

He screwed up. That's why you don't want to depend on only one technique
if you can help it. Eyes are OK; eyes and radio much better; eyes,
radio, PCAS even better; eyes, radio, PCAS, transponder the best. Don't
put all your eggs in one basket. You can protect yourself better against
the other guys' screw ups if you want to.

> I had him in sight before I got in the pattern and followed his progress
> throughout the pattern. He did surprise me with the left turn, but I
> was able to react with enough time to get out of HIS way. His admission
> that he NEVER saw me was what disturbed me. I am NOT anti-radio or
> anti-transponder. I just worry that people rely on them WAY too much
> and let their guard down for that 30 seconds that can lead up to a mid-air.

I tell you, it's too late to worry about this stuff: almost EVERY
airplane has a radio and transponder, and MOST gliders have a radio. If
you are right about them depending on the equipment instead of looking
around, how can you protect yourself? You aren't going to be able talk
any of them into removing the radio and/or transponder and becoming good
lookers, are you? You protect yourself by staying away from airports
where there are airplanes and gliders, or you figure out how make a
radio work in your Aeronca. It's time.

--
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]

Jim White wrote:

>
> Cheaper, better, low power technology is here now and in the pipeline that
> can do this better and can be fitted easily in gliders.

I'm very skeptical about the "low power technology here now" part.
Please tell me what this technology is, in what country you can get it,
and what it costs.

In the USA, the only thing with national coverage is transponders. ADS-B
is available in some parts of the country, but the only general aviation
"solution" is the GDL-90 from Garmin. It's the size of a shoebox, weighs
6 pounds, draws 1.75 amps on 12 volts, and costs $7000 (installation
extra). Makes a transponder seem like free candy.

I'm also skeptical of the "in the pipeline" claim, unless that means
"I've heard of some stuff that could do the job but it's not even on
it's way to certification because there aren't even any specifications
for it yet".

--
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

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 23, 7:43*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> >> If it's the money that stops you from using a radio, tell us how much
> >> you are willing to spend on a radio. I'm sure we can get up a
> >> collection to make up the difference between that and a shiny new
> >> handheld.
>
> > The radio cost wasn't the issue for me. *I had unshielded Eisemann
> > magnetos. *I had a handheld (Icom A-21 Nav/Com) (and still do and USE it
> > in my Corben). *I tested it once with a towered airport and all they got
> > was ignition noise hash. *Now you're getting into BIG bucks to get
> > shielded mags and harnesses and STC, etc.
>
> OK, it's not about $200, but it's still about the money. Did you borrow
> and try another brand/model of handheld? And another? The A-21 isn't the
> latest and greatest, is it? Did you check on the Aeronca or similar
> forums for solutions? You aren't the only one that's had this problem,
> and there are numerous people out there that didn't quit until they
> solved it. *Find them, get their help. Find something that works, use
> it, and I'll send you $20 to help pay for it.
>
> > *I maintain my question...why
> > didn't the guy see me when I was at his 12 )'Clock and about a half a
> > mile after he made the turn toward me. *My Chief was Aeronca Yellow with
> > Maroon stripe. *I should have filled his windshield about the same as he
> > filled mine. *I guess we were even...he expected to hear me and I
> > expected him to see me.
>
> He screwed up. That's why you don't want to depend on only one technique
> if you can help it. Eyes are OK; eyes and radio much better; eyes,
> radio, PCAS even better; eyes, radio, PCAS, transponder the best. Don't
> put all your eggs in one basket. You can protect yourself better against
> the other guys' screw ups if you want to.
>
> > I had him in sight before I got in the pattern and followed his progress
> > *throughout the pattern. *He did surprise me with the left turn, but I
> > was able to react with enough time to get out of HIS way. *His admission
> > that he NEVER saw me was what disturbed me. *I am NOT anti-radio or
> > anti-transponder. *I just worry that people rely on them WAY too much
> > and let their guard down for that 30 seconds that can lead up to a mid-air.
>
> I tell you, it's too late to worry about this stuff: almost EVERY
> airplane has a radio and transponder, and MOST gliders have a radio. If
> you are right about them depending on the equipment instead of looking
> around, how can you protect yourself? You aren't going to be able talk
> any of them into removing the radio and/or transponder and becoming good
> lookers, are you? You protect yourself by staying away from airports
> where there are airplanes and gliders, or you figure out how make a
> radio work in your Aeronca. It's time.
>
> --
> 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" atwww.motorglider.org

This is completely irrelevent to any point about transponders.

