Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios

Feds Call for Alerts on All Air Gliders
By Scott Sonner, AP

Leaders of the Soaring Society of America, based in Hobbs, N.M.,
advocate....snip ....implementing technology already used in some
parts of Europe that provides low-cost, real-time information to
pilots....

I came across this technology on the web when I was researching the recent
ADS-B nprm. Looks like there's already some portable/handheld ADS-B type
equipment in use in Europe for the soaring community:

http://www.rf-developments.com/shop/...d&productId=26

http://www.rf-developments.com/shop/...d&productId=33

All based on some SSA technology called FLARM:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLARM

Maybe this will be a low cost answer to spamcans being forced into the ADS-B
regs.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:55:53 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..
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).


Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.

Not so.


So if you see a glider in you path while piloting a powered aircraft,
but its pilot doesn't see you, you don't give it the right of way?

I said no such thing. Kindly go back and read what I wrote.

Sorry, but I think you and I are done with this conversation.

Vaughn

On Apr 28, 6:55*am, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

...

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).

Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.

* *Not so.

* *If the other plane does not see you, it can't be expected/trusted to behave
according to the ROW regulations, so you can't know what it is going to do..
There is usually little that you can do to get the other pilot's attention (you
have no horn in an aircraft). *So it is up to the pilot that DOES see the other
to do whatever it takes to avoid a collision...regulations be dammed.

In that situation, I usually manuver in such a way that I never lose sight of
the other aircraft. *If I happen to be driving a glider, my manuvering options
are limited to left, right, and down. *I probably can't climb, and I certainly
can't outrun an oncoming airplane.

To give way you must turn to the right. You can certainly dive fast
and turn as well if you really wan't to generate a big separation. But
remember he won't see you as easily if you go below him.. Radio calls?

Cheers

In rec.aviation.soaring Larry Dighera wrote:
So if you see a glider in you path while piloting a powered aircraft,
but its pilot doesn't see you, you don't give it the right of way?

In my opinion, right of way is essentially useless when flying.

There are three relevant situations:

- You are on a collision course with another aircraft. You have the ROW.
- You are on a collision course with another aircraft. He has the ROW.
- You are on a collision course with another aircraft. Neither has the
ROW.

In all three situations the only reasonable thing to is the same: maneuver
to avoid by any means necessary.

Thus your inference is essentially backwards. Not only should the power
plane get out of the way of the glider, but the glider should get out of
the way of the power plane.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

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 16:01:31 GMT, "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.

Having flown into glider areas without either I or ATC seeing the
ships, I agree.

As well as I watch, gliders are small, sleek, sometimes fast, and very
hard to see. Every incremental improvement in spotting them
electronically is a good thing.

I don't want to hit a glider, and I haven't met a glider guider who
wants me to hit him or her. Talk about a lose-lose!

The "Big Sky" theory doesn't work so well here in busy Northeastern US
airspace.

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.

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 28, 9:32*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
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 transponderhttp://ieeexplore..ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=722404&is...



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.

Maybe, but I've seen a controller radar screen with computer-generated
vectors on it with no ID boxes. I assume they were planes with no
transponder on?

Cheers

Larry Dighera wrote:
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
....
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.

Heh - it had a transponder. Now if the FAA is willing to foot the bill
for developing a battery that can actually last... they may as well
write regulations dictating that all aircraft have engines.

"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.

Idiots are in charge that don't understand the concept of anecdotal
evidence. It isn't hard to locate mid-air collisions wherein both
aircraft HAD operating transponders. And there are cases where ATC
and/or flight following was an active element:

154 fatalities in this famous one:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...02X01435&key=1

5 fatalities, transponders irrelevant:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...25X00951&key=2

1 fatality, and an unreliable transponder anyway:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X09562&key=1

2 fatalities, and inadequate ATC advisory:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X07187&key=1

1 fatality, transponders in use and pilot who died had requested flight
following and been assigned a transponder code, for all the good it did:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...06X01819&key=2

Of the 60 near mid-air collisions from 1988 to 2007

Boggle - how to lie wih statistics. Search the NTSB database for
"glider" and "midair" back to 1962 and you'll get only 7 results. Only 3
of the 7 resulted in fatalities (but 9 fatalities in all).

Inverted or misguided safety priorities.