Parowan midair?

On 6/30/2010 8:20 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:



In the US, there are no FLARM units. It's a chicken and egg situation.
The 1st person to install a FLARM unit would see no benefit. As more
people deploy these units, then the benefit would increase.

In the US, for most glider pilots, the major threat to collisions is not
other gliders, but other general aviation powered aircraft. What is the
realistic chance of getting these pilots to buy / install FLARM? ZERO!


If I correctly understand the forthcoming PowerFLARM, it identifies both
other gliders that have FLARM, and any aircraft that have transponders.
I would think that glider pilots will first buy it to identify
transponders, and that is how we will achieve the critical mass of FLARM
units in gliders.

If I correctly understand the forthcoming PowerFLARM, it identifies both
other gliders that have FLARM, and any aircraft that have transponders.
* I would think that glider pilots will first buy it to identify
transponders, and that is how we will achieve the critical mass of FLARM
units in gliders.

Unlike Europe, where gliders are more separated from commercial
traffic, here in the USA we share airspace with commercial, military
and general aviation. Our Tucson gliderport is right under an
incoming airway to Tucson International Airport and we have two other
nearby airports. Since installing a transponder, I now deflect most
of the really heavy commercial and military traffic around me, but
still have concerns about others. I nearly had a glider/glider head-
on with a fellow Tucson Soaring Club member a couple of years ago and
I have had close looks at a number of other planes, including a few
light twins and A-10s.

The only detection device that would be useful to me would alert me to
powered aircraft as well as gliders, and it seems that the new
PowerFLARM will do that. Whether or not it will be widely adopted at
its $1,500+ price point is another question.

Mike

Unlike Europe, where gliders are more separated from commercial
traffic, here in the USA we share airspace with commercial, military
and general aviation. *Our Tucson gliderport is right under an
incoming airway to Tucson International Airport and we have two other
nearby airports. *Since installing a transponder, I now deflect most
of the really heavy commercial and military traffic around me, but
still have concerns about others. *I nearly had a glider/glider head-
on with a fellow Tucson Soaring Club member a couple of years ago and
I have had close looks at a number of other planes, including a few
light twins and A-10s.

The only detection device that would be useful to me would alert me to
powered aircraft as well as gliders, and it seems that the new
PowerFLARM will do that. Whether or not it will be widely adopted at
its $1,500+ price point is another question.

Mike

If the new PowerFLARM works as both an ADS-B receiver and FLARM
transmitter/receiver AND serves as a secure flight recorder, then
$1,500 doesn't seem out of line. Not that I can afford it, but it
doesn't seem too crazy. Now, will powered aircraft with TCAS (Traffic
Collision Avoidance System) and ADS-B receive any type of signal from
the PowerFLARM? Will the Hawker 800 and other bizjets see me on their
electronic gadgets before physical contact with up close and personal
inspections are made?

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

On Jun 30, 9:35*am, Greg Arnold wrote:
On 6/30/2010 8:20 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:



In the US, there are no FLARM units. It's a chicken and egg situation.
The 1st person to install a FLARM unit would see no benefit. As more
people deploy these units, then the benefit would increase.

In the US, for most glider pilots, the major threat to collisions is not
other gliders, but other general aviation powered aircraft. What is the
realistic chance of getting these pilots to buy / install FLARM? ZERO!

If I correctly understand the forthcoming PowerFLARM, it identifies both
other gliders that have FLARM, and any aircraft that have transponders.
* I would think that glider pilots will first buy it to identify
transponders, and that is how we will achieve the critical mass of FLARM
units in gliders.

To the earlier point, I don't suspect anybody, includign Flarm, thinks
that the Flarm radio-protocol would be widely adopted in the GA market
in the USA. I think that was one of the points that Urs (CEO of Flarm)
was trying to make in his post about why the PowerFLARM is more
suitable for the USA market.

