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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Many transponders in close proximity
jettester wrote:
\ #4. MODE S transponders have a discrete ID code embedded in the transponder that is supposed to be set to your aircraft registry ID (look on the FAA website for your aircraft registry information and you will find that ID for your aircraft). Mode S talks to other mode S equipped transponders, and is typically used to provide TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) information to issue the advisories to each aircraft. If you have this feature, and were to pullup rapidly with another mode S aircraft overhead, it could set off his traffic warning system. A mode S transponder is not required for an aircraft to be detected by TCAS. The conflicting traffic only needs mode C for the TCAS to give an RA. The only advantage mode S gives is that if you have TWO TCAS equipped aircraft, they use the mode S datalink to coordinate a resolution (one climbs the other descends). |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Many transponders in close proximity
Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
"jettester" wrote in message oups.com... #1. Transponders would not solve the mid air problem unless you were the only one in close proximity to the attacking aircraft. Typically, TCAS can't factor multiple threats?!? Even the lowly Zaon MRX can. they set MTI (moving target indicator) to above 60K or higher (especially if near a large amount of highway ground traffic), so once you start thermalling they lose you unless you are given a discrete squawk other than 1200 (for non participating VFR Traffic) TCAS filtering out "highway ground traffic" ...squawking 1200? I think he's talking about ground radar. TCAS gives not a hoot about mode A codes. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Many transponders in close proximity
Yuliy Gerchikov wrote: "jettester" wrote in message oups.com... #1. Transponders would not solve the mid air problem unless you were the only one in close proximity to the attacking aircraft. Typically, TCAS can't factor multiple threats?!? Even the lowly Zaon MRX can. they set MTI (moving target indicator) to above 60K or higher (especially if near a large amount of highway ground traffic), so once you start thermalling they lose you unless you are given a discrete squawk other than 1200 (for non participating VFR Traffic) TCAS filtering out "highway ground traffic" ...squawking 1200? The biggest benefit of transponder is not that people on the ground will see you -- after all, they are not the ones that are going to hit you. My transponder is on not as much for the ATC, but for the TCAS/TPAS flying out there. -- Yuliy This is why I love these websites.... The Zaeon MRX Unit is intriguing for several reasons... 1. Its relatively cheap $500 2. It uses 2 self contained batteries (from 5.8 to 7 hrs duration) 3. The ATC radar interogates the other aircraft and the MRX just listens to the replies 4. You don't have to have a transponder or Mode C 5. Its small and lightweight 6. It gives relative altitude from your altitude (built in digital altimeter) 7. I don't mess ATC up if I'm not talking or participating with them. Draw backs are... it still only helps with finding other aircraft with transponders and mode C. I'm glad to hear that at places like Minden and Arizona you guys are using a discrete code with ATC's blessing. It still would mean you are talking with the ATC controllers on their freq. .... Incidentally, we (USAF) did tests with fibreglas gliders to see if we could "see" them with ATC radars.. you typically could not unless they increased their power above the rated power they were authorized at the time... yet, if we put wadded up tin foil (Reynolds Aluminum wrap) in the wings, they showed up like gang busters. Jettester (UP) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Many transponders in close proximity
Ha? The Hawker TCAS would have not detect a mode c transponder on a
collision course at 16,000ft, even if in a gaggle and sqwawking 1200? (we sqwawk 0440 at this area though). Ramy jettester wrote: 5Z wrote: With all this discussion going on now, maybe someone with some knowledge or experience could enlighten us on the consequences of 10 or more sailplanes in a tight gaglge all squawking the same info. Will ATC see them all? Or will interference and/or filtering software at ATC make some or all of them invisible? Will TCAS be able to make sense of all these close together transponders? Remember, the typical application of the transponder is to separate traffic, so it is very unusual to have two (in our case 5, 10 or even 40) or more within 1,000' of each other. Can furrent technology deal with that, or will equipping all sailplanes create more problems than it solves? Thanks -Tom Tom; I am a FAA Test Pilot who is authorized to test Transponders in new aircraft... I do this for a living. I also was qualified as a Hawker 800XP test pilot. Bottom Line - Transponders are NOT the answer! Try putting one of these new LED Strobe Lights on the top of your Fin instead. #1. Transponders would not solve the mid air problem unless you were the only one in close proximity to the attacking aircraft. Typically, they set MTI (moving target indicator) to above 60K or higher (especially if near a large amount of highway ground traffic), so once you start thermalling they lose you unless you are given a discrete squawk other than 1200 (for non participating VFR Traffic) #2. If multiple gliders (or aircraft) are in the vicinity all squawking 1200, ATC could not tell one from the other. Mode C (if you have it) reports altitude, yet if the climb or descent rate is large (let's say greater than 1500fpm) their equipment typically faults you off the scope and does not report your altitude. Once again unless you are given a discrete squawk other than 1200 (VFR traffic). #3. If multiple gliders (or other aircraft) are in the same proximity on closing trajectories, the ATC system will issue warnings to the controller, that he must issue to the offending aircraft, to try to prevent them from colliding.... Unless you are in direct communication with ATC, they will probably get extremely miffed (read.. ask you to call them when you land, and they will probably find you!!) because they are spending more time trying to cancel these warnings to control other "participating" aircraft. #4. MODE S transponders have a discrete ID code embedded in the transponder that is supposed to be set to your aircraft registry ID (look on the FAA website for your aircraft registry information and you will find that ID for your aircraft). Mode S talks to other mode S equipped transponders, and is typically used to provide TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) information to issue the advisories to each aircraft. If you have this feature, and were to pullup rapidly with another mode S aircraft overhead, it could set off his traffic warning system. #5. I have flown in wave with a transponder equipped glider, yet I was talking with ATC and had clearance into the window. Always, conditions were VMC, even though operating in Class A airspace under an IFR Flight Plan. #6. Transponders are expensive... DO NOT solve the "see and avoid" problem.. can potentially really mess ATC up if you are not in direct contact with them.. and in the case of the Hawker midair..... would not have prevented the collision. Jettester (UP) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Many transponders in close proximity
jettester wrote:
I'm glad to hear that at places like Minden and Arizona you guys are using a discrete code with ATC's blessing. It still would mean you are talking with the ATC controllers on their freq. No talking for code 0440 is required at Minden, anymore than is required for code 1200. You just punch it in and use it while VFR. ... Incidentally, we (USAF) did tests with fibreglas gliders to see if we could "see" them with ATC radars.. you typically could not unless they increased their power above the rated power they were authorized at the time... yet, if we put wadded up tin foil (Reynolds Aluminum wrap) in the wings, they showed up like gang busters. Seattle center and the local approaches don't seem to have problems seeing our gliders, especially if we announce our prescence. Perhaps your tests predate the newer radars? -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Many transponders in close proximity
Eric Greenwell wrote: jettester wrote: I'm glad to hear that at places like Minden and Arizona you guys are using a discrete code with ATC's blessing. It still would mean you are talking with the ATC controllers on their freq. No talking for code 0440 is required at Minden, anymore than is required for code 1200. You just punch it in and use it while VFR. ... Incidentally, we (USAF) did tests with fibreglas gliders to see if we could "see" them with ATC radars.. you typically could not unless they increased their power above the rated power they were authorized at the time... yet, if we put wadded up tin foil (Reynolds Aluminum wrap) in the wings, they showed up like gang busters. Seattle center and the local approaches don't seem to have problems seeing our gliders, especially if we announce our prescence. Perhaps your tests predate the newer radars? -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" I did a Electronics Counter Measures test in the late 1980's against their (Seattle's) radar, and their's is the newest in the country and the most capable. Jettester (UP) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Many transponders in close proximity
jettester wrote: ... Incidentally, we (USAF) did tests with fibreglas gliders to see if we could "see" them with ATC radars.. you typically could not unless they increased their power above the rated power they were authorized at the time... yet, if we put wadded up tin foil (Reynolds Aluminum wrap) in the wings, they showed up like gang busters. Tucson approach had no problem seeing my ASW-19B, and vectoring airline traffic round me as a climbed. I was not squawking anything except "please let me stay here long enough to get enough altitude to get home". Andy |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Many transponders in close proximity
jettester wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote: jettester wrote: I'm glad to hear that at places like Minden and Arizona you guys are using a discrete code with ATC's blessing. It still would mean you are talking with the ATC controllers on their freq. No talking for code 0440 is required at Minden, anymore than is required for code 1200. You just punch it in and use it while VFR. ... Incidentally, we (USAF) did tests with fibreglas gliders to see if we could "see" them with ATC radars.. you typically could not unless they increased their power above the rated power they were authorized at the time... yet, if we put wadded up tin foil (Reynolds Aluminum wrap) in the wings, they showed up like gang busters. Seattle center and the local approaches don't seem to have problems seeing our gliders, especially if we announce our prescence. Perhaps your tests predate the newer radars? I did a Electronics Counter Measures test in the late 1980's against their (Seattle's) radar, and their's is the newest in the country and the most capable. I suppose improvements in the last 18 years in their hardware, software, and power authorizations could mean your tests are no longer useful references for their abilities nowadays? Anecdotally, it seems like they are better than you measured back then. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Many transponders in close proximity
Andy wrote: Tucson approach had no problem seeing my ASW-19B, and vectoring airline traffic round me as a climbed. I was not squawking anything except "please let me stay here long enough to get enough altitude to get home". They could see a Kestrel back in the mid 1970's at 30 miles or so if I recall correctly. One of the Tcson Soaring Club members did some testing with them. -Tom |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Many transponders in close proximity
One thing, if you do decide to buy a transponder or other collision
avoidance device, please support the retailers who support soaring. Don't just look for the cheapest internet price. 5Z wrote: jettester wrote: Bottom Line - Transponders are NOT the answer! Try putting one of these new LED Strobe Lights on the top of your Fin instead. EXCELLENT response! Sounds like the "transponder" option is to get a Zaon MRX http://www.zaonflight.com/mrx.html It's better if I'm AWARE of ALL the transponders nearby instead of just trying to become visible to a few others with limited success. Did a quick Google search for LED strobes and these are intriguing, but looks like 1/3 to 1/2 amp drain, so even worse than transponder. But, it may be possible to rig these to flash less frequently... -Tom |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Batteries, Solar Panels, Transponders, etc. | JS | Soaring | 7 | August 31st 06 09:12 PM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
It was really close... | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 166 | May 22nd 05 01:30 PM |
Pirep: Garmin GPSMAP 296 versus 295. (very long) | Jon Woellhaf | Piloting | 12 | September 4th 04 11:55 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |