(USA) NTSB issues recommendations to the FAA and the SSA regarding transponder use in gliders

Mike Schumann wrote:
There are obviously some challenges in getting this commercialized. The
biggest challenge is to get the FAA to accept the notion that there should
be a VFR only version of ADS-B that is designed to be cost effective, and
does not provide the accuracy and reliability levels needed for parallel
instrument approaches in Class B airspace.

My gut instinct (I don't have any experience dealing with the FAA) is that
we can get the FAA to provide a mechanism so that this type of device can be
sold commercially at a ~$1K price point. Politically, it would help a lot
of the SSA, AOPA, and the EAA took the position that universal deployment
would be acceptable, if equipment was available to the GA community at this
price point.

I sent the following comment out to various parties back in February, as
a response to a proposal by a manufacturer to build 25 of the MITRE
designed UAT transmitters for research and development purposes:

===
What if there was a highly publicized proposal by the SSA, USHPA, EAA,
AOPA, etc., to test these transmitters in a high traffic density area
with UAT ground station coverage (say Maryland or Virginia) in a range
of sport aircraft including hang gliders, ultralights, LSAs, sailplanes,
Cubs/Champs, etc.? It might encourage the FAA to address the VFR-only
issue in the near term...
===

The intent is to get the ball rolling. If you think this might be
useful, contact me, I'd like to get enough of a working group together
to insure that the proposal actually happens...

Marc

Mike Schumann wrote:
There are obviously some challenges in getting this commercialized.
The biggest challenge is to get the FAA to accept the notion that
there should be a VFR only version of ADS-B that is designed to be
cost effective, and does not provide the accuracy and reliability
levels needed for parallel instrument approaches in Class B airspace.

My gut instinct (I don't have any experience dealing with the FAA) is
that we can get the FAA to provide a mechanism so that this type of
device can be sold commercially at a ~$1K price point. Politically,
it would help a lot of the SSA, AOPA, and the EAA took the position
that universal deployment would be acceptable, if equipment was
available to the GA community at this price point.

Certainly, AOPA is already doing that. See this for their position on
ADS-B implementation:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/ads-b.html

Some highligts from that page:

4. The cost of the ADS-B datalink system must be at or below today's
price of a Mode C transponder.

5. Once the ADS-B mandate becomes effective, aircraft should not be
required to be equipped with a Mode C transponder.

The AOPA-preferred UAT datalink is capable of providing pilots with
three separate but related services:

3. FIS-B (Flight Information Services). FIS-B data includes graphic
Nexrad weather radar and textual METAR/TAF data. In the future, FIS-B
services may include graphic TFR data.

I believe all glider pilots should also be members of AOPA. I've been
one for more than 25 years. They do a lot heavy lifting that the SSA can
not, related to airplanes (think towplanes), airspace, required
equipment (ADS-B is the focus now), and pilot rights. The magazine is
ocasionally interesting, and the dues are reasonable.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

I don't think that AOPA has gone as far as supporting mandatory ADS-B
deployment in aircraft without electrical systems, gliders, and balloons.
They have been primarily focused on eliminating the current FAA strategy to
require both Mode C and ADS-B on aircraft in Class B airspace and above 10K
MSL.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:2XVJj.99$PJ3.18@trndny02...
Mike Schumann wrote:
There are obviously some challenges in getting this commercialized. The
biggest challenge is to get the FAA to accept the notion that there
should be a VFR only version of ADS-B that is designed to be cost
effective, and does not provide the accuracy and reliability levels
needed for parallel instrument approaches in Class B airspace.

My gut instinct (I don't have any experience dealing with the FAA) is
that we can get the FAA to provide a mechanism so that this type of
device can be sold commercially at a ~$1K price point. Politically,
it would help a lot of the SSA, AOPA, and the EAA took the position
that universal deployment would be acceptable, if equipment was
available to the GA community at this price point.

Certainly, AOPA is already doing that. See this for their position on
ADS-B implementation:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/ads-b.html

Some highligts from that page:

4. The cost of the ADS-B datalink system must be at or below today's
price of a Mode C transponder.

5. Once the ADS-B mandate becomes effective, aircraft should not be
required to be equipped with a Mode C transponder.

The AOPA-preferred UAT datalink is capable of providing pilots with three
separate but related services:

3. FIS-B (Flight Information Services). FIS-B data includes graphic
Nexrad weather radar and textual METAR/TAF data. In the future, FIS-B
services may include graphic TFR data.

I believe all glider pilots should also be members of AOPA. I've been one
for more than 25 years. They do a lot heavy lifting that the SSA can not,
related to airplanes (think towplanes), airspace, required equipment
(ADS-B is the focus now), and pilot rights. The magazine is ocasionally
interesting, and the dues are reasonable.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

I think that this is a great idea. Rob Strain at MITRE would be a key
player to get on board with getting something like this organized.

