Ads-b and sailplanes

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 7:11:20 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 2:39:23 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:56:24 AM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
What I said was all the Mitre salesmanship and pro UAT-hype from folks like
Bernald and you have not resulted in anything at all of use/benefit to the
soaring community. Is that clear enough? And yes I know, the reasons why
that is will be entirely somebody else's fault...

Darryl, there was a lot of interesting discussion going on in ancient times (you know, before PowerFlarm, 8 or 9 years ago). As I remember it, Bernald was pushing UAT back then because there was a lot of concern about the possibility of glider vs. airliner collisions, and at the time, UAT seemed like it was going to be a good way of getting gliders, ultralights, balloons, etc., integrated into the air traffic system at low cost and with minimal power consumption. The icing on the cake was the Mitre UAT ADS-B out prototypes, that were basically built using $100 or so worth of cellphone chipsets and COTS GPS modules, and could run all day on a few AA cells. I know Mike was involved in the successful testing of these units in gliders and powered aircraft in the Virginia area (if I remember correctly). This was a promising technology with a lot of support even from groups within the FAA, with the end goal being pervasive use of UAT-based ADS-B technology in UAVs, general aviation, and gliders. The general understanding at the time was that these units would eliminate the need for transponders for general aviation. But, one should never underestimate the capability of the FAA to create a steaming pile out of a nice clean solution.

I also remember that it was Bernald who introduced Urs to various parties in the US soaring community (myself included), with the explicit intent of bring Flarm into this country. In particular I was present at a number of informal discussions that took place around the '08 SSA convention that were set up by Bernald, which (again, if I remember correctly) led to the notion of PowerFlarm, the Flarm loaner/rental program, and other such things.. It's funny how you've now decided that he is nothing more than a misguided salesman.

Marc

Marc

And pushing UAT-Out futures for use in areas where airliners were a concern, like the Reno area, seemed to ignore the issue of lack of TCAS compatibility. And promised folks the hope of low-cost and easy to install UAT-Out devices when many should have been considering installing transpodners. it always just scared the hell out of me, to see this promoted as a goal at all, especially for areas like the Reno area, where TCAS II equipped traffic is such an issue.

I sat through at least one PASCO seminar from Bernald and another given by you where some folks who attended took away that they won't be installing transponders but waiting for these UAT devices. I certainly remember one-post UAT presentation discussion with glider owners from the Reno area who were absolutely in love with this soon to be coming $500 portable box and totally opposed to istalling a $3,000 "power hungry" transponder. Many folks clearly took away far more than they shoudl have about the actual state of play of any of this stuff, and few if any really understood the limitations.. Bernald has done may great things for he soaring community and soaring saftey, ultra impressive, but all that effort pushing UAT technology was just a bad idea. And you also have done a huge amount for soaring and soaring saftey, include your work in the Reno area, all fantastic stuff.

And I think it was probalby you, indirectly through Benrald, that introduced me to Urs. Maybe after a seminar I had given on transponders, ADS-B and FLARM, ... partially with the goal of discouraging folks trying to import and use overseas-FLARM units, which was a bit of an underground idea going around at the time (including a few physical units kicking around). I've been happy to help the Flarm guys on some stuff when asked, but have done far far less there than many others in the USA who wanted to see this technology available for the Soaring Community.

After that UAT promotion that was happening in the PASCO seminars I started giving presentations about glider batteries etc. if folks were worried about battery issues with transponders I certainly wanted them to know enough to have a cogent discussion. And I started to speak up in PASCO seminars etc. about the TCAS compatibility issue, I don't recall that was ever mentioned before, I could be wrong on that, but I never heard it raised. UAT-Out only adoption in the Reno area would gave been a very bad move, getting anything to happen with high tech/aviation/avionics is damn hard, but starting off trying to get something to happen that if it did succeed would be bad, is not a good idea.

The final straw for me with all the UAT hype came the day I was flying out of Minden and the Hawker 800 collided with an ASG-29. I was at the other end of the Pinenut ranges when that happened. And one bizarre response to that was some folks talking up yet again the hope/need to UAT-Out devices. Jesus, TCAS-II equipped business jet, colliding with a glider with it's transponder turned off... what could people *not* get about that? Luckily most folks took that as a need to keep focusing on transponder use in that area.

I doubt the establishment of PowerFLARM rental programs in the USA had any practical help from Bernald, what made that happen was Williams Soaring and generous donors actually stepping up and making that happen.

I don't care if anybody use any particular traffic-awareness technology, but I hope that people at least evaluate what might help them. I'd hate for example to see say the glider exemption for transponders or ADS-B Out to be lost in future, that would be just a horrible waste for many gliders in many locations. In other locations where there are traffic concerns I hope owners/pilots/clubs/FBOs are looking at all the things that it is possible to do to reduce mid-air collision risks. And I care when others keep presenting misinformation/spurious arguments about might prevent some folks adopting what technology aids are practically available today.

The ultimate goal that MITRE, Bernard, myself, and many other pilots had in promoting the UAT technology was to have a low cost, low power, ADS-B OUT solution that would be inexpensive enough so there would be no reason not to require universal equippage. With the introduction of UAVs into the system, with farmers, power companies, and others using these devices, unmanned drones are going to be everywhere. Even if you are in the middle of nowhere, you are going to have to make yourself electronically visible if you don't want to have some scary encounters down the road.

As far as TCAS goes, this system was designed as the last line of defense if there was a complete breakdown in the ATC system's mission of separating IFR and GA traffic. Unfortunately, the FAA has permitted the controller community to use TCAS as a primary method of separating traffic. Under the current FARs, ATC only provides traffic separation between IFR traffic. Separation between IFR and VFR traffic is the pilots' responsibility, in both aircraft, using visual see and avoid eyeball technology.

The Minden accident was a wakeup call on how well this works. The IFR / VFR visual separation rules date back to the 30s when aircraft where flying around at 100 knots with minimal traffic. The reality is that you can't really see someone in time if you have a closing rate of 300 - 400 knots. Making matters worse, is that most of the time jet pilots have their heads in the cockpits setting up for an approach, assuming that the ATC controllers will keep them out of harms way.

The reality is that if you are lucky, and the workload permits, an ATC controller will give an IFR aircraft a traffic advisory for transponder or ADS-B equipped VFR traffic. It is not necessarily standard procedure for controllers to vector IFR traffic around conflicting GA traffic.

This behavior was documented by an MIT Lincoln Lab study in 2005 monitoring the frequency of TCAS Resolution Advisories in the Boston area, and analyzing how pilots reacted to these events. They observed an average of 9 RAs per day within 60 miles of the Lincoln Labs receiver site. From the data, it appears that at least 30% of these events triggered abrupt evasive maneuvers within seconds of the RA, implying that the pilots had not visually recognized the conflicting traffic prior to the TCAS alarm. See: http://www..ll.mit.edu/publications/...2_04Kuchar.pdf Pages 286-288.

The bottom line is that TCAS RAs should not be happening at all. These events should be treated by the FAA with the same level of concern as runway incursions. Equipping all aircraft with transponders or ADS-B OUT systems alone will not solve the problem. What is needed is a fundamental change in the IFR / VFR separation rules to require ATC controllers to actively vector IFR traffic around conflicting VFR aircraft.

Universal ADS-B OUT equipage would go a long way to providing a practical way to solve this problem. ADS-B IN equipped aircraft would be able to easily see potential conflicting traffic far in advance of any collision threat, when the danger could be completely avoided by a minor course correction.

In the GA world today, these ADS-B IN systems are becoming quite popular and will help GA pilots proactively stay out of the way of conflicting airline traffic. Hopefully the FAA will recognize the safety value of this technology and relax their certification rules so that this technology is available at a reasonable cost, to permit existing jet aircraft operators to voluntarily retrofit their aircraft with this capability.

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:55:54 PM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 7:11:20 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 2:39:23 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:56:24 AM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
What I said was all the Mitre salesmanship and pro UAT-hype from folks like
Bernald and you have not resulted in anything at all of use/benefit to the
soaring community. Is that clear enough? And yes I know, the reasons why
that is will be entirely somebody else's fault...

Darryl, there was a lot of interesting discussion going on in ancient times (you know, before PowerFlarm, 8 or 9 years ago). As I remember it, Bernald was pushing UAT back then because there was a lot of concern about the possibility of glider vs. airliner collisions, and at the time, UAT seemed like it was going to be a good way of getting gliders, ultralights, balloons, etc., integrated into the air traffic system at low cost and with minimal power consumption. The icing on the cake was the Mitre UAT ADS-B out prototypes, that were basically built using $100 or so worth of cellphone chipsets and COTS GPS modules, and could run all day on a few AA cells. I know Mike was involved in the successful testing of these units in gliders and powered aircraft in the Virginia area (if I remember correctly). This was a promising technology with a lot of support even from groups within the FAA, with the end goal being pervasive use of UAT-based ADS-B technology in UAVs, general aviation, and gliders. The general understanding at the time was that these units would eliminate the need for transponders for general aviation. But, one should never underestimate the capability of the FAA to create a steaming pile out of a nice clean solution.

I also remember that it was Bernald who introduced Urs to various parties in the US soaring community (myself included), with the explicit intent of bring Flarm into this country. In particular I was present at a number of informal discussions that took place around the '08 SSA convention that were set up by Bernald, which (again, if I remember correctly) led to the notion of PowerFlarm, the Flarm loaner/rental program, and other such things. It's funny how you've now decided that he is nothing more than a misguided salesman.

Marc

Marc

And pushing UAT-Out futures for use in areas where airliners were a concern, like the Reno area, seemed to ignore the issue of lack of TCAS compatibility. And promised folks the hope of low-cost and easy to install UAT-Out devices when many should have been considering installing transpodners. it always just scared the hell out of me, to see this promoted as a goal at all, especially for areas like the Reno area, where TCAS II equipped traffic is such an issue.

I sat through at least one PASCO seminar from Bernald and another given by you where some folks who attended took away that they won't be installing transponders but waiting for these UAT devices. I certainly remember one-post UAT presentation discussion with glider owners from the Reno area who were absolutely in love with this soon to be coming $500 portable box and totally opposed to istalling a $3,000 "power hungry" transponder. Many folks clearly took away far more than they shoudl have about the actual state of play of any of this stuff, and few if any really understood the limitations. Bernald has done may great things for he soaring community and soaring saftey, ultra impressive, but all that effort pushing UAT technology was just a bad idea. And you also have done a huge amount for soaring and soaring saftey, include your work in the Reno area, all fantastic stuff.

And I think it was probalby you, indirectly through Benrald, that introduced me to Urs. Maybe after a seminar I had given on transponders, ADS-B and FLARM, ... partially with the goal of discouraging folks trying to import and use overseas-FLARM units, which was a bit of an underground idea going around at the time (including a few physical units kicking around). I've been happy to help the Flarm guys on some stuff when asked, but have done far far less there than many others in the USA who wanted to see this technology available for the Soaring Community.

After that UAT promotion that was happening in the PASCO seminars I started giving presentations about glider batteries etc. if folks were worried about battery issues with transponders I certainly wanted them to know enough to have a cogent discussion. And I started to speak up in PASCO seminars etc. about the TCAS compatibility issue, I don't recall that was ever mentioned before, I could be wrong on that, but I never heard it raised. UAT-Out only adoption in the Reno area would gave been a very bad move, getting anything to happen with high tech/aviation/avionics is damn hard, but starting off trying to get something to happen that if it did succeed would be bad, is not a good idea.

The final straw for me with all the UAT hype came the day I was flying out of Minden and the Hawker 800 collided with an ASG-29. I was at the other end of the Pinenut ranges when that happened. And one bizarre response to that was some folks talking up yet again the hope/need to UAT-Out devices. Jesus, TCAS-II equipped business jet, colliding with a glider with it's transponder turned off... what could people *not* get about that? Luckily most folks took that as a need to keep focusing on transponder use in that area.

I doubt the establishment of PowerFLARM rental programs in the USA had any practical help from Bernald, what made that happen was Williams Soaring and generous donors actually stepping up and making that happen.

I don't care if anybody use any particular traffic-awareness technology, but I hope that people at least evaluate what might help them. I'd hate for example to see say the glider exemption for transponders or ADS-B Out to be lost in future, that would be just a horrible waste for many gliders in many locations. In other locations where there are traffic concerns I hope owners/pilots/clubs/FBOs are looking at all the things that it is possible to do to reduce mid-air collision risks. And I care when others keep presenting misinformation/spurious arguments about might prevent some folks adopting what technology aids are practically available today.

The ultimate goal that MITRE, Bernard, myself, and many other pilots had in promoting the UAT technology was to have a low cost, low power, ADS-B OUT solution that would be inexpensive enough so there would be no reason not to require universal equippage. With the introduction of UAVs into the system, with farmers, power companies, and others using these devices, unmanned drones are going to be everywhere. Even if you are in the middle of nowhere, you are going to have to make yourself electronically visible if you don't want to have some scary encounters down the road.

As far as TCAS goes, this system was designed as the last line of defense if there was a complete breakdown in the ATC system's mission of separating IFR and GA traffic. Unfortunately, the FAA has permitted the controller community to use TCAS as a primary method of separating traffic. Under the current FARs, ATC only provides traffic separation between IFR traffic. Separation between IFR and VFR traffic is the pilots' responsibility, in both aircraft, using visual see and avoid eyeball technology.

The Minden accident was a wakeup call on how well this works. The IFR / VFR visual separation rules date back to the 30s when aircraft where flying around at 100 knots with minimal traffic. The reality is that you can't really see someone in time if you have a closing rate of 300 - 400 knots. Making matters worse, is that most of the time jet pilots have their heads in the cockpits setting up for an approach, assuming that the ATC controllers will keep them out of harms way.

The reality is that if you are lucky, and the workload permits, an ATC controller will give an IFR aircraft a traffic advisory for transponder or ADS-B equipped VFR traffic. It is not necessarily standard procedure for controllers to vector IFR traffic around conflicting GA traffic.

This behavior was documented by an MIT Lincoln Lab study in 2005 monitoring the frequency of TCAS Resolution Advisories in the Boston area, and analyzing how pilots reacted to these events. They observed an average of 9 RAs per day within 60 miles of the Lincoln Labs receiver site. From the data, it appears that at least 30% of these events triggered abrupt evasive maneuvers within seconds of the RA, implying that the pilots had not visually recognized the conflicting traffic prior to the TCAS alarm. See: http://www.ll.mit.edu/publications/j...2_04Kuchar.pdf Pages 286-288.

The bottom line is that TCAS RAs should not be happening at all. These events should be treated by the FAA with the same level of concern as runway incursions. Equipping all aircraft with transponders or ADS-B OUT systems alone will not solve the problem. What is needed is a fundamental change in the IFR / VFR separation rules to require ATC controllers to actively vector IFR traffic around conflicting VFR aircraft.

Universal ADS-B OUT equipage would go a long way to providing a practical way to solve this problem. ADS-B IN equipped aircraft would be able to easily see potential conflicting traffic far in advance of any collision threat, when the danger could be completely avoided by a minor course correction.

In the GA world today, these ADS-B IN systems are becoming quite popular and will help GA pilots proactively stay out of the way of conflicting airline traffic. Hopefully the FAA will recognize the safety value of this technology and relax their certification rules so that this technology is available at a reasonable cost, to permit existing jet aircraft operators to voluntarily retrofit their aircraft with this capability.

This is beyond comical. Airliners and other traffic have a last line defense of TCAS II that is known to be actually used in anger to avoid collisions.. You want to somehow ignore that and instead use alternative incompatible technology and rely on everything else being changed in a way that it will all now be perfect, and that last line of defense will somehow no longer be needed. Why not just forget UAT crap and do transponders with 1090ES that is compatible with SSR, PCAS, TCAD and TCAS? I know because some day maybe there will be low-cost UAT-Out devices, but congratulation if that ever happened, all you have is promoted is a dangerous technology choice with no TCAS etc. compatibility. This should have been shot in the head as a stupidly dangerous idea to start with.

Like bloody obvious, stupid idea, back when it was first pushed a decade or so ago, but why are you (and *only* you?) still going on about it? The FAA does not want it (they went off in the reverse direction, see below), the NTSB does not want it, the SSA told you to take a hike with your continuous pushing on UAT, ... but you are still going on about this.

If anything happens in future to lower surveillance equipment costs in gliders and similar aircraft it will likely be the decrease in costs as market forces shape products for 2020 compliance. Maybe you'll get something like a Mode-S transponder with 1090ES Out and a GPS in a glider for several $k. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it ever gets lower in a certified aircraft.

UAT-Out devices without also having a transponder are going to remain a very bad idea where fast jets/airliners are the main concern, and maybe for GA environments as well, and certainly where many other glider are equipped with PowerFLARM.

There might be a change driven by the LPSE/TABS direction that the FAA has adopted as TSO-C199, and that follows from many years of work on LPSE in Europe and elsewhere. And it will be all Mode-S and 1090ES based, no UAT crap allowed. TSO-C199 is yet another nail in the coffin for low-power UAT crap.. And you'd have to dig that coffin out of the grave to hammer that nail in, then you'd want to bury it again quickly before the stink of the corpse got to you. TSO-C199 very sensibly requires Mode S for compatibility TCAS (if you listen carefully you can hear the hand of the NTSB waving their big stick... and the Minden ASG-29/Hawker mid-air collision was directly a factor here), and being on Mode-S/1090ES provide a global market for technology providers (sensible since Europe drove lots of the earlier low-power Mode S work). Who knows if anything will happen here to lower glider transponder/1090ES Out costs in the USA, but I expect whatever happens for at least mid-size UAVs to be heavily influenced by TSO-C199 and all it's Mode-S/1090ES UAT-crap free goodness.

They say truth is the first casualty of any argument...

"Unfortunately, the FAA has permitted the controller community to use TCAS as a primary method of separating traffic"

Traffic separation based on TCAS data is not permitted. Ever. Any pilot that reports "I've got them on TCAS" may as well be reading out the specials on the breakfast menu for all the operational significance that gives. Separation standards may only be reduced upon VISUAL sighting.

"it appears that at least 30% of these events triggered abrupt evasive maneuvers within seconds of the RA, implying that the pilots had not visually recognized the conflicting traffic prior to the TCAS alarm"

In a controlled environment, deviation from an ATC clearance is not permitted UNTILL there's an RA. You can only attempt self-separation OCTA. Of course, at the TA level you'll be trying to visually sight the traffic, informing ATC of the impending conflict and preparing to disconnect and fly the RA.. RA's are by their very nature more "abrupt" than normal ops but there's no reason to 'go ballastic Mav', something the industry is trying to address in recurrent training. Thus, abrupt manoeuvrring shouldn't be seen as defacto proof of the traffic not being sighted previously.

CJ

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 1:36:47 AM UTC-4, wrote:
They say truth is the first casualty of any argument...

"Unfortunately, the FAA has permitted the controller community to use TCAS as a primary method of separating traffic"

Traffic separation based on TCAS data is not permitted. Ever. Any pilot that reports "I've got them on TCAS" may as well be reading out the specials on the breakfast menu for all the operational significance that gives. Separation standards may only be reduced upon VISUAL sighting.

"it appears that at least 30% of these events triggered abrupt evasive maneuvers within seconds of the RA, implying that the pilots had not visually recognized the conflicting traffic prior to the TCAS alarm"

In a controlled environment, deviation from an ATC clearance is not permitted UNTILL there's an RA. You can only attempt self-separation OCTA. Of course, at the TA level you'll be trying to visually sight the traffic, informing ATC of the impending conflict and preparing to disconnect and fly the RA. RA's are by their very nature more "abrupt" than normal ops but there's no reason to 'go ballastic Mav', something the industry is trying to address in recurrent training. Thus, abrupt manoeuvrring shouldn't be seen as defacto proof of the traffic not being sighted previously.

CJ

I think you have a fundamental and dangerous misunderstanding of the FARs. Deviation from an ATC clearance is not only permitted, but required, if this is necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft. You don't need a TCAS RA in order to deviate. What you are seeing may be a glider that is not transponder equipped, so you will never get an RA. If you delay deviating from your clearance until you get the OK from ATC, you might all be dead.

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 1:00:58 AM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:55:54 PM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 7:11:20 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 2:39:23 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:56:24 AM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
What I said was all the Mitre salesmanship and pro UAT-hype from folks like
Bernald and you have not resulted in anything at all of use/benefit to the
soaring community. Is that clear enough? And yes I know, the reasons why
that is will be entirely somebody else's fault...

Darryl, there was a lot of interesting discussion going on in ancient times (you know, before PowerFlarm, 8 or 9 years ago). As I remember it, Bernald was pushing UAT back then because there was a lot of concern about the possibility of glider vs. airliner collisions, and at the time, UAT seemed like it was going to be a good way of getting gliders, ultralights, balloons, etc., integrated into the air traffic system at low cost and with minimal power consumption. The icing on the cake was the Mitre UAT ADS-B out prototypes, that were basically built using $100 or so worth of cellphone chipsets and COTS GPS modules, and could run all day on a few AA cells. I know Mike was involved in the successful testing of these units in gliders and powered aircraft in the Virginia area (if I remember correctly). This was a promising technology with a lot of support even from groups within the FAA, with the end goal being pervasive use of UAT-based ADS-B technology in UAVs, general aviation, and gliders. The general understanding at the time was that these units would eliminate the need for transponders for general aviation. But, one should never underestimate the capability of the FAA to create a steaming pile out of a nice clean solution.

I also remember that it was Bernald who introduced Urs to various parties in the US soaring community (myself included), with the explicit intent of bring Flarm into this country. In particular I was present at a number of informal discussions that took place around the '08 SSA convention that were set up by Bernald, which (again, if I remember correctly) led to the notion of PowerFlarm, the Flarm loaner/rental program, and other such things. It's funny how you've now decided that he is nothing more than a misguided salesman.

Marc

Marc

And pushing UAT-Out futures for use in areas where airliners were a concern, like the Reno area, seemed to ignore the issue of lack of TCAS compatibility. And promised folks the hope of low-cost and easy to install UAT-Out devices when many should have been considering installing transpodners. it always just scared the hell out of me, to see this promoted as a goal at all, especially for areas like the Reno area, where TCAS II equipped traffic is such an issue.

I sat through at least one PASCO seminar from Bernald and another given by you where some folks who attended took away that they won't be installing transponders but waiting for these UAT devices. I certainly remember one-post UAT presentation discussion with glider owners from the Reno area who were absolutely in love with this soon to be coming $500 portable box and totally opposed to istalling a $3,000 "power hungry" transponder. Many folks clearly took away far more than they shoudl have about the actual state of play of any of this stuff, and few if any really understood the limitations. Bernald has done may great things for he soaring community and soaring saftey, ultra impressive, but all that effort pushing UAT technology was just a bad idea. And you also have done a huge amount for soaring and soaring saftey, include your work in the Reno area, all fantastic stuff.

And I think it was probalby you, indirectly through Benrald, that introduced me to Urs. Maybe after a seminar I had given on transponders, ADS-B and FLARM, ... partially with the goal of discouraging folks trying to import and use overseas-FLARM units, which was a bit of an underground idea going around at the time (including a few physical units kicking around). I've been happy to help the Flarm guys on some stuff when asked, but have done far far less there than many others in the USA who wanted to see this technology available for the Soaring Community.

After that UAT promotion that was happening in the PASCO seminars I started giving presentations about glider batteries etc. if folks were worried about battery issues with transponders I certainly wanted them to know enough to have a cogent discussion. And I started to speak up in PASCO seminars etc. about the TCAS compatibility issue, I don't recall that was ever mentioned before, I could be wrong on that, but I never heard it raised. UAT-Out only adoption in the Reno area would gave been a very bad move, getting anything to happen with high tech/aviation/avionics is damn hard, but starting off trying to get something to happen that if it did succeed would be bad, is not a good idea.

The final straw for me with all the UAT hype came the day I was flying out of Minden and the Hawker 800 collided with an ASG-29. I was at the other end of the Pinenut ranges when that happened. And one bizarre response to that was some folks talking up yet again the hope/need to UAT-Out devices. Jesus, TCAS-II equipped business jet, colliding with a glider with it's transponder turned off... what could people *not* get about that? Luckily most folks took that as a need to keep focusing on transponder use in that area.

I doubt the establishment of PowerFLARM rental programs in the USA had any practical help from Bernald, what made that happen was Williams Soaring and generous donors actually stepping up and making that happen.

I don't care if anybody use any particular traffic-awareness technology, but I hope that people at least evaluate what might help them. I'd hate for example to see say the glider exemption for transponders or ADS-B Out to be lost in future, that would be just a horrible waste for many gliders in many locations. In other locations where there are traffic concerns I hope owners/pilots/clubs/FBOs are looking at all the things that it is possible to do to reduce mid-air collision risks. And I care when others keep presenting misinformation/spurious arguments about might prevent some folks adopting what technology aids are practically available today.

The ultimate goal that MITRE, Bernard, myself, and many other pilots had in promoting the UAT technology was to have a low cost, low power, ADS-B OUT solution that would be inexpensive enough so there would be no reason not to require universal equippage. With the introduction of UAVs into the system, with farmers, power companies, and others using these devices, unmanned drones are going to be everywhere. Even if you are in the middle of nowhere, you are going to have to make yourself electronically visible if you don't want to have some scary encounters down the road.

As far as TCAS goes, this system was designed as the last line of defense if there was a complete breakdown in the ATC system's mission of separating IFR and GA traffic. Unfortunately, the FAA has permitted the controller community to use TCAS as a primary method of separating traffic. Under the current FARs, ATC only provides traffic separation between IFR traffic. Separation between IFR and VFR traffic is the pilots' responsibility, in both aircraft, using visual see and avoid eyeball technology.

The Minden accident was a wakeup call on how well this works. The IFR / VFR visual separation rules date back to the 30s when aircraft where flying around at 100 knots with minimal traffic. The reality is that you can't really see someone in time if you have a closing rate of 300 - 400 knots. Making matters worse, is that most of the time jet pilots have their heads in the cockpits setting up for an approach, assuming that the ATC controllers will keep them out of harms way.

The reality is that if you are lucky, and the workload permits, an ATC controller will give an IFR aircraft a traffic advisory for transponder or ADS-B equipped VFR traffic. It is not necessarily standard procedure for controllers to vector IFR traffic around conflicting GA traffic.

This behavior was documented by an MIT Lincoln Lab study in 2005 monitoring the frequency of TCAS Resolution Advisories in the Boston area, and analyzing how pilots reacted to these events. They observed an average of 9 RAs per day within 60 miles of the Lincoln Labs receiver site. From the data, it appears that at least 30% of these events triggered abrupt evasive maneuvers within seconds of the RA, implying that the pilots had not visually recognized the conflicting traffic prior to the TCAS alarm. See: http://www.ll.mit.edu/publications/j...2_04Kuchar.pdf Pages 286-288.

The bottom line is that TCAS RAs should not be happening at all. These events should be treated by the FAA with the same level of concern as runway incursions. Equipping all aircraft with transponders or ADS-B OUT systems alone will not solve the problem. What is needed is a fundamental change in the IFR / VFR separation rules to require ATC controllers to actively vector IFR traffic around conflicting VFR aircraft.

Universal ADS-B OUT equipage would go a long way to providing a practical way to solve this problem. ADS-B IN equipped aircraft would be able to easily see potential conflicting traffic far in advance of any collision threat, when the danger could be completely avoided by a minor course correction.

In the GA world today, these ADS-B IN systems are becoming quite popular and will help GA pilots proactively stay out of the way of conflicting airline traffic. Hopefully the FAA will recognize the safety value of this technology and relax their certification rules so that this technology is available at a reasonable cost, to permit existing jet aircraft operators to voluntarily retrofit their aircraft with this capability.

This is beyond comical. Airliners and other traffic have a last line defense of TCAS II that is known to be actually used in anger to avoid collisions. You want to somehow ignore that and instead use alternative incompatible technology and rely on everything else being changed in a way that it will all now be perfect, and that last line of defense will somehow no longer be needed. Why not just forget UAT crap and do transponders with 1090ES that is compatible with SSR, PCAS, TCAD and TCAS? I know because some day maybe there will be low-cost UAT-Out devices, but congratulation if that ever happened, all you have is promoted is a dangerous technology choice with no TCAS etc. compatibility. This should have been shot in the head as a stupidly dangerous idea to start with.

Like bloody obvious, stupid idea, back when it was first pushed a decade or so ago, but why are you (and *only* you?) still going on about it? The FAA does not want it (they went off in the reverse direction, see below), the NTSB does not want it, the SSA told you to take a hike with your continuous pushing on UAT, ... but you are still going on about this.

If anything happens in future to lower surveillance equipment costs in gliders and similar aircraft it will likely be the decrease in costs as market forces shape products for 2020 compliance. Maybe you'll get something like a Mode-S transponder with 1090ES Out and a GPS in a glider for several $k.. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it ever gets lower in a certified aircraft.

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:55:54 PM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
Unfortunately, the FAA has permitted the controller community to use TCAS as a primary method of separating traffic.

Oh Dear God no. Oh well anybody who has spent any time with a TCAS system or in an ATC facility knows you have no clue what you are talking about. TCAS is *not* ever a primary means of separation. Not intended to be, not allowed to be. It is an emergency saftey net to complement visual and ATC separation. And how or why would a controller "use TCAS for separation". If a TCAS RA happens it ruins the day for all the aircrew involved and for the controller, paperwork and maybe new pants required..

Here is an SFO Tower Controller having his day very ruined by a TCAS II RA. Maybe he was confused and trying to use it as a primary means of separation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COVQoQojQ38

And while on YouTube if anybody want to see what a TCAS II RA (resolution advisory) looks like from the other side have a look at this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrYqIU0NxHQ

That happens with any aircraft with TCAS II against any threat aircraft with a Mode C or Mode S transponder. That works at any location or altitude (integration with TAWS prevents the TCAS II instructing the pilot to fly into the ground). All completely independent of ATC involvement or SSR radar coverage. TCAS does not require any ADS-B-Out anything in the threat aircraft, just a transponder. If the threat aircraft has UAT-Out only, the airliner would fly right through then with no RA. TCAS II is basically carried by all airliners, many business jets, lots of military transport aircraft. Simpler TCAS I and TCAD systems that work similarly and can provide a TA (traffic advisory) but not an RA are reaching down into to high-end piston-single GA market. For example Garmin has a really nice GTS-800 series product that provides TCAS I as well as ADS-B In capability. Heck Garmin even makes full TCAS-II 8000 series products aimed at the turboprop/light jet market (~$20k for the box, a impressively low cost for TCAS II, install costs will hurt :-().

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:34:50 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
Here is an SFO Tower Controller having his day very ruined by a TCAS II RA. Maybe he was confused and trying to use it as a primary means of separation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COVQoQojQ38

And here is some of the ass hurt from that controller mistake that led to the TCAS RA, http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...A020 B&akey=2

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 5:39:23 PM UTC-4, wrote:
I also remember that it was Bernald who introduced Urs to various
parties in the US soaring community (myself included), with the explicit
intent of bring Flarm into this country. In particular I was present
at a number of informal discussions that took place around the '08 SSA
convention that were set up by Bernald, which (again, if I remember
correctly) led to the notion of PowerFlarm, the Flarm loaner/rental
program, and other such things. It's funny how you've now decided
that he is nothing more than a misguided salesman.

Apparently you are unaware that many of us in USA worked to bring
FLARM to USA for years before that, and knew the FLARM crew from when
they were still at university. What we faced was, as usual, stubborn
resistance in USA from those utterly unaware of what was going on the
rest of the world.

Bernald did NOT help with FLARM adoption, rather he opposed it.
Numerous times I sat with Bernald and explained to him why UAT was
not going to work for gliders until he understood, only to find
he seemed to have forgotten we even had the conversation days later.

The "PowerFLARM notion" was from market demand for a FLARM for
powered aircraft, ideally with PCAS and better FLARM range.
Because legacy FLARM are not compatible with USA's FCC regulations,
and they had promised me to bring FLARM to USA, FLARM agreed to
introduce it in USA and make it FCC compliant, and I helped create
it. This all in spite of continued parochial resistance in USA
and the USA-specific UAT idiocy.

Really now.