An ADS-B In Question

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 12:28:44 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 8:20:51 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
But there's one minor point of contention in your reply, Darryl.* I
don't have Flarm.

/snip/
Dan, 5J

Everybody here is well aware you don't have PowerFLARM, you seem to have some objection to it that I've never been able to follow logically.

But you are playing around with an ADS-B SDR toy, and learning about ADS-B, and some of the discussion shows you are learning about the ground-based services that you misunderstood until now. And you'll get a good feel for the carriage and coverage in your area (although a better receiver may give you more range and reliable reception). And that is all seriously great, you will know way more than most pilots about ASD-B. I totally encourage anybody interested to get something like this and set it up and play with it (mostly on the ground) to learn about ADS-B. Preferably with a dual-link receiver.

But when it comes to using an actual "ADS-B" In device in an aircraft, for actual in-flight use, other folks need to be clear in their minds about what exactly "ADS-B" means, what they will/won't receive and why they require ADS-B Out to get full ADS-B services.

The simple answer as always remains USA glider pilots interested in traffic avoidance technology should get a PowerFLARM or transponder or both (choice based on where they fly/what traffic they fly most with). Ideally a Mode S transponder that supports 1090ES or in future, e.g. a Trig TT-22. Everything beyond that for now is more for geeks who want to play around with stuff. And lots of things are likely to change with possible loss of carriage exemptions or TABS regulation... including more affordable/better ADS-B solutions, so for most folks just wait vs. trying too far down the ADS-B path.... but install a transponder or PowerFLARM now as appropriate.

The reason people aren't lining up to buy PowerFlarms is because it is a half-baked Europe centric solution that doesn't take into account the unique ADS-B situation in the US. If PowerFlarm supported TIS-B and ADS-R, which all ADS-B receivers in the US should implement, this would be a different story.

As of two days ago, Dynon has started shipping their 2020 compliant GPS position source. This module costs $590 and is a good indicator of other products that soon will be available. I think that by Oshkosh you will see Trig introduce a similarly priced GPS source that works with the Trig 22 transponder. With that, an ADS-B receiver designed for the US market, and an smart phone app, and you'll have a decent state of the art collision avoidance system that will show you every ADS-B and transponder equipped aircraft in your area. That's the kind of functionality than can get people interested in pulling the trigger and making this kind of investment.

The US rules committee, and their puppet masters (otherwise known as the "SSA anti-technology oligarchy"), still won't allow smartphones to be "used" in our gliders during contests. Weather apps or even situational awareness beyond roughly 30 seconds with PowerFlarm (non-stealth/competition mode) is currently scheduled to become illegal.

Only recently did the USRC even allow the smartphone back in the cockpit at all, but only under strict orders never to use it! This even though most US pilots probably use a smartphone-based navigation app such as XC soar, iGlide or other similar. This whole thing is starting to get irritating.

They use words like "weak-assed." They use words like "tradition." They use phrases like "the spirit of soaring..."

This is the problem. Our anti-tech oligarchies "feelings" on the subject of new technology. This oligarchy are a relative few among us. Most of us dont care about weather, ADSB and smartphones. Some find it cool, and fun. Yet they drag us against the rising tide requiring tremendous effort to hold any ground.

I certainly have a good working knowledge of most of these new technologies.. I rarely if ever have a need to bother with them. Again, the typical max range is 3 miles and I have a solid antenna installation in my glider. I honestly believe that trying to fly a task based on cellular or ADSB weather is going to be a very rare occurrence. And it also has a safety benefit.. This seems to almost always be disregarded.

The problem IS NOT the natural progression of cost effective, relevant flight "data" and situational awareness & anti-collision technology. The problem is the feelings of a relative few.

And it's taking 10x the effort to prevent these technologies from entering the glider cockpit than will ever be gained from it. Particularly in the US contest environment.

