Collision Avoidance Systems

Last week, before the Minden midair, I reviewed Collision Avoidance
Systems with the intent of putting one in my transponder-less ASW-19. I
was interested in such a system because my glider club lies inside the
Mode C veil of PHL, because an active military air base is 5 miles
away, and because there are several airways that lie within several
miles of us. Here's the result of my research; I hope it might be of
help to others.

Zaon MRX - This was the one I bought. Pros - shows threat distance
and height; receives civilian signals A, C, S and 3/A, as well as
military signals X, Y and 2; alerts are visual and aural (high pitched
beeps); uses internal power (but can use aircraft power); is the
smallest system available; can be panel mounted with remote antenna.
Cons - does not show threat direction; doesn't output threats via
RS232 to PocketPC type devices. List price $499

Zaon XRX - This is the one I really liked. Pros - shows threat
direction as well as distance and height; receives civilian signals A,
C, S and 3/A, and also military signals X, Y and 2; alerts are visual
and aural (synthesized voice); outputs threats via RS232 to PocketPC
type devices. Cons - needs aircraft power; fairly large and tall, and
must be mounted on the glare shield. Supposedly Zaon will offer a panel
mount version with remote antenna in the future. List price $1795

Proxalert R5 - I rejected this one. Pros - shows threat distance
and height; shows squawk code of three threats (but threats combined if
same squawk); alerts are visual and aural (high pitched beeps); outputs
threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices; can be panel mounted with
remote antenna. Cons - Combines threats with same squawk code on same
line showing closest threat distance, and flip-flops threat altitude;
needs aircraft power; only receives civilian A, C and S signals; fairly
large and hangs over glare shield lip. I also was turned off by the web
site, when I see poor English in sales literature I can't help but
wonder if the engineering was also done carelessly. List price $795

Monroy ADT-300 - I rejected this one. Pros - shows threat distance
and height (but only if you have an altitude encoding transponder);
alerts are visual and aural (synthesized voice); second smallest
available; can be panel mounted with remote antenna. Cons - Needs
altitude encoding transponder to show threat height; needs aircraft
power; only receives civilian A, C and S signals; doesn't output
threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices. List price $795

Please note that this list is biased towards my own needs, in a quiet
glider with no transponder, operating with civilian and military
aircraft. You might have different requirements, so do check out the
manufacturer's sites for fuller specs and manuals:
http://www.zaonflight.com/
http://www.monroyaero.com/
http://www.proxalert.com/
A good single reference page to many Collision Avoidance Systems is
he http://www.avionix.com/collis.html
There are also some (fairly old) threads on RAS on this subject; you
might wish to search for them.

Be careful up there!

-John
(I have absolutely no connection or financial interest with any of the
companies named in this message).

John,

Hello, haven't heard from you in a while. I'm curious as to why your
research didn't include one whole class of CAS - transponders, both
Mode C and Mode S. I know that they are more expensive, but, knowing
you, I imagine you have a better reason than that.

Ed

jcarlyle wrote:
Last week, before the Minden midair, I reviewed Collision Avoidance
Systems with the intent of putting one in my transponder-less ASW-19. I
was interested in such a system because my glider club lies inside the
Mode C veil of PHL, because an active military air base is 5 miles
away, and because there are several airways that lie within several
miles of us. Here's the result of my research; I hope it might be of
help to others.
.. . . snip . . .
Please note that this list is biased towards my own needs, in a quiet
glider with no transponder, operating with civilian and military
aircraft.
.. . . snip . . .
-John
(I have absolutely no connection or financial interest with any of the
companies named in this message).

Ed,

Hey, how's it going? Yes, I do have a good reason for not considering a
transponder at this time - no space for it in my panel, and not enough
useful load left to carry both it and the battery necessary to power it
(and I'm not about to steal operating time from the battery that powers
my radio, glide computer, GPS and iPAQ).

-John

flying_monkey wrote:
John,

Hello, haven't heard from you in a while. I'm curious as to why your
research didn't include one whole class of CAS - transponders, both
Mode C and Mode S. I know that they are more expensive, but, knowing
you, I imagine you have a better reason than that.

Ed

John,
Thankyou for a really useful contribution.
Putting an alerting system in my glider gives ME useful
information that I can act on. Installing a transponder
alone gives me no such information, although it MIGHT
give second-hand info via FAA alerts to other traffic,
or MIGHT alert other traffic to my presence if they
have and use a CAS. And $500 is reasonably affordable,
whereas the total cost of an installed and legalized
transponder is much less so.