I suspect Greg understands PCAS well, but as with any of this
technology I want to be cautious about how some people will understand
statements like PowerFLARM seeing "any aircraft that have
transponders". The PowerFLARM (with 1090ES/PCAS option) includes PCAS
capability that will give some warning/traffic information about
transponder equipped threats. The PCAS threat information will not
include direction, only altitude and there is no detail available yet
AFAIK on how many threats etc. the PowerFLARM tracks/warns about/the
alert parameters/settings etc. So basically think of this like a Zaon
MRX built into the PowerFLARM box. If it works as well as the MRX it
is a great useful feature to have. However as with all PCAS it relies
on the transponder in the treat aircraft being interrogated either by
ground based SSR or by airborne TCAS or TCAD systems. Those of us who
fly with the MRX today know the coverage of these interrogators can be
pretty good, and that PCAS can be a great help in traffic awareness
but there are areas where there are no interrogator coverage (esp. low
on ridges, down low in valleys). PCAS is also of very limited if any
use in gaggles, even if the other gliders are all transponder
equipped. PCAS systems also often do not have enough range to provide
effective/early enough warning of fast jet traffic (esp. at
altitudes). If the concern is fast jets/airlines the most effective
thing to do is carry a transponder so those aircraft TCAS systems see
your glider and in the worse case issue a traffic resolution (TA)
command to the pilot. That is much more effective than hoping you can
use traffic awareness devices to help you avoid that fast jet.

The PowerFLARM (with 1090ES/PCAS option) also includes an ADS-B 1090ES
receiver. So will directly receive ADS-B data from 1090ES data-out
equipped aircraft. Which as the fleet adopts ADS-B this means the
PowerFLARM will see the position of 1090ES equipped airliners, jets
and likely much of the GA fleet. For those concerned with fast-jets/
airlines the 1090ES data-in capability in the PowerFLARM (without any
other devices, ADS-B transmitters etc.) will let you see those (1090ES
equipped) aircraft position precisely and at much longer range than
traditional PCAS systems. Bit again, this is a compliment, but not a
good alternative, to having a transponder in your glider to make you
visible to those aircraft's TCAS systems.

In the USA we have a complex dual-link ADS-B environment with both UAT
and 1090ES data-links supported. The FAA seemed to be assuming the GA
fleet would predominately equip with UAT devices. I beleive this is a
bad assumption and much of the GA fleet is likely to equip with 1090ES
data-out. Especially since, to meet requirements for flight in much of
the airspace those GA aircraft need to equip with both a transponder
and ADS-B data-out. Vendors like Garmin seem to be pushing just going
to Mode S and combining both capabilities in one box, which is what
they have done with the GTX-330ES/33ES products. Since common
components, packaging and costs can be combined this makes a lot of
sense.

In the USA a PowerFLARM will directly see the ADS-B transmission of
1090ES data-out equipped aircraft. But what about UATs and TIS-B?...
ADS-B dual-link works by utilizing GBT ground stations to relay
between 1090ES and UAT and visa-versa (that's called ADS-R or ADS-
Relay) and to also transmit the position of SSR radar based traffic
(that's called TIS-B). To do this the ground infrastructure needs to
know your aircraft's location so it can broadcast threats in your
vicinity. To do this your aircraft must be equipped with an ADS-B
transmitter, either a UAT transmitter (or transceiver) or Mode S
transponder with 1090ES. And the transmitters need to be fed a GPS
signal and correctly configured to tell the ground infrastructure what
ADS-B receiver capability your aircraft has. Just trying to get this
set up is a confusing mess today, and may not get any better--we are
likely to have lots of cases of improperly configured devices with
pilots unaware they are not working correctly.

Currently the PowerFLARM is the most interesting looking traffic
awareness product for gliders in the USA. It meets the baseline
requirement of being relatively compact and low-power. At around
$1,700 (with PCAS/1090ES) it is a bit more than many pilots would like
to pay, but for an early device with all these capabilities it is a
pretty amazing price point. The PowerFLARM has a nice built-in
display and audible warnings (fancier voice coming after first ship?)
and presumably supports Flarm's proven good glider-tuned collision
avoidance logic for Flarm as well as ADS-B direct and ADS-R traffic
(not sure how really handles the less precise location of TIS-B
threats). It supports the defacto standard Flarm serial protocol for
connection to remote displays, PDAs etc. Remember just having ADS-B
data-in anything provides no guarantee of a traffic/collision warning,
and certainly not something tuned for glider-on-glider situations like
Flarm has developed in their previous products. I am not aware of any
UAT devices, including the NavWorx products or the Mitre prototypes
that come close to having all these features, pretty much what I
consider baseline features for use in gliders. And based on a question
I posed to NavWorx, they appear to have no interest in supporting the
Flarm serial display protocol in their products. That's pretty
understandable since their products are really intended for the GA
market (e.g. their UAT transceiver appears to be packaged for GA
applications and to have relatively high power consumption for our
uses).