But, he will need shielded magnetos, maybe swapping the Eisemann for
Slick's would be nice anyhow (and save service hassles in future?),
grounded harness, grounded plugs right? Guess ~$2,500 for parts plus
labor. Personally I would spend the money, as I would not want to
relay on other pilots who do not look out for non-radio equipped
aircraft to avoid me -- which you've kind of proven does not work.
Again this has absolutely nothing to do with this (already smeared
out) thread.

Darryl

[Scott[_7_]]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

>
You protect yourself by staying away from airports
> where there are airplanes and gliders, or you figure out how make a
> radio work in your Aeronca. It's time.
>
Nope. Don't own the Aeronca anymore. The Corben has shielded
ignition, so I'm all set.

[Scott[_7_]]

Scott wrote:

> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>>
> You protect yourself by staying away from airports
>
>> where there are airplanes and gliders, or you figure out how make a
>> radio work in your Aeronca. It's time.
>>
> Nope. Don't own the Aeronca anymore. The Corben has shielded
> ignition, so I'm all set.

My final post on this topic...from an older (but still valid) flight
training manual: "Although all pilots are required to see and avoid
each other, the use of departure, enroute, or arrival radar services can
increase flight safety. It is important to remember, however, that
radar service does not relieve you of basic see-and-avoid
responsibilities. Even when operating under positive radar control,
such as in a TCA, you are still required to see and avoid all other
aircraft."

Scott
(NOT anti-radio, transponder, etc. I just don't like to see people rely
(almost TOTALLY) on that stuff over their built-in collision avoidance
system (eyes) that don't go T.U. if a battery fails).

[bumper]

"Scott" > wrote in message
.. .
> The radio cost wasn't the issue for me. I had unshielded Eisemann
> magnetos. I had a handheld (Icom A-21 Nav/Com) (and still do and USE it
> in my Corben). I tested it once with a towered airport and all they got
> was ignition noise hash. Now you're getting into BIG bucks> Scott


Not really, Scott. I had an Aeronca Champ with the same mags and unshielded
ignition. Radio static made it very difficult for me to decipher received
transmissions.

Fresno Air Parts had all the parts to install a shielded ignition system
using the same mags. Had to buy new plugs of course. However, the costs was
reasonable and the results amazing. No STC was required, just log book
entry, as apparently the Champ was available from the factory so equipped.
Doubtless the Chief was as well.

all the best,

bumper

[Jim White[_2_]]

At 04:08 24 January 2009, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>I'm also skeptical of the "in the pipeline" claim, unless that means
>"I've heard of some stuff that could do the job but it's not even on
>it's way to certification because there aren't even any specifications

>for it yet".
>

Why is progress always seen as impossible?

http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_08/07_0634/07_0634.pdf

Jim

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 24, 10:00*am, Jim White > wrote:
> At 04:08 24 January 2009, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> >I'm also skeptical of the "in the pipeline" claim, unless that means
> >"I've heard of some stuff that could do the job but it's not even on
> >it's way *to certification because there aren't even any specifications
> >for it yet".
>
> Why is progress always seen as impossible?
>
> http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_08/07_0634/07_0634.pdf
>
> Jim

Why? Because in the USA there is huge existing infrastructure
including SSR, TCAS-II equipped aircraft and even down to PCAS that
UAT's sort of turns on its head. Then more recently there is
competition for data services from XM weather, Iridium, etc. and
security/hacking concerns with UATs (want to shut down huge parts of
some airspace with a transmitter and a laptop spoofing aircraft all
over the place? - supposedly one reason some of the Australian
adoption slowed down.). Then there is regulation/bureaucracy that has
to catch up with possible technology changes. While ADS-B promises a
lot people keep blurring the ADS-B-out capabilities like the Mitre low-
end prototype UAT and all the things like ADS-B-in with TIS-B/FIS-B
etc. that it cannot do.

Meanwhile Mode-S transponder technology with 1090ES for ADS-B keeps
getting smaller, less power consumption, etc. With Europe taking the
lead (ironically by largely dragging their feet on anything besides
1090ES). I'd expect to see continuing competition in the 1090ES space.
Like the impressive looking Trig TT21 transponder. I fly with a Mode-C
now, which does me fine. UATs have no appeal to me for the foreseeable
future for where I fly in high traffic areas, and if I had to I'd
rather pay $2,000 or so for a Mode-S 1090ES unit that is fully
compatible with existing infrastructure than $500 or $1,000 (at a
guess) for something that is not (and has anybody seen pricing yet on
an ADS-B UAT?). In future UATs hold some advantages, including better
uplink data, better coverage, etc. but I would not hold my breath that
early or low-cost units will offer anything above what you can do with
1090ES. Building a box is relatively easy, changing infrastructure is
not.


Darryl

[Eric Greenwell]

Jim White wrote:
> At 04:08 24 January 2009, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> I'm also skeptical of the "in the pipeline" claim, unless that means
>> "I've heard of some stuff that could do the job but it's not even on
>> it's way to certification because there aren't even any specifications
>
>> for it yet".
>>
>
> Why is progress always seen as impossible?
>
> http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_08/07_0634/07_0634.pdf

I'm aware of MITRE's efforts and applaud them, but can you tell me where
the MITRE unit is in the certification process? If not, then is it fair
to say "in the pipeline" means "I've heard of some stuff that could do
the job but it's not even on it's way to certification because there
aren't even any specifications for it yet"?

I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to offer people an alternative to
transponders that features low cost, low power, and can display traffic
information on their Ipaq, but my understanding of the situation is we
have no idea when or even if this type of unit will be available for
sale, or what they will cost.

For an idea of how far we are from having MITRE type units on our
favorite soaring supplier's shelf, take a look at what is available now:
the $7000 Garmin GDL-90.

Right now, a MITRE style unit is more "pipe dream" than "pipeline", and
the reason I'm making such a big deal about this it I'm concerned people
that really should be using a transponder, or at least an MRX, will
think they can wait a year or two and buy one of these things. The
reality is this kind of thing can take far longer to arrive than we hope.

When I bought my mode C transponder in 2001, there were people that
decided they would wait for those new mode S European units that were
going to be available "real soon now" because they would cost less and
use half the power. They are still waiting.

--
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

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:08:16 +0000, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> In the USA, the only thing with national coverage is transponders. ADS-B
> is available in some parts of the country, but the only general aviation
> "solution" is the GDL-90 from Garmin. It's the size of a shoebox, weighs
> 6 pounds, draws 1.75 amps on 12 volts, and costs $7000 (installation
> extra). Makes a transponder seem like free candy.
>
Another oddity - it quotes the MX20 as its (only?) compatible panel
display/control unit, but look that up on the Garmin website and you'll
find its labeled Obsolete - Discontinued. What do9es that tell us about
the viability of the GDL-90?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 03:43:06 +0000, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> You aren't going to be able talk any of them into ..... becoming good
> lookers, are you?
>
Darn right! You can talk at them all you want and at the end they'll
still be DAMNED UGLY.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Jim White[_2_]]

It is about proportion

In the UK CAT generally flies in controlled airspace, gliders do not.

Gliders do occasionally fly in class D airspace where they are
'controlled' by ATC and are therefore 'known'

Gliders do occasionally fly in class C airspace in clearly defined wave
boxes or TRAGs.

For the last 60 years gliders have crashed into gliders but not into CAT.
There has been one occasion when power flew into a circling glider but I
guess he was looking at his instruments (or adjusting his mode S?).

The reason the suits want to mandate transponders is so that they can
allow their CAT friends (and backers) to fly more in class G airspace
without the need for lengthy and costly acrimonious consultations on
increased reserved airspace.

The likelihood of a CAT on glider mid air remains low if CAT stay
controlled and gliders stay out of controlled airspace. With a reduction
in CAT due to economic and fuel woes as well as environmental pressure
means we do have time to develop an effective low cost low power
alternative to Mode S. Perhaps 60 years.

Jim

ps: how do you put a transponder in a Hutter? or a paraglider?

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 24, 12:31*pm, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:08:16 +0000, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > In the USA, the only thing with national coverage is transponders. ADS-B
> > is available in some parts of the country, but the only general aviation
> > "solution" is the GDL-90 from Garmin. It's the size of a shoebox, weighs
> > 6 pounds, draws 1.75 amps on 12 volts, and costs $7000 (installation
> > extra). Makes a transponder seem like free candy.
>
> Another oddity - it quotes the MX20 as its (only?) compatible panel
> display/control unit, but look that up on the Garmin website and you'll
> find its labeled Obsolete - Discontinued. What do9es that tell us about
> the viability of the GDL-90?
>[snip]

The GDL-90 UAT will display stuff on the GMX-200 (replacement of the
old MX-20), 400 and 500 series GPS units, the GPSNAV 396 and 496
portables etc. and I believe the G1000 etc. but. But as with
everything the devil is in the details of device firmware version, and
exactly display of what ADS-B data is supported (e.g. TIS, FIS etc.)
Now whether anybody would bother is another question. If I was
throwing down money for a new aircraft or glass panel upgrade now (and
it would primarily be Garmin glass) it would have a Mode-S
transponder, the GDL69A for XM Weather and maybe an Avidyne TAS600
traffic system. I'd also use the TIS traffic support in the SF Bay
Area since it effectively comes for free with the higher end Garmin
transponders even if TIS is on the way out. The GDL-90 UAT would be of
no interest. Garmin's most recent mention of ADS-B on their web site
is to talk about 1090ES upgrades for their Mode-S transponders not UAT
technology.