Part of the present confusion is the proliferation
of different technical partial solutions to the problem
- transponders [mode C or S], TCAS, ADS-B, FLARM etc
etc etc. Without standardization on one system, none
can reach their potential. Without wishing to decry
any of these systems, each one adds complexity and
to some extent increases heads-down cockpit workload
[even if only to note your battery drainage from time
to time]. Heads-out situation awareness is a desirable
state to aim for and should take preference over the
other interests of techies.

Who would like to use existing technology to come
up with one fit-and-forget unit that would act as a
flight recorder, GPS-enabled ELT, mainly-passive alert
and transmit-on-alert-only transponder ?

But at the end of the day, even with very good
warning of an impending collision, the limited maneuverability
of both a glider and a high-speed aircraft means that
you need to put an eyeball on the threat to have a
hope of avoiding it. We drive highways every day in
reasonable safety - but just think about doing that
with your eyes closed and your trusted passenger telling
you where the other traffic is.

Ian





At 13:30 30 August 2006, Jcarlyle wrote:
Last week, before the Minden midair, I reviewed Collision
Avoidance
Systems with the intent of putting one in my transponder-less
ASW-19. I
was interested in such a system because my glider club
lies inside the
Mode C veil of PHL, because an active military air
base is 5 miles
away, and because there are several airways that lie
within several
miles of us. Here's the result of my research; I hope
it might be of
help to others.

Zaon MRX - This was the one I bought. Pros - shows
threat distance
and height; receives civilian signals A, C, S and 3/A,
as well as
military signals X, Y and 2; alerts are visual and
aural (high pitched
beeps); uses internal power (but can use aircraft power);
is the
smallest system available; can be panel mounted with
remote antenna.
Cons - does not show threat direction; doesn't output
threats via
RS232 to PocketPC type devices. List price $499

Zaon XRX - This is the one I really liked. Pros - shows
threat
direction as well as distance and height; receives
civilian signals A,
C, S and 3/A, and also military signals X, Y and 2;
alerts are visual
and aural (synthesized voice); outputs threats via
RS232 to PocketPC
type devices. Cons - needs aircraft power; fairly large
and tall, and
must be mounted on the glare shield. Supposedly Zaon
will offer a panel
mount version with remote antenna in the future. List
price $1795

Proxalert R5 - I rejected this one. Pros - shows threat
distance
and height; shows squawk code of three threats (but
threats combined if
same squawk); alerts are visual and aural (high pitched
beeps); outputs
threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices; can be
panel mounted with
remote antenna. Cons - Combines threats with same squawk
code on same
line showing closest threat distance, and flip-flops
threat altitude;
needs aircraft power; only receives civilian A, C and
S signals; fairly
large and hangs over glare shield lip. I also was turned
off by the web
site, when I see poor English in sales literature I
can't help but
wonder if the engineering was also done carelessly.
List price $795

Monroy ADT-300 - I rejected this one. Pros - shows
threat distance
and height (but only if you have an altitude encoding
transponder);
alerts are visual and aural (synthesized voice); second
smallest
available; can be panel mounted with remote antenna.
Cons - Needs
altitude encoding transponder to show threat height;
needs aircraft
power; only receives civilian A, C and S signals; doesn't
output
threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices. List price
$795

Please note that this list is biased towards my own
needs, in a quiet
glider with no transponder, operating with civilian
and military
aircraft. You might have different requirements, so
do check out the
manufacturer's sites for fuller specs and manuals:
http://www.zaonflight.com/
http://www.monroyaero.com/
http://www.proxalert.com/
A good single reference page to many Collision Avoidance
Systems is
he http://www.avionix.com/collis.html
There are also some (fairly old) threads on RAS on
this subject; you
might wish to search for them.

Be careful up there!

-John
(I have absolutely no connection or financial interest
with any of the
companies named in this message).

Ian,

Thanks for your reply - you raise some very good points that need to be
emphasized. I especially love the analogy about driving with your eyes
closed, dependent upon your passenger to tell you about where the
traffic is - see and avoid is still the king!

I personally like the idea of ADS-B, but not at today's prices, size
and power requirements, and also the fact that it isn't mandated for
all aircraft flying in the US. Thus I think the aural alert with the
distance and height readouts on the Zaon MRX and most importantly
keeping my eyes out of the cockpit are, at the moment, the best
approach to try and stay safe.

-John

Ian Cant wrote:
John,
Thankyou for a really useful contribution.
Putting an alerting system in my glider gives ME useful
information that I can act on. Installing a transponder
alone gives me no such information, although it MIGHT
give second-hand info via FAA alerts to other traffic,
or MIGHT alert other traffic to my presence if they
have and use a CAS. And $500 is reasonably affordable,
whereas the total cost of an installed and legalized
transponder is much less so.

Part of the present confusion is the proliferation
of different technical partial solutions to the problem
- transponders [mode C or S], TCAS, ADS-B, FLARM etc
etc etc. Without standardization on one system, none
can reach their potential. Without wishing to decry
any of these systems, each one adds complexity and
to some extent increases heads-down cockpit workload
[even if only to note your battery drainage from time
to time]. Heads-out situation awareness is a desirable
state to aim for and should take preference over the
other interests of techies.

Who would like to use existing technology to come
up with one fit-and-forget unit that would act as a
flight recorder, GPS-enabled ELT, mainly-passive alert
and transmit-on-alert-only transponder ?

But at the end of the day, even with very good
warning of an impending collision, the limited maneuverability
of both a glider and a high-speed aircraft means that
you need to put an eyeball on the threat to have a
hope of avoiding it. We drive highways every day in
reasonable safety - but just think about doing that
with your eyes closed and your trusted passenger telling
you where the other traffic is.

Ian

How would you communicate with the traffic on a collison course?
121.5 ?

Just wondering if there is a way to alert the other traffic of the
possible conflict.

Ray

Nice summary of the PCAS models available. Airliners and some corporate
jets have TCAS; they can "see" you without having to be told by ATC.
Smaller motorized traffic likely do not have TCAS; they need to be in
contact with ATC to know that your transponder-equipped glider is
nearby.

My choice was the Zaon MRX. Small, small, small. I run it on the
rechargeable batteries recommend by Zaon (multiple flights per set of
batteries). This model gives relative altitude, altitude trend, and
distance. And its beep beep is cheap cheap.

It does not give azmuth information, but it has forced me to improve on
the good old-fashioned rubber-necking see-and-avoid procedure. One of
the advantages of the MRX is that the alerts are audible; we already
have too much heads-down technology in gliders to install more
equipment that requires visual monitoring.

When my MRX gives two beeps, I start looking everywhere (mine is set to
beep twice for traffic within 1NM and 1,000 feet). When it advances to
four beeps, I start looking everywhere with super motivation (mine is
set to beep four times when traffic is less than 1NM horizontal and 700
feet vertical).

Portablility is an added advantage of the MRX. When doing intoductory
rides for our club, I take my MRX unit with me.

The advantage of PCAS over the transponder is that you, the glider
pilot, is alerted to all traffic with transponders. This includes
Cessna 152s, corporate jets, commuters and large airliners. If all I
had was a transponder, I would have to be in communication with ATC and
under radar coverage to be available to be told about other traffic.

Airliners with TCAS are able to see transponder-equipped gliders and
react. But, small powered aircraft cannot electronically see those same
gliders unless those small powered aircraft are communicating with ATC
(in a radar environment).

PCAS (portable collision avoidance system) gives me more peace of mind.
Given the choice between only some of them being able to see me, or me
being able to see most of them, is the main reason I chose the MRX over
a transponder.

Last week, I had a couple of "two beep" alerts. Both of these aircraft
came up from behind and below. But I was able to spot them sooner that
when I did not have the MRX.

But when Santa Claus comes with money, I'll have both a PCAS and a
transponder.

Nice summary of the PCAS models available. Airliners and some corporate

jets have TCAS; they can "see" you without having to be told by ATC.
Smaller motorized traffic likely do not have TCAS; they need to be in
contact with ATC to know that your transponder-equipped glider is
nearby.

My choice was the Zaon MRX. Small, small, small. I run it on the
rechargeable batteries recommend by Zaon (multiple flights per set of
batteries). This model gives relative altitude, altitude trend, and
distance. And its beep beep is cheap cheap.

It does not give azmuth information, but it has forced me to improve on

the good old-fashioned rubber-necking see-and-avoid procedure. One of
the advantages of the MRX is that the alerts are audible; we already
have too much heads-down technology in gliders to install more
equipment that requires visual monitoring.

When my MRX gives two beeps, I start looking everywhere (mine is set to

beep twice for traffic within 1NM and 1,000 feet). When it advances to
four beeps, I start looking everywhere with super motivation (mine is
set to beep four times when traffic is less than 1NM horizontal and 700

feet vertical).