In the USA it is pretty clear we are going to be operating in an
environment with both 1090ES and UAT devices. We will have issues with
glider and GA aircraft owners (esp. early adopters and those not
seeking to meet carriage requirements) not being aware they need to be
ADS-B data-out equipped for ADS-R and TIS-B to work properly and we
will have areas without GBT coverage for ADS-R and TIS-B. For us I
worry about mountain ridges and valleys and similar areas where UAT
and 1090ES equipped gliders will not be able to "see" each other. I
worry that the only real ADS-B solution that will "just work" will
require the eventual adoption of dual-link receivers to directly
receive both 1090ES and UAT -- but even then we will need all gliders
to equip with an ADS-B data-out device for ADS-B to work. Or we all
adopt PowerFLARM and rely on the Flarm-Flarm link for glider on glider
traffic awareness in those corner cases. The SSA is supposed to be
working with the FAA on ADS-B, hopefully they are looking at lots of
these practical issues, not just focusing on the Mitre UAT prototype.

The nice thing about PowerFLARM (with the 1090ES/PCAS option) is that
with no extra work it gives you PCAS, 1090ES direct-in and Flarm to
Flarm capability today. Flarm-Flarm only being interesting if you can
convince lot of you local your glider buddies to buy one as well.
Early adopters today who want to play with ADS-B "properly" with a
PowerFLARM will need to add a ADS-B data-out transmitter. Probably the
most practical way of doing that today in the USA would be based on a
Trig TT-21 1090ES capable transponder.

All this of course is buried in a thread about a real collision. All
these devices are just aids and I really hope people posting about
technology here really really really get that....


Darryl

On Jun 30, 12:20*pm, rlovinggood wrote:
Unlike Europe, where gliders are more separated from commercial
traffic, here in the USA we share airspace with commercial, military
and general aviation. *Our Tucson gliderport is right under an
incoming airway to Tucson International Airport and we have two other
nearby airports. *Since installing a transponder, I now deflect most
of the really heavy commercial and military traffic around me, but
still have concerns about others. *I nearly had a glider/glider head-
on with a fellow Tucson Soaring Club member a couple of years ago and
I have had close looks at a number of other planes, including a few
light twins and A-10s.

The only detection device that would be useful to me would alert me to
powered aircraft as well as gliders, and it seems that the new
PowerFLARM will do that. Whether or not it will be widely adopted at
its $1,500+ price point is another question.

Mike

If the new PowerFLARM works as both an ADS-B receiver and FLARM
transmitter/receiver AND serves as a secure flight recorder, then
$1,500 doesn't seem out of line. *Not that I can afford it, but it
doesn't seem too crazy. *Now, will powered aircraft with TCAS (Traffic
Collision Avoidance System) and ADS-B receive any type of signal from
the PowerFLARM? *Will the Hawker 800 and other bizjets see me on their
electronic gadgets before physical contact with up close and personal
inspections are made?

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA


The PowerFLARM is a Flarm radio-protocol transmitter and receiver but
is an ADS-B 1090ES receiver only. It does not transmit any ADS-B data.

You need a transponder (Mode C or Mode S) for the fast jets,
airliners, military transport, etc. to "see" you on their TCAS system.
Some GA aircraft will also see you on their TCAD systems, and many
folks will see you on PCAS. It is especially important that there is
no way for the big-iron's TCAS systems to issue an "RA" resolution
advisory unless your glider has a transponder. The TCAS will not see a
UAT transmitter. You can of combine ADS-B data-out and the transponder
by having a Mode S transponder with 1090ES data-out capability (the
Trig TT-21 being the prototypical example in the USA).

Over time other aircraft (including maybe that Hawker 800 example) may
add ADS-B data-in and CDTI (ADS-B based traffic display). At the high
end CDTI will be integrated with the TCAS based traffic display, but
again without a transponder even a combined CDTI/TCAS system will not
issue an RA against you as a threat. The other issue is that many fast-
jet owners likely are to be convinced of the benefit of ADS-B data-in
and CDTI over their current mandatory TCAS requirements. We'll have to
see what adoption rates there are (I'm curious and currently asking a
corporate flight department who operate Hawker 900XP and others about
their ADS-B data-in/CDTI plans). You sneeze in these cockpits and
somebody hands you an invoice that could buy a shiny new ASH-30Mi...

Darryl

On Jun 16, 11:48*am, Andy wrote:
SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
day. *If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
wing and so far has no log posted.

Any more information available?

Andy.

Maybe worth noting that there was also a mid-air collision at the 31st
Worlds on Day 1 (4th July) between two standard class gliders which
was also caught on IGC flight logs. According to the contest web site
both gliders were able to land and the pilots are OK. See flight logs
for 8K and GX (reported as FX on the score sheet).

According to the contest site, one glider had an anti-collision
device, presumably Flarm, the other did not. One glider was thermaling
and the other appears to join the thermal (or at least try to avoid
the thermal circle?) but misjudges and there is a collision. That
pilot had the day disqualified and a two day suspension for what the
CD determined was dangerous flying.

As with the Parowan mid-air there was a gaggle stacked up above the
collision point and the collision involves at least one of the gliders
entering the thermal. Likely a lot of gliders to look at and I wonder
in both cases how much the pilots may have been distracted from seeing
the gliders at the same altitude by looking up at the gaggle above to
help judge the thermal location.

And as discussed in this thread earlier, continuing on task after a
collision is specifically not allowed by FAI rules (Annex A 4.1.4).
Here one glider did continue back to the contest airport/finish. He
was already on the final leg but did seem to pass up several other
closer options to land. I wonder how the CD interprets the 4.1.4 "land
as soon as practicable" requirement, but moot in this case since the
pilot was disqualified anyhow. I mention that only to point it out,
not to judge, without knowing the condition of the glider and
facilities available at the landing sites I do not know what I would
do.


Darryl

On 7/5/2010 11:09 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jun 16, 11:48 am, wrote:
SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
day. If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
wing and so far has no log posted.

Any more information available?

Andy.

Maybe worth noting that there was also a mid-air collision at the 31st
Worlds on Day 1 (4th July) between two standard class gliders which
was also caught on IGC flight logs. According to the contest web site
both gliders were able to land and the pilots are OK. See flight logs
for 8K and GX (reported as FX on the score sheet).

According to the contest site, one glider had an anti-collision
device, presumably Flarm, the other did not. One glider was thermaling
and the other appears to join the thermal (or at least try to avoid
the thermal circle?) but misjudges and there is a collision. That
pilot had the day disqualified and a two day suspension for what the
CD determined was dangerous flying.

As with the Parowan mid-air there was a gaggle stacked up above the
collision point and the collision involves at least one of the gliders
entering the thermal. Likely a lot of gliders to look at and I wonder
in both cases how much the pilots may have been distracted from seeing
the gliders at the same altitude by looking up at the gaggle above to
help judge the thermal location.

And as discussed in this thread earlier, continuing on task after a
collision is specifically not allowed by FAI rules (Annex A 4.1.4).
Here one glider did continue back to the contest airport/finish. He
was already on the final leg but did seem to pass up several other
closer options to land. I wonder how the CD interprets the 4.1.4 "land
as soon as practicable" requirement, but moot in this case since the
pilot was disqualified anyhow. I mention that only to point it out,
not to judge, without knowing the condition of the glider and
facilities available at the landing sites I do not know what I would
do.


Darryl

I didn't see any mention that there were additional gliders in the
vicinity of the Parowan mid-air. Is there some further documentation
that describes this?

--
Mike Schumann

On Jul 5, 5:35*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 7/5/2010 11:09 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Jun 16, 11:48 am, *wrote:
SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
day. *If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
wing and so far has no log posted.

Any more information available?

Andy.

Maybe worth noting that there was also a mid-air collision at the 31st
Worlds on Day 1 (4th July) between two standard class gliders which
was also caught on IGC flight logs. According to the contest web site
both gliders were able to land and the pilots are OK. See flight logs
for 8K and GX (reported as FX on the score sheet).

