Parowan midair?

On 6/21/2010 2:14 PM, Cats wrote:
On Jun 21, 3:27 pm, Mike
wrote:
snip

FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped.

So surely is ADS-B?

If you have an ADS-B transceiver you will see all ADS-B equipped
aircraft and all Mode C/S transponder equipped aircraft if you are
within range of an ADS-B ground station.

Given the Nextgen strategy, over the next 10+ years, most US based
aircraft will eventually be equipped with ADS-B.

--
Mike Schumann

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.

--
Mike Schumann

On 6/21/2010 11:18 AM, Wayne Paul wrote:

"Mike wrote in message ...
On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:

... Snip ...


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

Just courious, what do you consider "Low Cost." Us guys with old inexpensive sailplanes would like to know.

Wayne


There is no inherent reason that ADS-B UAT transceivers using consumer
grade GPS and RF components can't be built for the same general price
point as FLARM units. The only difference in the hardware is frequency
and transmit power.

FLARM units are currently available in Europe for about $1,000. With a
potential US market that is 10x larger, there should be no reason you
can't hit this price point. There are only two things that can stop this:

1. Inability to use consumer grade components.
2. Product liability insurance costs.

If ADS-B transceivers were available at this price point, we would see
very widespread voluntary deployment, just like in Europe, where most
gliders are FLARM equipped.

--
Mike Schumann

On Jun 21, 3:02*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:

...FLARM units are currently available in Europe for about $1,000. *With a
potential US market that is 10x larger...

Mike, can you please expound on that remark?

My understanding is that the US has typically accounted for about 15%
of the world market in sailplanes and soaring-related merchandise. Do
I misapprehend the size of the US soaring market, or do you include
powered aircraft in your 10x estimate?

Thanks, Bob K.

On 6/21/2010 6:32 PM, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Jun 21, 3:02 pm, Mike
wrote:

...FLARM units are currently available in Europe for about $1,000. With a
potential US market that is 10x larger...

Mike, can you please expound on that remark?

My understanding is that the US has typically accounted for about 15%
of the world market in sailplanes and soaring-related merchandise. Do
I misapprehend the size of the US soaring market, or do you include
powered aircraft in your 10x estimate?

Thanks, Bob K.

Low cost ADS-B transceivers are not just of interest to the soaring
community, but for all of GA. There are almost 150,000 GA aircraft in
the US. This dwarfs the glider fleet, both in the US and Europe.

--
Mike Schumann

On Jun 21, 10:47*am, "
wrote:
of getting a tin trophy. *Free will aside the worst thing for safety
would be rigid 'if-then' post collision rules. *If you can't handle a
little bit of the unknown perhaps soaring isn't the right sport for
you.

Explain why getting either zero or distance to point of collision
would be bad for safety.

As Mark so eloquently stated in an earlier comment, the pilots have
enough things to deal with already. Giving them the choice to
complete a task is just not a good idea. This isn't NASCAR, it's
SOARING. We already have rules in place to make an attempt to reduce
unsafe or questionable behavior, so why not add this?

-Tom

On Jun 21, 12:28*pm, Tony wrote:
On Jun 21, 2:10*pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

On Jun 21, 8:41*am, Bob 7U wrote:

I suppose the term 'low cost' is relative and depends upon whether you
compare it to the cost of your sailplane or your life.

Bob 7U

We have this exact same discussion on the rock climbing forums. The
corollary here is, how about all those $0.15 nuts and *bolts in your
sailplane? Isn't your life worth more than that? Why aren't you using
$100, or better yet $1000 nuts and bolts custom manufactured and
individually tested and certified to the most stringent certification
standards?

Thanks, Bob K.

not to mention trusting your life to some crazy guy who built a glider
in his garage...

If I'm not mistaken, Bob has two rented shop bays. Certainly this
will result in a far safer airplane than one being build in a garage.

On 6/21/2010 8:32 PM, Stephen! wrote:
Mike wrote in news:ByoSn.73380
:

Not only was this irresponsible, but it was most likely a violation of
the FARs:

49CFR õ 830.5 Immediate notification.

What is the FAA's definition of "immediate"?


I think 49CFR830.5 is pretty clear. Logic would say that you are OK if
you are delayed because you are dealing with the accident, helping
victims, etc. I suspect that delaying the notification because you were
busy being interviewed by a TV reporter would probably be frowned on. A
delay caused by your desire to finish a race would probably rank
significantly lower than that.

Not to say that you might be able to get around the reporting problem if
you had someone else make the call for you while you were otherwise
distracted. You'd still have to deal with the issue of whether your
actions were reckless.

--
Mike Schumann

What is the FAA's definition of "immediate"?

It's the NTSB's rule, it would need to be their definition.

Jim

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!

--
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