Portablility is an added advantage of the MRX. When doing intoductory
rides for our club, I take my MRX unit with me.

The advantage of PCAS over the transponder is that you, the glider
pilot, is alerted to all traffic with transponders. This includes
Cessna 152s, corporate jets, commuters and large airliners. If all I
had was a transponder, I would have to be in communication with ATC and

under radar coverage to be available to be told about other traffic.

Airliners with TCAS are able to see transponder-equipped gliders and
react. But, small powered aircraft cannot electronically see those same

gliders unless those small powered aircraft are communicating with ATC
(in a radar environment).

PCAS (portable collision avoidance system) gives me more peace of mind.

Given the choice between only some of them being able to see me, or me
being able to see most of them, is the main reason I chose the MRX over

a transponder.

Last week, I had a couple of "two beep" alerts. Both of these aircraft
came up from behind and below. But I was able to spot them sooner than
when I did not have the MRX.

But when Santa Claus comes with money, I'll have both a PCAS and a
transponder.






jcarlyle wrote:
Last week, before the Minden midair, I reviewed Collision Avoidance
Systems with the intent of putting one in my transponder-less ASW-19. I
was interested in such a system because my glider club lies inside the
Mode C veil of PHL, because an active military air base is 5 miles
away, and because there are several airways that lie within several
miles of us. Here's the result of my research; I hope it might be of
help to others.

Zaon MRX - This was the one I bought. Pros - shows threat distance
and height; receives civilian signals A, C, S and 3/A, as well as
military signals X, Y and 2; alerts are visual and aural (high pitched
beeps); uses internal power (but can use aircraft power); is the
smallest system available; can be panel mounted with remote antenna.
Cons - does not show threat direction; doesn't output threats via
RS232 to PocketPC type devices. List price $499

Zaon XRX - This is the one I really liked. Pros - shows threat
direction as well as distance and height; receives civilian signals A,
C, S and 3/A, and also military signals X, Y and 2; alerts are visual
and aural (synthesized voice); outputs threats via RS232 to PocketPC
type devices. Cons - needs aircraft power; fairly large and tall, and
must be mounted on the glare shield. Supposedly Zaon will offer a panel
mount version with remote antenna in the future. List price $1795

Proxalert R5 - I rejected this one. Pros - shows threat distance
and height; shows squawk code of three threats (but threats combined if
same squawk); alerts are visual and aural (high pitched beeps); outputs
threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices; can be panel mounted with
remote antenna. Cons - Combines threats with same squawk code on same
line showing closest threat distance, and flip-flops threat altitude;
needs aircraft power; only receives civilian A, C and S signals; fairly
large and hangs over glare shield lip. I also was turned off by the web
site, when I see poor English in sales literature I can't help but
wonder if the engineering was also done carelessly. List price $795

Monroy ADT-300 - I rejected this one. Pros - shows threat distance
and height (but only if you have an altitude encoding transponder);
alerts are visual and aural (synthesized voice); second smallest
available; can be panel mounted with remote antenna. Cons - Needs
altitude encoding transponder to show threat height; needs aircraft
power; only receives civilian A, C and S signals; doesn't output
threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices. List price $795

Please note that this list is biased towards my own needs, in a quiet
glider with no transponder, operating with civilian and military
aircraft. You might have different requirements, so do check out the
manufacturer's sites for fuller specs and manuals:
http://www.zaonflight.com/
http://www.monroyaero.com/
http://www.proxalert.com/
A good single reference page to many Collision Avoidance Systems is
he http://www.avionix.com/collis.html
There are also some (fairly old) threads on RAS on this subject; you
might wish to search for them.

Be careful up there!

-John
(I have absolutely no connection or financial interest with any of the
companies named in this message).

Nice summary of the PCAS models available. Airliners and some corporate
jets have TCAS; they can "see" you without having to be told by ATC.
Smaller motorized traffic likely does not have TCAS; they need to be in
contact with ATC to know that your transponder-equipped glider is
nearby.

My choice was the tiny Zaon MRX. I use the rechargeable batteries
recommended. This model gives relative altitude, altitude trend, and
distance. Its beep beep is cheap cheap.

It does not give azimuth information, but it has forced me to improve
my good old-fashioned rubber-necking see-and-avoid procedure. One of
the advantages of the MRX is that the alerts are audible; we already
have too much heads-down technology in gliders to install more
equipment that requires visual monitoring.

