A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SSA responds to ANPRM



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old August 18th 15, 12:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default SSA responds to ANPRM


Using product specs I get you are using are drawing about 1A. 2.2 amps when transmitting. What when showing 12.4 amps what does your voltage drop to while transmitting, if not using a low power radio, you may not be transmitting anything readable, although I suspect if the voltage dropped to0 low the LIFEPO4 circuitry would just be shutting everything down. Could be rather annoying to have everything reset when you push the transmit button.

I believe the 15AH battery is the larger size battery similar in size the a 12Ah Lead Acid. Some gliders it is difficult to mount this size of battery.

Brian


Hi Brian,
Yes, it is a direct replacement for the 12AH lead battery. I have the smaller standard size, also in LiFePO4 as a back-up battery. I had readable radio transmissions upon landing. Nothing cut out. The battery information says it has a protection circuit to turn it off when it is depleted. The battery output is 14.2 volts when fresh off the charger.
It has been a very happy experience using these new batteries. And, they are very light.
  #52  
Old August 18th 15, 02:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Renny[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 241
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 10:45:15 AM UTC-6, George Haeh wrote:
Two Jet - Cessna midairs, likely with
everybody squawking, makes me
seriously sceptical that simply having
everybody squawking solves the problem.

Today's the last day until midnight EST to
comment.


Well, the deadline has passed and there were 218 responses posted. There were some excellent responses from many individuals and the responses included comments from the: SSA, EAA and AOPA. Now, does anyone know how long it takes before we learn of any FAA decision? Thanks!
  #53  
Old August 18th 15, 03:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

Both had transponders and they were both under positive control of the tower. I have never been a supporter of the big sky theory, too many close calls and one actual for me.

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 7:03:19 AM UTC-7, David Kinsell wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:37:23 +0000, George Haeh wrote:

So far there's at least 145 responses -
plus others pending review. Keep 'em coming!

http://www.regulations.gov/#!DocketB...PS;D=FAA-2015-
2147


  #54  
Old August 18th 15, 04:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andrew Serota
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

I think there are two arguments going on here, each not in direct conflict with the other.

I think it's reasonable to claim that many feel ADS-B, PF, and Mode C Transponders (or any forthcoming technology) makes gliders more visible to traffic who would otherwise not 'see and avoid' a glider. I have not read many (if any) claims that adding any of the aforementioned instrumentation would make soaring unsafe.

Instead, counterpoints claim that 'see and avoid' is 'adequate' (post mid-air) or that the consequences of mandating any instrumentation is too costly for someone to continue soaring, especially for gliders with a low hull value or gliders without a native electrical system, do not directly respond to the discussion prompting the proposed mandate of the aforementioned equipment. Since discussions about past practice and the costly consequences of a mandate are not direct responses about the ANPRM, I anticipate the FAA will not give much, if any, weight to those responses.

I think a constructive discussion starts with the question, how can a glider's participation in the NAS be safer for everyone? I think we would all be surprised if we thought the FAA would publish this ANPRM and return with an answer of "nothing." For that reason, I feel that the SSA's response is short sighted and does not help us contribute to the FAA's process of rulemaking.

I commented directly on the ANPRM because I believe that the FAA will require something. That something ought to be standards of transmitted information, rather than a particular system, so that the wonderful minds in our community (or at Google) could innovate a balanced solution that does not cost very much, has low electrical draw from a battery, and allows us to be visible to fast moving traffic.

I empathize with several comments about the cost of adding equipment to a fleet of 2-33's. My PW-2 GAPA barely has enough instrumentation (and cockpit) to inform me that my vertical speed is 10kts down. But I fly in the congested northeast, and if I can avoid a close encounter on my way down by making it easier for some other pilot to see me, then I feel it is my responsibility to do so.

Andrew Serota

  #55  
Old August 18th 15, 05:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

Ah there are already very clear technical standards here, Mode C and S transponders, ADS-B, TCAS, and TABS. (FLARM does not really enter into it from a broader Aviation industry perspective... Especially because it is not compatible with TCAS or SSR). What the ANPR is asking about is wether some of these technologies should be mandated or not. Saying there needs to be more technology developed really does not seem helpful... And seems to be replying less to the ANPRM than you are criticising others for. Costs and installation issues with transponders or TABS are serious possible issues for *some* glider owners and are very much something the FAA expects in these responses.. and those folks worried about being affected by that should respond with supporting material (i personally hold little sympathy for folks flying near busy airspace, they should have transponders installed long ago--and those who have not may be helping force this whole thing other other owners. The cost issue, at least to me, is more about how many other gliders not near busy airspace will get caught up in a carriage mandate).

Any system needs to be as compatible as possible with what is in broad use today, and specifically this ANPRM is driven by the question from the NTSB about getting gliders visible to TCAS... Which needs a Mode C, Mode S transponder or TABS. And the FAA already has a massive SSR and ADS-B surveillance infrasructure, so any system better be compatible with that. There *is* a new standard/technology proposal, one developed with input/participation folks including in the UAV space... and that is TABS. Now the big questions there are what the carriage and use regulations for TABS devices might look like, and how many vendors will make those products and what they will be priced at (a chicken and egg problem). Nothing happens in broad aviation surveillance, collision avoidance, etc. without standards developed by RTCA and then adopted via TSO by the FAA and then actual install and use regulations. The road to any innovation there are ~decade long efforts by participants who want to contribute to RTCA standards, and right now we have more of those standards than we need, the practical question, and what the ANPRM is asking, are really which ones of these technologies gues, if any, should be mandated for gliders. Vendors are free within those standards to use new technology as much as they can (and for example modern FPGAs have helped lower transponder costs). We really do not need yet more standards/technology options.
  #56  
Old August 18th 15, 06:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

Shouldn't hang and paragliders also have ADSB? ;-)

If a toy helicopter needs too...

FAA?
  #57  
Old August 18th 15, 07:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Leonard[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:53:16 AM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
The cost issue, at least to me, is more about how many other gliders not near busy airspace will get caught up in a carriage mandate.


Completely agree, says the man with lots of gliders showing up to his name on the FAA registry. All of which, when flown from my home gliderport, have the potential to get over 10,000 MSL over the field with the closest Class C airspace 15 or more miles away. And it is not particularly busy there.

Steve Leonard
  #58  
Old August 18th 15, 08:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
JS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,384
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

Steve, this brings us back an old question:
Can one of the required devices be swapped back and forth between aircraft?
Something like one Trig TXP with separate wiring harnesses, mounting trays and display heads in each glider. Or whatever the TABS devices end up being..
The TXP would likely require calibration every two years in each aircraft.
Does anyone make a transponder out of velcro?
Jim


On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:14:50 AM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:53:16 AM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
The cost issue, at least to me, is more about how many other gliders not near busy airspace will get caught up in a carriage mandate.


Completely agree, says the man with lots of gliders showing up to his name on the FAA registry. All of which, when flown from my home gliderport, have the potential to get over 10,000 MSL over the field with the closest Class C airspace 15 or more miles away. And it is not particularly busy there.

Steve Leonard


  #59  
Old August 18th 15, 09:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

JS wrote:
Steve, this brings us back an old question:
Can one of the required devices be swapped back and forth between aircraft?
Something like one Trig TXP with separate wiring harnesses, mounting
trays and display heads in each glider. Or whatever the TABS devices end up being.
The TXP would likely require calibration every two years in each aircraft.
Does anyone make a transponder out of velcro?
Jim


That is one of the questions. The TABS TSO does not exclude that, and some
of the thought possibility that lead to TABS were certainly for small
devices. The question will be what the install/carriage regulations will
look like. There might be concern with reliability of making connections to
antennas and static pressure sensors.... my expectation is this is all too
hard and likely won't be supported by install regulations but who knows. I
am more hoping that any TABS install regulations if they end up existing at
all are simple enough to allow low-cost fixed installs in certified
gliders. Maybe as easy as a Transponder today, but they have to be much
much easier than early ADS-B installs (which required STCs).
  #60  
Old August 19th 15, 04:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
George Haeh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 167
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

I have been slogging through the some
220 responses and came across a
response from the NTSB:

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStrea
mer?documentId=FAA-2015-2147-
0137&attachmentNumber=1&disposition
=attachment&contentType=pdf

"our main concern was to ensure that
gliders are detectable by an aircraft
equipped with a traffic alert and collision
avoidance system (TCAS)"

Gliders are already kept well away from
air carriers by Class B and C.

That makes the primary beneficiaries of
the ANPRM private jet owners able to
afford TCAS - $30K to $200K before
installation.

As long as they're transmitting ADS-B,
anybody with PowerFLARM knows
exactly where they are from several miles
away and can avoid.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SSA's planned response to ANPRM Transponders, etc [email protected] Soaring 0 July 11th 15 05:01 AM
ANPRM - removal of transponder exception for gliders [email protected] Soaring 29 June 17th 15 11:00 PM
Sheriff Responds to AOPA Jp Stewart Soaring 27 January 29th 13 05:49 PM
USS Liberty Survivor Phil Tourney responds to Cindy McCain NOMOREWARS_FORISRAEL Naval Aviation 0 September 24th 11 11:22 AM
AS responds to the latest Ventus 2cxa KevinFinke Soaring 3 March 18th 09 04:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.