Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios

If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
electrical systems too?

How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
this issue?

Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?

Is the big-sky-theory a myth?


----------------------------------------
http://www.examiner.com/a-1314730~Fe...Gliders.ht ml

Feds Call for Alerts on All Air Gliders
Apr 1, 2008 5:28 PM (25 days ago) By SCOTT SONNER, AP

RENO, Nev. (Map, News) - All gliders should be required to operate
with devices that alert air traffic controllers and other aircraft to
their presence, federal regulators recommended Tuesday, citing 60
near-collisions over the past two decades.

Gliders and other aircraft without engine-driven electrical systems
are exempt from a rule the Federal Aviation Administration imposed in
1988 requiring transponders for aircraft that operate near primary
airports and in airspace above 10,000 feet.

NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker recommended in a March 31 letter to the
board that the glider exemption be eliminated in part because of an
NTSB investigation into a collision between a glider and a private jet
about 40 miles southeast of Reno in August 2006.

In that case, the glider pilot - who parachuted to safety - had a
transponder on his aircraft but had turned it off to conserve battery
power. The Hawker 800XP airplane he collided with was significantly
damaged but was able to land safely at Reno-Tahoe International
Airport.

"As evidenced by this accident, aircraft that are not using or not
equipped with transponders and are operating in areas transited by air
carrier traffic represent a collision hazard," Rosenker wrote in the
letter first made public on Tuesday.

"This hazard has persisted more than 20 years since the Safety Board
initially expressed concern," he said.

Many gliders object to required use of transponders, saying they are
expensive and energy-consuming.

Of the 60 near mid-air collisions from 1988 to 2007, nine occurred in
northern Nevada. That's due primarily to the large number of gliders
that fly along the Sierra's eastern front where thermal air flows
create what enthusiasts describe as "world-class" gliding conditions.

Other frequent sites of near-collisions were Chicago and Washington,
D.C., with four each. Colorado Springs, Colo., had three.

More than 10 years before the latest incident, the FAA's Reno Flight
Standards District Office...

The FAA has 90 days to respond to the NTSB's recommendations, FAA
spokesman Ian Gregor said.

"We take NTSB recommendations very seriously," he said from Los
Angeles.

Leaders of the Soaring Society of America, based in Hobbs, N.M., and
other gliding enthusiasts oppose the NTSB's move. They advocate
alternatives including increasing awareness among pilots of areas
where gliders are often in use and implementing technology already
used in some parts of Europe that provides low-cost, real-time
information to pilots....

Most modern gliders have solar-powered batteries that help conserve
power, but even those don't help on longer flights, which can stretch
eight hours and cover 500 miles, he said.

"Having a transponder on all the time becomes a real problem with
energy conservation on your glider," he said.

Fred La Sor, an owner of Soaring NV in Minden who helped develop new
safety plans for the Reno area after the last accident, said it costs
$2,200 to $3,000 to put transponders on most gliders.

Besides, he said, most collisions or close calls involve not a glider
and a jet, but two gliders - something he said transponders would not
affect.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
electrical systems too?

Almost certainly

How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
this issue?

Not at all. Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.

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

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

Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?

No more than they do now.

Is the big-sky-theory a myth?

It always has been a myth.

Vaughn

On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

...



If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
electrical systems too?

Almost certainly



How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
this issue?

Not at all. Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.

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

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



Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?

No more than they do now.



Is the big-sky-theory a myth?

It always has been a myth.


No it is not a myth. If you evenly spread the number of GA aircraft
below 12,000 ft across the U.S all traveling at random directions, the
probability of collision will be extremely low enough to be considered
zero. The problem is that the big sky theory does not apply near
terminal airspace where the airplanes are not traveling in random
directions and altitudes.

The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
proposal. 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.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
wrote in
:

On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...


Is the big-sky-theory a myth?

It always has been a myth.


No it is not a myth. If you evenly spread the number of GA aircraft
below 12,000 ft across the U.S all traveling at random directions, the
probability of collision will be extremely low enough to be considered
zero. The problem is that the big sky theory does not apply near
terminal airspace where the airplanes are not traveling in random
directions and altitudes.


It also doesn't apply within 150 miles of Los Angeles, and I'd
venture, to other areas of large population concentrations, nor near
navaids, nor airports (controlled or not), nor islands, ... In fact,
in today's aerial environment, the Big-Sky-Theory is not only a myth,
but a recipe for disaster, IMO.


The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
proposal.

What is it that you see? Is it the necessity to outlaw all aircraft
that were certified without electrical systems from operation within
the NAS?

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.


That's a constructive suggestion.

How large must such a radar reflector be?

Will it activate TCAS?

Does ATC normally enable the display of primary targets?

On Apr 28, 6:02*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
wrote in
:





On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..

Is the big-sky-theory a myth?

* *It always has been a myth.

No it is not a myth. If you evenly spread the number of GA aircraft
below 12,000 ft across the U.S all traveling at random directions, the
probability of collision will be extremely low enough to be considered
zero. The problem is that the big sky theory does not apply near
terminal airspace where the airplanes are not traveling in random
directions and altitudes.

It also doesn't apply within 150 miles of Los Angeles, and I'd
venture, to other areas of large population concentrations, nor near
navaids, nor airports (controlled or not), nor islands, ... *In fact,
in today's aerial environment, the Big-Sky-Theory is not only a myth,
but a recipe for disaster, IMO.



The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
proposal.

What is it that you see? *Is it the necessity to outlaw all aircraft
that were certified without electrical systems from operation within
the NAS? *

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.

That's a constructive suggestion. *

How large must such a radar reflector be? *

It's a retroreflector, I have one in the form of a tube about 3 inches
in diameter and 2 feet long. The corner cubes are inside that. I have
no idea how effective it is compared to a classic reflector which
occupies a cube about 1 foot across and retroreflects the radar
equally in all directions.
...

Will it activate TCAS? *

Don't see how it could, TCAS uses the information in the active
return from the transponder.

Does ATC normally enable the display of primary targets?

As fas as I know ATC radar picks up as many moving targets as it cam
"see". Not sure what you mean by primary tho'.

Cheers

WingFlaps wrote ...
As fas as I know ATC radar picks up as many moving
targets as it can "see". Not sure what you mean by primary tho'.

OK then, time to pick up the AIM and look at Chapter 4, Section 5.1,
or look here (courtousy of the gov't nobody wants to pay for) in 4.5.1:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...ns/atpubs/aim/

Check for the diff between Primary and Secondary radar.

FYI: Before 1998 the controllers in NY Center would routinely keep the
primary intensity dialed way down on their scopes, to a point where primary
targets could not be seen unless you were really looking for one. The reason
was too many the false reflections (heck, trucks on the bridges and
interstate overpasses would show up). I don't know much after they moved
onto the new scopes, and I can guess that after 9/11 it's all different now
(maybe).

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:34:55 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
wrote in
:

A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.

That's a constructive suggestion. *

How large must such a radar reflector be? *

It's a retroreflector, I have one in the form of a tube about 3 inches
in diameter and 2 feet long. The corner cubes are inside that. I have
no idea how effective it is compared to a classic reflector which
occupies a cube about 1 foot across and retroreflects the radar
equally in all directions.
...

Interesting. Thanks for the information.

How do you think it might affect a sailplane's L/D?

More information:

Marine passive radar reflectors:
http://www.sailgb.com/c/radar_reflectors/

Modulating retro-reflector as a passive radar transponder
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...isnumber=15618


Will it activate TCAS? *

Don't see how it could, TCAS uses the information in the active
return from the transponder.


Yep.

Does ATC normally enable the display of primary targets?

As fas as I know ATC radar picks up as many moving targets as it cam
"see". Not sure what you mean by primary tho'.


By 'primary' I mean the radio energy passively reflected by the
target, as opposed to a target generated as a result of a transponder
interrogation. I know ATC can 'see' primary targets, but I am under
the impression that controllers normally configure their 'scopes to
see only transponder targets to reduce screen clutter.

In any event, a passive radar reflector (or two) might be made part of
a system to address this issue, but I'm guessing the FAA would prefer
something capable of alerting TCAS systems.

On Apr 27, 2:02 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
wrote in
:



On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..

Is the big-sky-theory a myth?

It always has been a myth.

No it is not a myth. If you evenly spread the number of GA aircraft
below 12,000 ft across the U.S all traveling at random directions, the
probability of collision will be extremely low enough to be considered
zero. The problem is that the big sky theory does not apply near
terminal airspace where the airplanes are not traveling in random
directions and altitudes.

It also doesn't apply within 150 miles of Los Angeles, and I'd
venture, to other areas of large population concentrations, nor near
navaids, nor airports (controlled or not), nor islands, ... In fact,
in today's aerial environment, the Big-Sky-Theory is not only a myth,
but a recipe for disaster, IMO.



The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
proposal.

What is it that you see? Is it the necessity to outlaw all aircraft
that were certified without electrical systems from operation within
the NAS?


I think the FAR can be justifiably modified to only exempt airplanes
originally manufactured with no electrical system, but all airplanes
manufactured since 2008 (or whenever) operating in airspace where a
transponder is required should be equipped with one.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
...
On Apr 27, 2:02 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:


I think the FAR can be justifiably modified to only exempt airplanes
originally manufactured with no electrical system, but all airplanes
manufactured since 2008 (or whenever) operating in airspace where a
transponder is required should be equipped with one.


But not all aircraft are required to have a transponder in all categories of
airspace...
Sure.. all AIRPLANES with electrical generating systems should have a
transponder, but not all AIRCRAFT have electrical generating systems. Even
ones built today, sort of a Catch-22.

B

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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.


That's a constructive suggestion.

How large must such a radar reflector be?

Will it activate TCAS?


No.



Does ATC normally enable the display of primary targets?


Outside of Class A airspace, yes.