Mike Schumann

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. ..
Mike Schumann wrote:
There are obviously some challenges in getting this commercialized. The
biggest challenge is to get the FAA to accept the notion that there
should be a VFR only version of ADS-B that is designed to be cost
effective, and does not provide the accuracy and reliability levels
needed for parallel instrument approaches in Class B airspace.

My gut instinct (I don't have any experience dealing with the FAA) is
that we can get the FAA to provide a mechanism so that this type of
device can be sold commercially at a ~$1K price point. Politically, it
would help a lot of the SSA, AOPA, and the EAA took the position that
universal deployment would be acceptable, if equipment was available to
the GA community at this price point.

I sent the following comment out to various parties back in February, as a
response to a proposal by a manufacturer to build 25 of the MITRE designed
UAT transmitters for research and development purposes:

===
What if there was a highly publicized proposal by the SSA, USHPA, EAA,
AOPA, etc., to test these transmitters in a high traffic density area with
UAT ground station coverage (say Maryland or Virginia) in a range of sport
aircraft including hang gliders, ultralights, LSAs, sailplanes,
Cubs/Champs, etc.? It might encourage the FAA to address the VFR-only
issue in the near term...
===

The intent is to get the ball rolling. If you think this might be useful,
contact me, I'd like to get enough of a working group together to insure
that the proposal actually happens...

Marc



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

According to the guys at our local TRACON, when they have IFR traffic
heading directly towards a mode C equipped VFR target, they issue a traffic
advisory to the IFR traffic, but do NOT make an adjustment to the IFR
traffic's flight path. They rely on the IFR pilot to visually see and avoid
the VFR traffic.

In my opinion, this is crazy. We all know how difficult it is to see and
avoid traffic visually. The FAA's rules need to change. They should be
providing separation between all IFR traffic and any other known target.

Mike Schumann

"Darryl Ramm" wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 6:57 am, Tom Nau wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:20 am, "Mike Schumann"
wrote:



Why is anyone getting TCAS alerts? TCAS is suppose to be the last line
of
defense against a collision. If glider / jet traffic is regularly
resulting
in TCAS alerts, then ATC isn't providing enough separation between
transponder equipped gliders and IFR traffic. This is a big issue that
needs to be brought up with the FAA.

Mike Schumann

wrote in message

...

Kirk,

Ironic that you talk about 22k cloudbases over Grand Canyon! That
is about the altitude of the midair on June 30, 1956, that got
Positive Control Airspace(now Class A) lowered from 24,000 to 18,000
feet! I put a transponder in my DG303 years ago. Most of the glass
ships at Warner Springs have transponders. There is no excuse for not
having a transponder if you do cross-country. The same excuses I hear
(not from you) are the ones I heard when I started power flying in
1973. Too expensive, blah blah blah.

It was extremely lucky no one was killed in that Minden midair. The
few times I have soared there(in rental ships) I have had close calls
with 121 carriers on the localizer for Reno or corporate jets going
into Minden. Flying wave the other day at Warner I was on LA Center
the whole flight. It was amazing the amount of carriers that vectored
around me or got TCAS alerts.

There is lots of traffic out there folks. Transponders are a great
safety device. The 0440 vs. 1200 has nothing to do with power output.
Per LOA with Reno the 0440 identifies you as a glider rather than an
airplane. It should be an FAR to have a discrete code for gliders and
hopefully will happen soon.

Happy Soaring, Dean "GO"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike,

ATC is tasked only with separating IFR traffic from other IFR
traffic. Even when VMC, IFR traffic is supposed to "see and avoid".
Tom

Ah do you fly much in high traffic areas, talk much to ATC? ATC
regularly issues traffic advisories to help separate all types of
traffic. If you fly a glider with transponder near places like Reno,
or Travis AFB, or ... traffic gets routed around you by ATC issuing
traffic advisories to other aircraft, wether IFR or VFR. The operating
procedures in place near Reno including for non-transponder equipped
gliders are intended to help ATC issue those advisories to IFR and VFR
traffic. That's why they are in place. Luckily people involved in the
Reno area seem to get that while important, see and avoid does not
work perfectly, and when you much high density fast traffic with those
invisible white gliders it works a lot less perfectly. And I'll repeat
again this applies to many more places than the Reno area.

Darryl



** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Mike Schumann wrote:
According to the guys at our local TRACON, when they have IFR traffic
heading directly towards a mode C equipped VFR target, they issue a traffic
advisory to the IFR traffic, but do NOT make an adjustment to the IFR
traffic's flight path. They rely on the IFR pilot to visually see and avoid
the VFR traffic.

In my opinion, this is crazy. We all know how difficult it is to see and
avoid traffic visually. The FAA's rules need to change. They should be
providing separation between all IFR traffic and any other known target.

Did they explain why they used this procedure? One possibility is that
encoders used for VFR are not required to meet the same calibration
standards as encoders used for IFR, and if they are not in contact with
the VFR traffic, they can't confirm the altitude matches the encoder
output. Without knowing the altitude accurately, perhaps they are unable
to vector the IFR traffic safely around it, and must rely on "looking
out the window".

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Mike Schumann wrote:
According to the guys at our local TRACON, when they have IFR traffic
heading directly towards a mode C equipped VFR target, they issue a traffic
advisory to the IFR traffic, but do NOT make an adjustment to the IFR
traffic's flight path. They rely on the IFR pilot to visually see and avoid
the VFR traffic.

In my opinion, this is crazy. We all know how difficult it is to see and
avoid traffic visually. The FAA's rules need to change. They should be
providing separation between all IFR traffic and any other known target.



"They rely on the IFR pilot to visually see and avoid the VFR traffic."
--and vice versa.

There are provisions for IFR traffic to request vectors to avoid known
traffic. If the IFR pilot wants it, he can get it.

On the other hand, give some thought to exactly how separation could be
guaranteed from all other traffic when only one of the aircraft is under
the control of ATC. Your answer to the problem will be that there should
be no aircraft which is not under positive ATC control. Good luck with
that, and good bye to gliding--and a great many other uses of aircraft,
both pleasure- and business-oriented. If the solutions were simple,
simple people like us would have solved the problem long ago.


Jack

Granted, if ATC is only talking to one aircraft, it isn't as easy to provide
separation as when they are talking to both. However, it is not impossible.
If the VFR target is moving in a straight line, all you need to do is make
sure that the IFR traffic is at a different altitude, or vector them, so
they pass behind the VFR traffic. If the VFR traffic is a glider (which ATC
would know if the NTSB recommendation for a uniform nationwide glider squawk
code was implemented), the appropriate response would be to give the VFR
traffic a wide birth, both latterly and vertically.

Mike Schumann

"Jack" wrote in message
. ..
Mike Schumann wrote:
According to the guys at our local TRACON, when they have IFR traffic
heading directly towards a mode C equipped VFR target, they issue a
traffic advisory to the IFR traffic, but do NOT make an adjustment to the
IFR traffic's flight path. They rely on the IFR pilot to visually see
and avoid the VFR traffic.

In my opinion, this is crazy. We all know how difficult it is to see and
avoid traffic visually. The FAA's rules need to change. They should be
providing separation between all IFR traffic and any other known target.



"They rely on the IFR pilot to visually see and avoid the VFR
traffic." --and vice versa.

There are provisions for IFR traffic to request vectors to avoid known
traffic. If the IFR pilot wants it, he can get it.

On the other hand, give some thought to exactly how separation could be
guaranteed from all other traffic when only one of the aircraft is under
the control of ATC. Your answer to the problem will be that there should
be no aircraft which is not under positive ATC control. Good luck with
that, and good bye to gliding--and a great many other uses of aircraft,
both pleasure- and business-oriented. If the solutions were simple, simple
people like us would have solved the problem long ago.


Jack


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

The failure to provide separation services between VFR and IFR traffic is
the way the system has been run since day one. The rules haven't been
changed to account for increases in aircraft speed and traffic density. VFR
altitude encoders, while not meeting the standards of IFR systems designed
for reduced separation environments, still have to meet FAA standards. Any
lack of accuracy should be reflected in the separation provide to the IFR
traffic.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:hF8bk.213$9W.210@trndny04...
Mike Schumann wrote:
According to the guys at our local TRACON, when they have IFR traffic
heading directly towards a mode C equipped VFR target, they issue a
traffic advisory to the IFR traffic, but do NOT make an adjustment to the
IFR traffic's flight path. They rely on the IFR pilot to visually see
and avoid the VFR traffic.

In my opinion, this is crazy. We all know how difficult it is to see and
avoid traffic visually. The FAA's rules need to change. They should be
providing separation between all IFR traffic and any other known target.

Did they explain why they used this procedure? One possibility is that
encoders used for VFR are not required to meet the same calibration
standards as encoders used for IFR, and if they are not in contact with
the VFR traffic, they can't confirm the altitude matches the encoder
output. Without knowing the altitude accurately, perhaps they are unable
to vector the IFR traffic safely around it, and must rely on "looking out
the window".

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Mike Schumann wrote:


...since day one. The rules haven't been changed to account for increases in aircraft speed and traffic density.


An absurd claim. You will have to qualify your statements a great deal
more carefully if you expect whatever value your suggestions may have to
be recognized.


Jack