Parowan midair?

On 6/21/2010 2:56 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
On 6/21/2010 2:20 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jun 21, 7:27 am, Mike
wrote:
On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:



On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann
wrote:

We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. The
SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an
example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP.

Mike, believe me:
If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders
around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW - and you are not
going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it
possibly available in 2012.

FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.

Andreas

FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to
happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the
FAA
would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes
that
could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get off
their but.

We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they
have.

--
Mike Schumann

An extremely bad outcome of wanting "ADS-B technology" to be deployed
widely would be to end up with a need to mandatory equip with ADS-B
with none of the FLARM-equivalent glider-tuned traffic warnings
produced by the ADS-B receivers, no-compatibility with TCAS in fast
jets and airlines etc. and significant areas where there is no GBT
coverage to provide ADS-R (e.g. for glider on glider traffic awareness
on mountain ridges where there may be a mix of UAT and 1090ES ADS-B
equipped gliders).

This is all extremely early technology, I hope actions by the SSA and
others does not end up heading towards mandatory ADS-B carriage
without these and other issues being addressed. By all means go work
on testing and R&D stuff, but this stuff is far away from being wide
scale deployable in gliders that it is premature to suggest ADS-B as a
solution to practical real world problems like what happened at
Parowan. And I do not feel that overly-involving the federal
government in an attempt to get technology adopted in gliders is a
good idea. The free market should be quite capable of delivering
innovative ADS-B based technology to our cockpits, as has been done by
FLARM (in Europe and elsewhere) and PCAS manufacturers.

Darryl


Nobody is asking the Feds to solve this problem. We have private
companies (Navworx and others) who have reasonably price ADS-B
products ready to go into production. What we need is for the FAA to
get out of the way and authorize the production of these units so that
the free market can work its magic.
Without an FAA standard, I think you'd find the "magic" of the free
market would stay in the lamp, no matter how hard you rubbed it. The
units have to work together, they need the GBT, and who will install
those if the FAA "gets out of the way"? Will there be a big market with
a bunch of units not built to a common standard? Not very soon, as
everyone waits for the market to settle on a standard, in part for
interoperability reasons, in part for liability reasons, and because
you'd STILL have to install a transponder, because the airliners,
bizjets, and military aren't going to install non-standard ADS-B units
and will continue to depend on TCAS.

I like the concept of ADS-B, but I don't see a clear, quick path to
adoption by gliders.

Note to other pilots: if you want to know when I'm close to you, get an
MRX. It will tell you your approximate distance from me; it will tell
you your height relative to me; and it will tell you if I'm climbing! No
FLARM or ADS-B required.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Jun 21, 7:06*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 6/21/2010 7:27 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:





FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.

Andreas

FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. *That is NOT going to
happen in the US. *Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the
FAA would certify the units. *NAVWORX and MITRE have working
prototypes that could go into production overnight if we can get the
FAA to get off their but.

We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
level attention to this. *It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller
at AOPA. *They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they
have.

It's going to take more that the availability of ADS-B units; they are
going to have to mandated by the FAA or mandated by the SSA for use in
contests, or no one will buy them. An ADS-B unit currently provides no
protection in glider contests you can't get from a FLARM, which is a
superior collision avoidance device for gliders, and people aren't
buying FLARMS. FLARM even has an IGC logger in it for extra value,
something you won't get with the ADS-B units, but USA pilots still
aren't interested. I don't think they believe their risk of collision is
very high. If pilots saw things as Bob 7U sees them, all the contest
pilots would be using FLARM already.

If FLARM was mandated for contests by the SSA, and made relatively
inexpensive to rent for a contest, that would ensure everyone used them
without too much grumbling. That could be done "right now", or certainly
in time for the next season, without an FAA intervention. Another
approach would be to require transponders in all contest gliders (at
least for Nationals), and also require an MRX transponder detector.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Eric,

If the SSA mandated Flarm for contests, how much would that help? Not
a lot, except at contests, and then only for glider vs glider mid-
airs. Most gliders don't fly contests, how about them? The non contest
glider pilots are concerned about mid-airs with gliders and power
planes too, especially in areas with significant GA and airline
traffic. The solution has to address glider vs power plane collision
risk too. And in the USA, Flarm won't do.

I'm with Darryl on this one. What we need is a reasonably priced,
power frugal ADS-B transceiver that is built to the same com and data
standard as those used in the big iron. The FAA needs to back off from
their triple redundant, paper work driven certification standards.
They need to lay out the outline of how the equipment should interface
and then get out of the way. Until then, it's a Mode-C and PCAS for me.

On 6/21/2010 10:21 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 6/21/2010 2:56 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
On 6/21/2010 2:20 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jun 21, 7:27 am, Mike
wrote:
On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:



On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann
wrote:

We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. The
SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an
example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP.

Mike, believe me:
If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders
around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW - and you are not
going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it
possibly available in 2012.

FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.

Andreas

FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to
happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the FAA
would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes that
could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get off
their but.

We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they have.

--
Mike Schumann

An extremely bad outcome of wanting "ADS-B technology" to be deployed
widely would be to end up with a need to mandatory equip with ADS-B
with none of the FLARM-equivalent glider-tuned traffic warnings
produced by the ADS-B receivers, no-compatibility with TCAS in fast
jets and airlines etc. and significant areas where there is no GBT
coverage to provide ADS-R (e.g. for glider on glider traffic awareness
on mountain ridges where there may be a mix of UAT and 1090ES ADS-B
equipped gliders).

This is all extremely early technology, I hope actions by the SSA and
others does not end up heading towards mandatory ADS-B carriage
without these and other issues being addressed. By all means go work
on testing and R&D stuff, but this stuff is far away from being wide
scale deployable in gliders that it is premature to suggest ADS-B as a
solution to practical real world problems like what happened at
Parowan. And I do not feel that overly-involving the federal
government in an attempt to get technology adopted in gliders is a
good idea. The free market should be quite capable of delivering
innovative ADS-B based technology to our cockpits, as has been done by
FLARM (in Europe and elsewhere) and PCAS manufacturers.

Darryl


Nobody is asking the Feds to solve this problem. We have private
companies (Navworx and others) who have reasonably price ADS-B
products ready to go into production. What we need is for the FAA to
get out of the way and authorize the production of these units so that
the free market can work its magic.
Without an FAA standard, I think you'd find the "magic" of the free
market would stay in the lamp, no matter how hard you rubbed it. The
units have to work together, they need the GBT, and who will install
those if the FAA "gets out of the way"? Will there be a big market with
a bunch of units not built to a common standard? Not very soon, as
everyone waits for the market to settle on a standard, in part for
interoperability reasons, in part for liability reasons, and because
you'd STILL have to install a transponder, because the airliners,
bizjets, and military aren't going to install non-standard ADS-B units
and will continue to depend on TCAS.

I like the concept of ADS-B, but I don't see a clear, quick path to
adoption by gliders.

Note to other pilots: if you want to know when I'm close to you, get an
MRX. It will tell you your approximate distance from me; it will tell
you your height relative to me; and it will tell you if I'm climbing! No
FLARM or ADS-B required.


The MITRE unit is fully a fully functional ADS-B transceiver, meeting
all of the ADS-B specs, except for the use of aviation grade WAAS GPS
components that can provide an indication of the navigational fix's
integrity. The transmit power may also be somewhat lower than the NPRM
specs.

In addition to the position and velocity data that is transmitted each
second, the ADS-B transceiver also transmits an indication of the
accuracy and integrity of the navigational data. The MITRE unit
transmits "unknown" for integrity, as that information is not available
from a consumer grade GPS chipset.

The problem is that the current FAA specs require ADS-B transceivers to
have an accuracy and integrity level that meets the requirements for
parallel instrument approaches in IFR conditions at Class B airports.
This is complete overkill for VFR only GA aircraft. It is double
overkill, due to the fact that most GA aircraft are required to have
Mode C transponders in addition to any ADS-B equipment they might
voluntarily deploy between now and 2020.

The bottom line is that the low cost prototypes that are flying today
work and are fully operational in the FAA's Nextgen environment. They
may not provide the integrity signal that the FAA wants for IFR
applications, but that shouldn't preclude their being authorized for use
in VFR environments only.

Why would a glider or GA pilot buy a MITRE transceiver if it was
available at the right price:

1. ATC would see you on their radar (assuming you are within range of
an ADS-B ground station).
2. You would see all ADS-B and transponder equipped aircraft (again if
within range of a ground station). The info that you see is
significantly more accurate than what you get out of a PCAS device, at a
similar price point to a PCAS device.
3. You get free weather radar, METARs and TAFs

The only catch is that, for the time being, TCAS units will not see you
unless you also have a Mode C or S transponder.


--
Mike Schumann

On 6/21/2010 10:06 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 6/21/2010 7:27 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:

FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.

Andreas



FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to
happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the
FAA would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes
that could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get
off their but.

We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they have.
It's going to take more that the availability of ADS-B units; they are
going to have to mandated by the FAA or mandated by the SSA for use in
contests, or no one will buy them. An ADS-B unit currently provides no
protection in glider contests you can't get from a FLARM, which is a
superior collision avoidance device for gliders, and people aren't
buying FLARMS. FLARM even has an IGC logger in it for extra value,
something you won't get with the ADS-B units, but USA pilots still
aren't interested. I don't think they believe their risk of collision is
very high. If pilots saw things as Bob 7U sees them, all the contest
pilots would be using FLARM already.

If FLARM was mandated for contests by the SSA, and made relatively
inexpensive to rent for a contest, that would ensure everyone used them
without too much grumbling. That could be done "right now", or certainly
in time for the next season, without an FAA intervention. Another
approach would be to require transponders in all contest gliders (at
least for Nationals), and also require an MRX transponder detector. That
would let you know when a glider was near you and the relative altitude,
and keep the airliners away. It would have value when you weren't flying
in a contest, and "significant number" of Nationals contestants already
have a transponder and/or MRX.

ADS-B is the future, but as currently planned, I don't think glider
pilots will find it compelling for many years. Cost is not the only issue.

Darryl, don't be shy about contradicting me!


FLARM is in no way intrinsically better for soaring than ADS-B. The
difference is that FLARM units have built in collision alarms, whereby
the MITRE ADS-B transeiver is a black box that needs to be connected to
a GPS moving map or other display device to show the traffic (an iPhone
will work). See-You Mobile is a good example of a display device that
will show FLARM traffic. It should also be able to connect to the MITRE
unit and provide exactly the same functionality, except that you will
also see Mode C / S transponder equipped aircraft (if you are within
range of a ground station). Any alarm logic needs to be implemented in
the display device. (If you use one of the newer versions of the iPhone
as your display device, it should be possible to develop an app that
uses its built in compass function so that you get audio alarms for
collision threats that can identify not only the distance and altitude
difference to the target, but also where the target is relative to your
heading, even if you are circling in a thermal).

In the US, the biggest risk to most glider pilots are not other gliders,
but GA aircraft. The MITRE box will give you the same advantages in
this environment as a PCAS box will, with more accuracy and the bonus
that you will be visible on ATC Radar without having a separate
transponder. FLARM will not do any of that (in the US).

Another note: FLARM and ADS-B units are not a cure alls for collision
avoidance in competition flying. The accuracy of the GPS fixes and the
update rates (even for units meeting the FAA's latest approved specs)
are not high enough to provide collision warnings for gliders that are
sharing a thermal in a gagle. These units are good for warning you that
you are near another aircraft, and can show you where that aircraft is,
but when you are sharing a thermal with another glider at or near your
altitude, you absolutely need to rely on your eyeballs and keep the
other glider in sight at all times.

--
Mike Schumann

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:42:48 -0400, Mike Schumann
wrote:


Hi Mike,

The accuracy of the GPS fixes and the
update rates (even for units meeting the FAA's latest approved specs)
are not high enough to provide collision warnings for gliders that are
sharing a thermal in a gagle.

Well... based upon some years of experience with FLARM and gaggles I
have to disagree. Contrary to common believe GPS precision is
completely adequate to provide collision warnings immediately after
the heading change of a glider.

These units are good for warning you that
you are near another aircraft, and can show you where that aircraft is,
but when you are sharing a thermal with another glider at or near your
altitude, you absolutely need to rely on your eyeballs and keep the
other glider in sight at all times.

True - but, believe it or not, FLARM detects pretty reliably if the
glider in your vicinity is a danger or not.
You can turn with a glider at the same altitude without getting a
warning - but as soon as one of you changes its circle, creating a
collision hazard, FLARM gives you a warning. Works really well.



As already mentioned: FLARM won't solve all the problems... but some
of them.
However, I'm still puzzled, regarding incidents like the one that
started this thread, why people are so reluctant to get such a device
now and decide to wait for the "final solution" for decades.
Lots of pretty drawings and concepts out there... but do you really
believe that this mythical US anti-collision-device will ever turn
into halfways affordable hardware? I doubt it. The certification
process alone is going to make it really, really expensive.

To me this sounds as if all you guys were refusing to fly with a
parachute now because some company advertized 100% reliable zero-zero
ejection seats for gliders in 2030.


I don't care... I don't fly on your side of the pond.

But I have the impression that you need a sponsor (SSA?) to get enough
FLARMS on loan to equip one or two competitions - I dare to predict
that after two weeks 100% of the participating pilots are going to buy
one.


Cheers
Andreas

But I have the impression that you need a sponsor (SSA?) to get enough
FLARMS on loan to equip one or two competitions - I dare to predict
that after two weeks 100% of the participating pilots are going to buy
one.

Cheers
Andreas

Andreas

I respectufully have to disagree with you on this :)

Getting 100% of the folks from the US to agree on anything is an
impossibility, I know, I am one of those folks. Look at the topic
post! They can't even agreee on the "contest flight is scored from
point of collision" concept. They are still arguing about radios in
sailplanes.....

Bob

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:25:25 -0700 (PDT), Bob
wrote:


I respectufully have to disagree with you on this :)


Ah Bob,

I stand corrected.

Cheers
Andreas

I would be most interested in what the other competitors thought of
the accident.

I'm sure the competitors are split down the middle just like on the
forum.

However, they will also be able to relate to 'pushing the limits' in
order to win.

Perhaps to us on the ground it seems irresponsible to continue on task
but isn't every glider
flight pushing some kind of personal comfort level or limit?

A top notch competitor would have a much higher limit than us mere
mortals, so flying
a potentially damaged glider on task, over uninhabited desert, wearing
a good parachute
and perhaps with a SPOT PLB attached does not seem like such a big
deal.

The only contentious issue would be thermalling with some others where
your damaged glider
could create a risk to the other competitors that they may not be
aware of and therefore can not
mitigate the risk.

In the end it is up to the pilot to make the call and if you decide
all systems are go based on the information at hand,
who has the right to argue with you?

Life is all about choosing your risks carefully, mitigating where
possible and accepting the risk where the reward meets our goals and
dreams.

We all have the right to make those decisions for ourselves.

"Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.
The fearful are caught as often as the bold."
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. "
"I Refuse To Tiptoe Through Life, Only To Arrive Safely At Death's
Door"
Helen Keller

On Jun 22, 4:17*pm, jb92563 wrote:
I would be most interested in what the other competitors thought of
the accident.

I'm sure the competitors are split down the middle just like on the
forum.

However, they will also be able to relate to 'pushing the limits' in
order to win.

Perhaps to us on the ground it seems irresponsible to continue on task
but isn't every glider
flight pushing some kind of personal comfort level or limit?

A top notch competitor would have a much higher limit than us mere
mortals, so flying
a potentially damaged glider on task, over uninhabited desert, wearing
a good parachute
and perhaps with a SPOT PLB attached does not seem like such a big
deal.

The only contentious issue would be thermalling with some others where
your damaged glider
could create a risk to the other competitors that they may not be
aware of and therefore can not
mitigate the risk.

In the end it is up to the pilot to make the call and if you decide
all systems are go based on the information at hand,
*who has the right to argue with you?

Life is all about choosing your risks carefully, mitigating where
possible and accepting the risk where the reward meets our goals and
dreams.

We all have the right to make those decisions for ourselves.


I think that you colonials should adopt the UK rule that you are only
scored to the point of a mid-air collision. That removes the incentive
to press on in a damaged glider, and hopefully encourages all pilots
to keep a better lookout, to avoid having a mid-air collision in the
first place.

Derek C

On 6/22/2010 8:17 AM, jb92563 wrote:
I would be most interested in what the other competitors thought of
the accident.

I'm sure the competitors are split down the middle just like on the
forum.

However, they will also be able to relate to 'pushing the limits' in
order to win.

Perhaps to us on the ground it seems irresponsible to continue on task
but isn't every glider
flight pushing some kind of personal comfort level or limit?

A top notch competitor would have a much higher limit than us mere
mortals, so flying
a potentially damaged glider on task, over uninhabited desert, wearing
a good parachute
and perhaps with a SPOT PLB attached does not seem like such a big
deal.

The only contentious issue would be thermalling with some others where
your damaged glider
could create a risk to the other competitors that they may not be
aware of and therefore can not
mitigate the risk.

In the end it is up to the pilot to make the call and if you decide
all systems are go based on the information at hand,
who has the right to argue with you?
I think the organizers, the SSA, and the other entrants have the right
to argue with you. You could potentially harm someone else (as you point
out), or require a rescue, causing a lot of problems and grief for
everyone, including generating bad publicity for the sport if you crash.
If a pilot wants to "make the call" as a free spirit, let him become a
free spirit first; i.e., remove himself from the contest.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz