Does FLARM meet TABS requirement?
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 7:27:16 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:22:37 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
I think what strategically happens for TABS, for better or worse,
is in the hands of large potential drone operators and manufacturers
and their lobbyists.
So should be lobbying for a TABS solution for gliders, and at the same time push for being able to use it in class A airspace?
Sure would be nice to be able to get up to cloudbase in the Great Basin area. I'm guessing there's very little traffic near the bottom of this airspace out in this neck of the woods. And ATC could learn how to deal with us since we're pretty much stationary compared everyone else.
5Z
I think any lobbying should carefully lay out what would make TABS suitable for the glider community. And I would include Class A use of TABS in that.....and lots of things about easy installation regulations and more, work with EAA and AOPA on use of TABS Class B devices in towplanes (and all GA aircraft) say near Class C/B airspace instead of full 1090ES Out. But I would expect Class A stuff to apply to block IFR clearance for those Sierra Wave big dogs and use in wave windows where necessary, as transponders are today.. Hoping for a radical change to Class A use is probably a bit much.
|