In fact, if any of the oligarchs spent 1/4 the time studying ADSB as they do trying to promote stealth mode Flarm and demonize those who like PowerFlarm as it is, they would probably already be more proficient than most of us..

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 12:28:44 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 8:20:51 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
But there's one minor point of contention in your reply, Darryl.* I
don't have Flarm.

/snip/
Dan, 5J

Everybody here is well aware you don't have PowerFLARM, you seem to have some objection to it that I've never been able to follow logically.

But you are playing around with an ADS-B SDR toy, and learning about ADS-B, and some of the discussion shows you are learning about the ground-based services that you misunderstood until now. And you'll get a good feel for the carriage and coverage in your area (although a better receiver may give you more range and reliable reception). And that is all seriously great, you will know way more than most pilots about ASD-B. I totally encourage anybody interested to get something like this and set it up and play with it (mostly on the ground) to learn about ADS-B. Preferably with a dual-link receiver.

But when it comes to using an actual "ADS-B" In device in an aircraft, for actual in-flight use, other folks need to be clear in their minds about what exactly "ADS-B" means, what they will/won't receive and why they require ADS-B Out to get full ADS-B services.

The simple answer as always remains USA glider pilots interested in traffic avoidance technology should get a PowerFLARM or transponder or both (choice based on where they fly/what traffic they fly most with). Ideally a Mode S transponder that supports 1090ES or in future, e.g. a Trig TT-22. Everything beyond that for now is more for geeks who want to play around with stuff. And lots of things are likely to change with possible loss of carriage exemptions or TABS regulation... including more affordable/better ADS-B solutions, so for most folks just wait vs. trying too far down the ADS-B path... but install a transponder or PowerFLARM now as appropriate.

The reason people aren't lining up to buy PowerFlarms is because it is a half-baked Europe centric solution that doesn't take into account the unique ADS-B situation in the US. If PowerFlarm supported TIS-B and ADS-R, which all ADS-B receivers in the US should implement, this would be a different story.


Yes a half-baked solution that happens to include FLARM, designed for gliders, and totally dominates the worldwide glider traffic awareness market, for very good reasons. Too bad it is not absolutely perfect, how dare people adopt stuff that is not perfect. PowerFLARM, is just out there working in the real-world actually helping glider pilots actually avoid collisions.

Again I can't understand what bubble you fly in, but PowerFLARM is pretty well adopted in the USA gliding fleet for those follks who really care about glider-glider and glider-towplane scenarios. You apparently fly at some magical glider club where that is not enough of a concern to adopt PowerFLARM.. And where apparently nothing that is actually useful (PowerFLARM and/or transponders) is OK to adopt, and its better to keep dreaming about what could/will be...

Whatever mid-air collision risks you club does have it is apparently worth spending years going on and on about UAT silliness. But it is good to finally see you letting go of UAT. You don't actually own a glider do you? Have you ever owned a glider? What of all this stuff was it equipped with? Transponder? PCAS? ADS-B In? PowerFLARM? What exactly? With what traffic display? With your often-stated concerns about busy nearby GA traffic I hope your club gliders are transponder equipped. Are they? It is the Minnesota Soaring Club right? And it operates at the edge and presumably underneath busy Minneapolis Class B airspace right? With a victor airway running right over the top of the club airport.

And for those still playing along at home, no nothing that relies on TIS-B will "show you every ADS-B and transponder equipped aircraft". TIS-B requires both ADS-B ground station and more probably more of an issue SSR Radar coverage, which is uh not surprisingly lacking at many glider ports and smaller airports, especially near traffic pattern altitudes where traffic is converging, and where we have seen fatal mid-air collisions involving glider and towplanes within the last several years. One benefit of the PCAS coverage in PowerFLARM is you at least get some warning of nearby transponder equipped aircraft as long as their transponders are being interrogated, and in many locations TCAS and TCAD interrogators fill in that where ground based SSR will not reach the aircraft. Would TIS-B be a nice complement, yes sure, but wanting is not having. And in the real world we have to do what we can.

So while we are on this, what are the SSR and ADS-B minimum coverage altitudes over the Minnesota Soaring Club/Stanton Field? Got ADS-B ground service down to pattern altitude? How low exactly? SSR TIS-B service coverage to how low? Who knows you might be lucky, Stanton Field is roughly equidistant from the ADS-B towers at Minnesota International and Dodge City Airport, and ~30nm or so from the ASR at Minnesota International, or maybe there is TIS-B integration out of the ASR at Rochester International. I hope there have been lots of discussions between the club and the Minnesota TRACON folks about how good or bad primary radar coverage is near Stanton Field. But even more I'd hope you actually have flown a ADS-B system and tested out TIS-B coverage in the area. Still that does not mean other folks at other locations have useful TIS-B coverage, even if their gliders were properly equipped with ADS-B Out and In.

God I hope there is never a midair collision with a GA or larger aircraft involving a glider from your club not equipped with a transponder, obviously not for the risk to life and injury, but a liability lawyer will likely have a field-day going though your posts on DUC.

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 3:41:07 PM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:
The US rules committee, and their puppet masters (otherwise known as the "SSA anti-technology oligarchy"), still won't allow smartphones to be "used" in our gliders during contests. Weather apps or even situational awareness beyond roughly 30 seconds with PowerFlarm (non-stealth/competition mode) is currently scheduled to become illegal.

Only recently did the USRC even allow the smartphone back in the cockpit at all, but only under strict orders never to use it! This even though most US pilots probably use a smartphone-based navigation app such as XC soar, iGlide or other similar. This whole thing is starting to get irritating.

They use words like "weak-assed." They use words like "tradition." They use phrases like "the spirit of soaring..."

This is the problem. Our anti-tech oligarchies "feelings" on the subject of new technology. This oligarchy are a relative few among us. Most of us dont care about weather, ADSB and smartphones. Some find it cool, and fun. Yet they drag us against the rising tide requiring tremendous effort to hold any ground.

I certainly have a good working knowledge of most of these new technologies. I rarely if ever have a need to bother with them. Again, the typical max range is 3 miles and I have a solid antenna installation in my glider. I honestly believe that trying to fly a task based on cellular or ADSB weather is going to be a very rare occurrence. And it also has a safety benefit. This seems to almost always be disregarded.

The problem IS NOT the natural progression of cost effective, relevant flight "data" and situational awareness & anti-collision technology. The problem is the feelings of a relative few.

And it's taking 10x the effort to prevent these technologies from entering the glider cockpit than will ever be gained from it. Particularly in the US contest environment.

In fact, if any of the oligarchs spent 1/4 the time studying ADSB as they do trying to promote stealth mode Flarm and demonize those who like PowerFlarm as it is, they would probably already be more proficient than most of us.

OK, I've been trying to NOT add this (under some advisement of quite a few withing the US soaring community..... but here goes.....), some of the "cellphone issues" are NOT SSA RC OR US FAA issues, they are (yet another entity) FCC rules.
The FCC (which looks over COMMUNICATIONS, NOT flying) has an issue with "swamping CELL systems" when "at altitude". They are also sorta concerned (FAA more so) with corrupting other electronic devices with emitted radio waves..
"In general", it has been agreed that the chance (note: "CHANCE", regardless of the "Mythbusters testing"......) of an electronic device corrupting an AIRCRAFT device (notably navigation) is low, it's still there.
The FCC & the FAA has sorta agreed that high flying COMMERCIAL flights can use a picocell to connect travelers to a "landline", but they are out of range to swamp the ground based cell system.
What about glider pilots?
We are MORE LIKELY to be within range of multiple cell towers, thus the FCC concern.
BTW, the FCC (in the US) is a FEDERAL agency.
You can do your own search on why the FCC has issues with cell usage in flight.

Frankly, I sorta see an issue with the SSA RC ALLOWING a cellphone within reach of a pilot during as flight.
Yes, you can use "airplane mode" and use your "smartphone" as a display, but a tracking program/app seems to go against what the FCC wants. You run the risk of creating a communications issue (on the ground) that concerns the FCC.

Will you get caught? Who the frig knows.

Do I want to get caught by a federal agency, not really.

So....... Sean F & others, "look beyond the box" (seems to be a favorite comment towards "luddites"), see if you are still safe and within the federal rules.

Don't like the federal rules (in the US), then go raise "heck" with your government rep's.

I personally think the SSA RC has opened the SSA, contest management & pilots to yet another potential "OMG" if they get caught.
Based on probability, getting caught violating a FCC rule is way more likely than having a midair because of a degradation of what Flarm (in whatever flavor) does.

Not "stirring the pot", just alerting BOTH sides on other things to consider....

BTW, "Have a nice day"...... ;-)

PS, yes, the FCC allows you (the PIC) to determine if using a cellphone creates another hazard in VFR flight..... sorta opens the door to litigation when someone is dead..... just to keep this sorta honest and limit the, "But I found this, so I'm correct" stuff.....

BTW, "Have a nice day"...... ;-) again....

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:57:00 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 12:28:44 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 8:20:51 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
But there's one minor point of contention in your reply, Darryl.* I
don't have Flarm.

/snip/
Dan, 5J

Everybody here is well aware you don't have PowerFLARM, you seem to have some objection to it that I've never been able to follow logically.

But you are playing around with an ADS-B SDR toy, and learning about ADS-B, and some of the discussion shows you are learning about the ground-based services that you misunderstood until now. And you'll get a good feel for the carriage and coverage in your area (although a better receiver may give you more range and reliable reception). And that is all seriously great, you will know way more than most pilots about ASD-B. I totally encourage anybody interested to get something like this and set it up and play with it (mostly on the ground) to learn about ADS-B. Preferably with a dual-link receiver.

But when it comes to using an actual "ADS-B" In device in an aircraft, for actual in-flight use, other folks need to be clear in their minds about what exactly "ADS-B" means, what they will/won't receive and why they require ADS-B Out to get full ADS-B services.

The simple answer as always remains USA glider pilots interested in traffic avoidance technology should get a PowerFLARM or transponder or both (choice based on where they fly/what traffic they fly most with). Ideally a Mode S transponder that supports 1090ES or in future, e.g. a Trig TT-22. Everything beyond that for now is more for geeks who want to play around with stuff. And lots of things are likely to change with possible loss of carriage exemptions or TABS regulation... including more affordable/better ADS-B solutions, so for most folks just wait vs. trying too far down the ADS-B path... but install a transponder or PowerFLARM now as appropriate.

The reason people aren't lining up to buy PowerFlarms is because it is a half-baked Europe centric solution that doesn't take into account the unique ADS-B situation in the US. If PowerFlarm supported TIS-B and ADS-R, which all ADS-B receivers in the US should implement, this would be a different story.


Yes a half-baked solution that happens to include FLARM, designed for gliders, and totally dominates the worldwide glider traffic awareness market, for very good reasons. Too bad it is not absolutely perfect, how dare people adopt stuff that is not perfect. PowerFLARM, is just out there working in the real-world actually helping glider pilots actually avoid collisions.

Again I can't understand what bubble you fly in, but PowerFLARM is pretty well adopted in the USA gliding fleet for those follks who really care about glider-glider and glider-towplane scenarios. You apparently fly at some magical glider club where that is not enough of a concern to adopt PowerFLARM. And where apparently nothing that is actually useful (PowerFLARM and/or transponders) is OK to adopt, and its better to keep dreaming about what could/will be...

Whatever mid-air collision risks you club does have it is apparently worth spending years going on and on about UAT silliness. But it is good to finally see you letting go of UAT. You don't actually own a glider do you? Have you ever owned a glider? What of all this stuff was it equipped with? Transponder? PCAS? ADS-B In? PowerFLARM? What exactly? With what traffic display? With your often-stated concerns about busy nearby GA traffic I hope your club gliders are transponder equipped. Are they? It is the Minnesota Soaring Club right? And it operates at the edge and presumably underneath busy Minneapolis Class B airspace right? With a victor airway running right over the top of the club airport.

And for those still playing along at home, no nothing that relies on TIS-B will "show you every ADS-B and transponder equipped aircraft". TIS-B requires both ADS-B ground station and more probably more of an issue SSR Radar coverage, which is uh not surprisingly lacking at many glider ports and smaller airports, especially near traffic pattern altitudes where traffic is converging, and where we have seen fatal mid-air collisions involving glider and towplanes within the last several years. One benefit of the PCAS coverage in PowerFLARM is you at least get some warning of nearby transponder equipped aircraft as long as their transponders are being interrogated, and in many locations TCAS and TCAD interrogators fill in that where ground based SSR will not reach the aircraft. Would TIS-B be a nice complement, yes sure, but wanting is not having. And in the real world we have to do what we can.

So while we are on this, what are the SSR and ADS-B minimum coverage altitudes over the Minnesota Soaring Club/Stanton Field? Got ADS-B ground service down to pattern altitude? How low exactly? SSR TIS-B service coverage to how low? Who knows you might be lucky, Stanton Field is roughly equidistant from the ADS-B towers at Minnesota International and Dodge City Airport, and ~30nm or so from the ASR at Minnesota International, or maybe there is TIS-B integration out of the ASR at Rochester International. I hope there have been lots of discussions between the club and the Minnesota TRACON folks about how good or bad primary radar coverage is near Stanton Field. But even more I'd hope you actually have flown a ADS-B system and tested out TIS-B coverage in the area. Still that does not mean other folks at other locations have useful TIS-B coverage, even if their gliders were properly equipped with ADS-B Out and In.

God I hope there is never a midair collision with a GA or larger aircraft involving a glider from your club not equipped with a transponder, obviously not for the risk to life and injury, but a liability lawyer will likely have a field-day going though your posts on DUC.

I have a brand new Phoenix Motorglider that is currently in the shop getting equipped with a full blown Dynon Skyview panel including ADS-B IN, and a fully 2020 compliant 1090ES ADS-B OUT system (including a Mode S transponder). Unfortunately, the ADS-B IN is not dual frequency (UAT only), but as you rightfully point out, nothing is perfect. Hopefully Dynon will fix this in the future.

It will be interesting to see how low the ADS-B ground station coverage is at Stanton. I expect to have excellent coverage at pattern altitude, as on a clear day, we can easily see the MSP airport. I will report back in the spring when I take the Phoenix back to MN.

This is obviously not a good setup for a typical glider. To make it work in the Phoenix, I am adding an extra high capacity battery so I can leave all of this on when the motor is off.

However, ADS-B is the obvious long term solution for all aircraft in the US, including gliders. FLARM may be interesting for the minority of glider pilots who are flying in contests at remote locations where a large percentage of gliders are similarly equipped and the concentration of GA and commercial aircraft is low. Those of us flying near large metro areas, need systems that support the full spectrum of air traffic, not a glider only niche.

Buying avionics is a long term investment for most pilots. When you make this kind of investment, you are not only looking at the immediate functionality of the equipment, but also at the reputation and longer term vision of the equipment supplier. Everything you buy is going to have quirks and limitations that are going to be irritating. The big question is what is the attitude of the manufacturer? Do they recognize these limitations and are they interested in correcting these in future versions of the product and/or firmware, or do they have their head in the sand and ignore the issues?

In the case of FLARM, there is absolutely no vision that incorporates the realities of the US ADS-B environment. Adding ADS-R and TIS-B support to PowerFlarm should be possible with a firmware upgrade to the existing hardware, which would resolve 90% of the beefs that people have with this system. None of the PowerFlarm people have ever even acknowledged that this would be a desirable feature in their product. All we ever hear about is how stupid the US for having UAT and how the FAA should scrap their entire architecture and do things the way the rest of the world does them.

Do you really want to spend your money investing in equipment from a company with this kind of attitude?

OK, I've been trying to NOT add this (under some advisement of quite a few withing the US soaring community..... but here goes.....), some of the "cellphone issues" are NOT SSA RC OR US FAA issues, they are (yet another entity) FCC rules.
The FCC (which presides over COMMUNICATIONS, NOT flying) has an issue with "swamping CELL systems" when "at altitude". They are also sorta concerned (FAA more so) with corrupting other electronic devices with emitted radio waves.
"In general", it has been agreed that the chance (note: "CHANCE", regardless of the "Mythbusters testing"......) of an electronic device corrupting an AIRCRAFT device (notably navigation) is low, it's still there.
The FCC & the FAA has sorta agreed that high flying COMMERCIAL flights can use a picocell to connect travelers to a "landline", but they are out of range to swamp the ground based cell system.
What about glider pilots?
We are MORE LIKELY to be within range of multiple cell towers, thus the FCC concern.
BTW, the FCC (in the US) is a FEDERAL agency.
You can do your own search on why the FCC has issues with cell usage in flight.

Frankly, I sorta see a potential legal issue with the SSA RC ALLOWING a cellphone within reach of a pilot during as flight.
Yes, you can use "airplane mode" and use your "smartphone" as a display, but a tracking program/app seems to go against what the FCC wants (since it's using the cell towers). You run the risk of creating a communications issue (on the ground) that concerns the FCC.

Will you get caught? Who knows.

Do I want to get caught by a federal agency, not really.

So....... Sean F & others, "look beyond the box" (seems to be a favorite comment of some towards "luddites"), see if you are still safe and within the federal rules.

Don't like the federal rules (in the US), then go raise "heck" with your government rep's.

I personally think the SSA RC may have opened the SSA, contest management & pilots to yet another potential "OMG" if they get caught.
Based on probability, getting caught violating a FCC rule is way more likely than having a midair because of a degradation of what Flarm (in whatever flavor) does.

It has been proven that usiung a cellphone (talk or text) raises the chance of an accident (due to distraction) to about the same level as drunk driving. Do we really want to go there?
True, you're probably NOT talking or texting in flight, but if you can do it, some will regardless of the rules.

Not "stirring the pot", just alerting BOTH sides on other things to consider....

BTW, "Have a nice day"...... ;-)

PS, yes, the FCC allows you (the PIC) to determine if using a cellphone creates another hazard in VFR flight..... sorta opens the door to litigation when someone is injured or worse..... just to keep this sorta honest and limit the, "But I found this, so I'm correct" stuff.....

Not a good position for any RC to be in, many things to consider as it is, I don't relish the work they have to do now or down the road.

I support them and their decisions.

BTW, "Have a nice day"...... ;-) again....

That is why I never stop looking outside. Even the most complex
electronic system can hiccup now and then and in the case of collision
avoidance it could happen at the worst time. Keep your head out! (Pun
intended)

As for split screen, what I've so far discovered is that the Samsung G4
supports split screen. The Nexus does not unless I want to root the
device and install a custom ROM. I'm not sure I'm ready to try that
yet. Switching back and forth is not so simple with the Nexus as, when
running XCSoar, the electronic "buttons" of the Android are not
available. To switch, I have to touch the power button twice to get
back to the home screen, then the bottom right electronic button, then
select the app I want to run. Better to have two devices (or a device
which supports split screen), or just not mess with such toys in flight.

On 1/15/2016 9:45 AM, xcnick wrote:
Thanks for sharing Dan.

I have the two programs running on a Galaxy S4 and neither AVare or xcsoar appear to support split screen.

It is just one question. No, or buy this and do this. So far switching back and forth is all I can do.

As far as opinions go I do agree that seeing only some traffic and thinking you are seeing it all is very dangerous.

--
Dan, 5J

On 1/15/2016 6:48 PM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
some of the "cellphone issues" are NOT SSA RC OR US FAA issues, they are (yet another entity) FCC rules.

Quote chapter and verse of the FCC rule(s) you are referencing.

Vaughn

Ya know, I was thinking about PF and XCSoar just a while ago and have a
few questions. I was going to start another thread but, what the heck,
maybe I can win the award (money and chicks) for longest thread on
RAS... :-D

I was wondering if, feeding XCSoar from PowerFlarm, and an alert arises,
does XCSoar automatically zoom to the correct scale to display the
threat? What if you're in a thermal with very high zoom factor, say 1
km, and a high energy glider is approaching. You're climbing, he's
descending and below you, and may simply pass through your thermal on
his way to non-leeching glory. But what if he pulls up? Now there's an
immediate threat alert (a pop-up) since your zoom level did not allow
you to see him coming. Of course you were looking outside and saw him
coming a reasonable distance away, but he was looking inside and might
be unaware of your presence.

Back to the ADS-B In thread. I enjoy seeing other traffic but it's not
very satisfying down low since I know I don't have a complete picture.
I'll still need the PCAS to see XPonder equipped, non-ADS-B Out aircraft
down low but, at the altitudes we usually fly out west, I don't think
there's much, if any, threat from non XPonder equipped aircraft. Most
GA aircraft just can't get that high. Oh yeah, there are still totally
unequipped aircraft flying in the Class E or G...

On 1/15/2016 10:01 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
Dan, now you just have to figure out how to get the traffic data from your MRX into XCsoar!

(Or cheat and get a PF�😄)

Good luck, let us know how it works!

Kirk
66

--
Dan, 5J

'Everybody here is well aware you don't have PowerFLARM, you seem to have some objection to it that I've never been able to follow logically.'


My only reason not to have Flarm is that, for _/my flying/_ in the area
/_where I fly_/ I don't feel that it provides me with anything more than
my PCAS already does. Simple as that. I don't understand why folks
can't comprehend that.

I only made the referred to statement because you referred to feeding
XCSoar with Flarm when I was trying to find a way to feed XCSoar via
this toy ADS-B In device. I won't be carrying it in my single seater
come the soaring season.

/__/
On 1/15/2016 10:28 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 8:20:51 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
But there's one minor point of contention in your reply, Darryl. I
don't have Flarm.

/snip/
Dan, 5J
Everybody here is well aware you don't have PowerFLARM, you seem to have some objection to it that I've never been able to follow logically.

But you are playing around with an ADS-B SDR toy, and learning about ADS-B, and some of the discussion shows you are learning about the ground-based services that you misunderstood until now. And you'll get a good feel for the carriage and coverage in your area (although a better receiver may give you more range and reliable reception). And that is all seriously great, you will know way more than most pilots about ASD-B. I totally encourage anybody interested to get something like this and set it up and play with it (mostly on the ground) to learn about ADS-B. Preferably with a dual-link receiver.

But when it comes to using an actual "ADS-B" In device in an aircraft, for actual in-flight use, other folks need to be clear in their minds about what exactly "ADS-B" means, what they will/won't receive and why they require ADS-B Out to get full ADS-B services.

The simple answer as always remains USA glider pilots interested in traffic avoidance technology should get a PowerFLARM or transponder or both (choice based on where they fly/what traffic they fly most with). Ideally a Mode S transponder that supports 1090ES or in future, e.g. a Trig TT-22. Everything beyond that for now is more for geeks who want to play around with stuff. And lots of things are likely to change with possible loss of carriage exemptions or TABS regulation... including more affordable/better ADS-B solutions, so for most folks just wait vs. trying too far down the ADS-B path... but install a transponder or PowerFLARM now as appropriate.



--
Dan, 5J