![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:17:44 -0400, Roy Smith wrote in
: Big John wrote: However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be necessary. A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section. Not really. More like a corner reflector. Take three mutually perpendicular reflecting planes and you get an interesting and useful property -- an incoming beam from any direction gets reflected three times and ends up going out in exactly the same direction it came from. Exactly what you want to give an artificially large radar profile. See here for an example: http://www.landfallnavigation.com/sd152.html Hey. That looks like just the ticket, and the price is right. Of course, once it's STCed ... Here's the corner reflector definition in Federal Standard 1037C: http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-009/_1298.htm Photo: http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/images/coriverc.gif That doesn't look nearly as useful as the example you provided. In any case, primary radar (even with the help of a passive, if efficient, reflector on the target) only gives you bearing and range. To get altitude, you need Mode C. I've had ATC call traffic "altitude unknown" often. I don't see the lack of altitude information as a real limitation, but then I'm neither a controller nor engineer. So while the NTSB in Safety Recommendation A-08-10 through -13 dated March 31, 2008 is recommending removing the glider transponder exemption: The Board notes that, because of the limitations of the see-and-avoid concept, transponder-initiated collision alerts (either from ATC or TCAS) provide both VFR and IFR aircraft with a higher degree of safety in an environment where highspeed closure rates are possible. Therefore, the Safety Board further concludes that transponders are critical to alerting pilots and controllers to the presence of nearby traffic, so that collisions can be avoided, and that gliders should not be exempt from the transponder requirements. This is especially important at higher altitudes, where flight crews may rely more on their TCAS, expecting that other aircraft, including light aircraft, are in contact with ATC and/or are transponder-equipped. Therefore, the Safety Board believes that the FAA should remove the glider exemptions from the FARs that pertain to transponder requirements and use. It would seem that the language the NTSB used leaves room for equipping gliders with a simple passive corner reflector installed within the composite or other non-metallic skin of the glider, thus overcoming the lack of electrical system, and providing ATC with a useable target for potential traffic conflicts. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios | Larry Dighera | Soaring | 67 | May 11th 08 12:20 AM |
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 155 | May 10th 08 02:45 PM |
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios | Larry Dighera | Soaring | 12 | May 1st 08 03:42 PM |
Transponders and Radios - USA | Ray Lovinggood | Soaring | 1 | February 27th 04 06:10 PM |
Transponders, Radios and other avionics procurement questions | Corky Scott | Home Built | 5 | July 2nd 03 11:27 PM |