When my MRX gives two beeps, I start looking everywhere (mine is set to
beep twice for traffic within 1NM and 1,000 feet). When it advances to
four beeps, I start looking everywhere with super motivation (mine is
set to beep four times when traffic is less than 1NM horizontal and 700
feet vertical).

Portability is an added advantage of the MRX. When doing introductory
rides for our club, I take my MRX unit with me.

The advantage of PCAS over the transponder is that you, the glider
pilot, is alerted to all traffic with transponders. This includes
Cessna 152s, corporate jets, commuters and large airliners. If all I
had was a transponder, I would have to be in communication with ATC and
under radar coverage to be available to be told about other traffic.

Airliners with TCAS are able to see and react to transponder-equipped
gliders. But the smaller powered aircraft cannot electronically see
those same gliders unless those small powered aircraft are
communicating with ATC (in a radar environment).

PCAS (portable collision avoidance system) gives me more peace of mind.
Given the choice between only some of them being able to see me, or me
being able to see most of them, is the main reason I chose the MRX over
a transponder.

Last week, I had a couple of "two beep" alerts. Both of these aircraft
came up from behind and below. But I was able to spot them sooner than
when I did not have the MRX.

Making transponders cheaper for gliders would be possible if the FAA
relaxed some of its technical specifications. Since Santa Claus didn't
show up with money, I can't have both a PCAS and a transponder, yet.

Raul Boerner
DM
LS6-B

jb92563 wrote:
How would you communicate with the traffic on a collison course?
121.5 ?


We're not on rails, jb -- if you have time to talk, you have time to
fly. And limited reaction time for either crew is a major factor.

There is no requirement to monitor 121.5, nor is it practical.
Considering the poor radio discipline of many pilots, such a requirement
would be worse than useless, even if there were money/panel space for
two radios or just for an upgrade to a two-receiver-in-one box
configuration.


Just wondering if there is a way to alert the other traffic of the
possible conflict.

Affordable tech would certainly help if universally available. As it is,
full-time transponder operation is not practical for all sailplanes.
Though 121.5 may not be the answer, the radio can be a more useful tool
than we currently make of it. Sailplanes generally have radios and could
certainly use them more aggressively. Frequently alerting ATC to your
current position and altitude by voice contact, when transponder or
primary radar returns are not available to them, should become our
standard mode of operating. It's not like we cover ground by huge leaps.
Regular position updates may also serve the glider pilot well when he is
forced to land out, or bail out.

Nationally, it's not sailplane operations that are the problem. Are
there statistics to indicate there is an increase in sailplane activity
in recent years? In fact, we keep hearing concerns about the opposite trend.

The main problems are lack of crew awareness in a see-and-avoid
situation, speed differential, the minimal profile of the glider in some
attitudes (applies to different degrees to all aircraft), and --
related to speed differential -- the inability of even a maneuverable
craft to escape the threat when it has been identified.

Answers: training/crew discipline, and reduction of the speed
differential by extending the 250 KIAS speed restriction to FL 180.

See-and-avoid is far more effective when people have their heads out of
their...cockpits. And especially when their speed is appropriate.
Two-fifty below ten is no longer enough of a restriction, considering
the increase in the number of turbocharged light planes being sold, and
greater use of the mid-level airspace. Raising the 250 KIAS speed
limit to FL180 can easily reduce closing speeds by 50 kts or more at
those altitudes, will not affect Turbo Props much if at all, and gives
everybody a better chance to see and avoid in VMC, whether VFR or IFR.
Where the terrain out west is higher than we flat-landers have to deal
with, the "250 KIAS below FL180" restriction brings speeds into
alignment with what they are elsewhere in the country on an AGL basis,
giving low-speed operators out west the same protection we have in the
east at the altitudes at which the westerners are forced to operate.

Also, the existence of "G" airspace below 2000' AGL anywhere in the
contiguous states is an archaic holdover that ought to be ended. The
lack of radar coverage is a fact in most of the country at those levels
anyway, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Who ran into whom? Well, the jet crew took it on the nose, not in the
tail. The NTSB report could reverse that scenario for FAA enforcement
follow-up, especially considering right-of-way rules, but I'm not
betting the farm on it. The FAA is a political animal, too often driven
by the media-perceived problem, and the media, when not willfully
ignorant, more interested in the business advantages of emotional impact
from a sensational headline than in what is simply the truth.
Objectivity is boring for the average customer, so does not sell.

I hope AOPA will be front-and-center in this situation--shoulder to
shoulder with SSA--as AOPA's ox will be the very next one gored if
restrictions to glider ops are proposed and enacted.


Jack