Darryl

[Mike Schumann]

The low cost MITRE ADS-B transceiver that was demo'd at the AOPA Expo a
couple of months ago, provides all of the ADS-B In functionality, including
traffic & weather. The only major stumbling block in getting this design
available commercially are certification issues around the use of consumer
grade GPS components that are required to make the unit affordable for a GA
market.

1090ES will probably not work as envisioned for ADS-B. While the Europeans
have decided to standardize on this (as has the US for Jet traffic), there
are serious questions on whether the bandwidth is adequate for high traffic
environments like NY, Atlanta, and LA. I suspect that in the end, UAT will
be the universal solution.

Mike Schumann

"Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 10:00 am, Jim White > wrote:
> At 04:08 24 January 2009, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> >I'm also skeptical of the "in the pipeline" claim, unless that means
> >"I've heard of some stuff that could do the job but it's not even on
> >it's way to certification because there aren't even any specifications
> >for it yet".
>
> Why is progress always seen as impossible?
>
> http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_08/07_0634/07_0634.pdf
>
> Jim

Why? Because in the USA there is huge existing infrastructure
including SSR, TCAS-II equipped aircraft and even down to PCAS that
UAT's sort of turns on its head. Then more recently there is
competition for data services from XM weather, Iridium, etc. and
security/hacking concerns with UATs (want to shut down huge parts of
some airspace with a transmitter and a laptop spoofing aircraft all
over the place? - supposedly one reason some of the Australian
adoption slowed down.). Then there is regulation/bureaucracy that has
to catch up with possible technology changes. While ADS-B promises a
lot people keep blurring the ADS-B-out capabilities like the Mitre low-
end prototype UAT and all the things like ADS-B-in with TIS-B/FIS-B
etc. that it cannot do.

Meanwhile Mode-S transponder technology with 1090ES for ADS-B keeps
getting smaller, less power consumption, etc. With Europe taking the
lead (ironically by largely dragging their feet on anything besides
1090ES). I'd expect to see continuing competition in the 1090ES space.
Like the impressive looking Trig TT21 transponder. I fly with a Mode-C
now, which does me fine. UATs have no appeal to me for the foreseeable
future for where I fly in high traffic areas, and if I had to I'd
rather pay $2,000 or so for a Mode-S 1090ES unit that is fully
compatible with existing infrastructure than $500 or $1,000 (at a
guess) for something that is not (and has anybody seen pricing yet on
an ADS-B UAT?). In future UATs hold some advantages, including better
uplink data, better coverage, etc. but I would not hold my breath that
early or low-cost units will offer anything above what you can do with
1090ES. Building a box is relatively easy, changing infrastructure is
not.


Darryl

[Mike Schumann]

Be wary of 1090ES. There are no traffic or weather uploads unless you use
UAT for ADS-B.

Mike Schumann

"Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 12:31 pm, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:08:16 +0000, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > In the USA, the only thing with national coverage is transponders. ADS-B
> > is available in some parts of the country, but the only general aviation
> > "solution" is the GDL-90 from Garmin. It's the size of a shoebox, weighs
> > 6 pounds, draws 1.75 amps on 12 volts, and costs $7000 (installation
> > extra). Makes a transponder seem like free candy.
>
> Another oddity - it quotes the MX20 as its (only?) compatible panel
> display/control unit, but look that up on the Garmin website and you'll
> find its labeled Obsolete - Discontinued. What do9es that tell us about
> the viability of the GDL-90?
>[snip]

The GDL-90 UAT will display stuff on the GMX-200 (replacement of the
old MX-20), 400 and 500 series GPS units, the GPSNAV 396 and 496
portables etc. and I believe the G1000 etc. but. But as with
everything the devil is in the details of device firmware version, and
exactly display of what ADS-B data is supported (e.g. TIS, FIS etc.)
Now whether anybody would bother is another question. If I was
throwing down money for a new aircraft or glass panel upgrade now (and
it would primarily be Garmin glass) it would have a Mode-S
transponder, the GDL69A for XM Weather and maybe an Avidyne TAS600
traffic system. I'd also use the TIS traffic support in the SF Bay
Area since it effectively comes for free with the higher end Garmin
transponders even if TIS is on the way out. The GDL-90 UAT would be of
no interest. Garmin's most recent mention of ADS-B on their web site
is to talk about 1090ES upgrades for their Mode-S transponders not UAT
technology.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 24, 4:34*pm, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
> Be wary of 1090ES. *There are no traffic or weather uploads unless you use
> UAT for ADS-B.
[snip]


There is no FIS-B (e.g. weather) data over 1090 ES, however TIS-B
traffic is very much transmitted over the 1090ES uplink and this dual-
uplink of TIS-B over UAT and 1090ES seem pretty important to making
any transition to dual physical layer work. However what exactly you
get depends on the device. As an example the Becker BXP 6401 Mode-S
Transponder claims to provide 1090ES TIS-B data output. Not all other
Mode-S transponders will do this. However with 1090ES low end units
being required in Europe I expect to see these ADS-B-In capabilities
in other affordable 1090ES Transponders at some point.

On the FIS-B side, it will be interesting to see what happens. FIS-B
may drive UAT adoption in the GA fleet (otherwise for Mode-S equipped
aircraft--the people with avionics toys and more likely to buy newer
toys?--going 1090ES might be easier). It will be interesting to see
the effects of the popularity of XM weather, concerns about no pre-
flight/on-ground FIS-B weather coverage at many locations, cost of
certified UAT systems, etc.

My point for raising 1090ES as much as I did was not so much that I
think it has anything to offer per-se over UAT as much as it appears
it is the way Europe is going. And we got sidetracked off on the UK
think and my point there was buying a Mode-S transponder with 1090ES
support provides those folks with a good roadmap to ADS-B. I suspect
some of the UK pilots are looking at the USA and discussion of future
ADS-B UAT products and worying about that too much.

I keep repeating that my concerns are primarily about using
transponders to help reduce risk of collusions with airliners or fast
jets that could seriously damage our sport. I'd just hate to think
there are glider pilots in the USA in some very high traffic areas
putting off getting a Mode-C or Mode-S transponder and waiting for UAT
products and infrastructure to appear.

And even though the airliner scenario is my main concern I am
impressed at PCAS as a tool to reduce collision risks betwen
sailplanes and GA aircraft as well. I hope people are aware that as we
work though a dual UAT and 1090ES transition that UAT devices will not
directly detect transponders and also will not receive any information
say about the many Mode-C transponder equipped aircraft when those
aircraft are outside of SSR radar coverage. Today many of us realize
that we get amazingly good PCAS coverage in places far from, or
obscured from, SSR coverage, I suspect a lot due to TCAS
interrogations. I do hope vendors like Zaon offer an evolution of
their current PCAS devices with it's passive transponder detection as
well as UAT ADS-B-In support.

Enough acronyms for today.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 24, 4:29*pm, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
> The low cost MITRE ADS-B transceiver that was demo'd at the AOPA Expo a
> couple of months ago, provides all of the ADS-B In functionality, including
> traffic & weather. *The only major stumbling block in getting this design
> available commercially are certification issues around the use of consumer
> grade GPS components that are required to make the unit affordable for a GA
> market.
>
> 1090ES will probably not work as envisioned for ADS-B. *While the Europeans
> have decided to standardize on this (as has the US for Jet traffic), there
> are serious questions on whether the bandwidth is adequate for high traffic
> environments like NY, Atlanta, and LA. *I suspect that in the end, UAT will
> be the universal solution.
>
> Mike Schumann

If 1090ES does not work then many countries in the world will have
problems. The Europeans have looked at the USA work and are convinced
it will work there. Some of the European counties seem to have dug in
fairly hard against UAT, and UAT (more so that 1090ES) without
security improvements is likely to be a political hot potato in some
places. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I completely missed that the Mitre UAT at the San Jose Expo had ADS-B-
In, that's great. In addition to the GPS requirements, have they also
settled whether they can use cabin ambient as altimeter static input?
I keep seeing these "portable" prototypes and the issue of requiring a
permanent install, including static tie in, testing etc. are still up
in the air AFAIK. There are also lots of other issues, with ADS-B in
general and UAT in specific as well. Is there going to be multiple
levels of UAT devices, what exactly would a low-end device (consumer
GPS input, etc.) enable? As there would be with any major
infrastructure change, I just don't want people to think they go buy
a UAT and plug it in and they get all these magic services and it
slices and dices and washes as well. One of the current wrinkles with
the ITT lead ground station deployment is exactly what level of TIS-B
uplink traffic information will be provided. AOPA is starting to beat
on that.

Darryl