According to the contest site, one glider had an anti-collision
device, presumably Flarm, the other did not. One glider was thermaling
and the other appears to join the thermal (or at least try to avoid
the thermal circle?) but misjudges and there is a collision. That
pilot had the day disqualified and a two day suspension for what the
CD determined was dangerous flying.

As with the Parowan mid-air there was a gaggle stacked up above the
collision point and the collision involves at least one of the gliders
entering the thermal. Likely a lot of gliders to look at and I wonder
in both cases how much the pilots may have been distracted from seeing
the gliders at the same altitude by looking up at the gaggle above to
help judge the thermal location.

And as discussed in this thread earlier, continuing on task after a
collision is specifically not allowed by FAI rules (Annex A 4.1.4).
Here one glider did continue back to the contest airport/finish. He
was already on the final leg but did seem to pass up several other
closer options to land. I wonder how the CD interprets the 4.1.4 "land
as soon as practicable" requirement, but moot in this case since the
pilot was disqualified anyhow. I mention that only to point it out,
not to judge, without knowing the condition of the glider and
facilities available at the landing sites I do not know what I would
do.

Darryl

I didn't see any mention that there were additional gliders in the
vicinity of the Parowan mid-air. *Is there some further documentation
that describes this?

--
Mike Schumann

Download all the IGC files for that Parowan contest day and play those
in SeeYou (EditAdd Flight and do a multiple select on all the IGC
files). There were at least three gliders in a thermal, one just
starting to leave, and the two gliders in the collision appear to be
joining that thermal below those other gliders. I have _no_ idea if
either pilot of the colliding gliders have ever commented on watching
those gliders above or whether this was a factor.

Darryl

On Jul 5, 8:25*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jul 5, 5:35*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:



On 7/5/2010 11:09 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:

On Jun 16, 11:48 am, *wrote:
SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
day. *If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
wing and so far has no log posted.

Any more information available?

Andy.

Maybe worth noting that there was also a mid-air collision at the 31st
Worlds on Day 1 (4th July) between two standard class gliders which
was also caught on IGC flight logs. According to the contest web site
both gliders were able to land and the pilots are OK. See flight logs
for 8K and GX (reported as FX on the score sheet).

According to the contest site, one glider had an anti-collision
device, presumably Flarm, the other did not. One glider was thermaling
and the other appears to join the thermal (or at least try to avoid
the thermal circle?) but misjudges and there is a collision. That
pilot had the day disqualified and a two day suspension for what the
CD determined was dangerous flying.

As with the Parowan mid-air there was a gaggle stacked up above the
collision point and the collision involves at least one of the gliders
entering the thermal. Likely a lot of gliders to look at and I wonder
in both cases how much the pilots may have been distracted from seeing
the gliders at the same altitude by looking up at the gaggle above to
help judge the thermal location.

And as discussed in this thread earlier, continuing on task after a
collision is specifically not allowed by FAI rules (Annex A 4.1.4).
Here one glider did continue back to the contest airport/finish. He
was already on the final leg but did seem to pass up several other
closer options to land. I wonder how the CD interprets the 4.1.4 "land
as soon as practicable" requirement, but moot in this case since the
pilot was disqualified anyhow. I mention that only to point it out,
not to judge, without knowing the condition of the glider and
facilities available at the landing sites I do not know what I would
do.

Darryl

I didn't see any mention that there were additional gliders in the
vicinity of the Parowan mid-air. *Is there some further documentation
that describes this?

--
Mike Schumann

Download all the IGC files for that Parowan contest day and play those
in SeeYou (EditAdd Flight and do a multiple select on all the IGC
files). There were at least three gliders in a thermal, one just
starting to leave, and the two gliders in the collision appear to be
joining that thermal below those other gliders. I have _no_ idea if
either pilot of the colliding gliders have ever commented on watching
those gliders above or whether this was a factor.

Darryl

i know one pilot who was under the colliding pilots in the same
thermal.

On Jul 5, 6:38*pm, Tony wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:25*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Jul 5, 5:35*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:

On 7/5/2010 11:09 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:

On Jun 16, 11:48 am, *wrote:
SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
day. *If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
wing and so far has no log posted.

Any more information available?

Andy.

Maybe worth noting that there was also a mid-air collision at the 31st
Worlds on Day 1 (4th July) between two standard class gliders which
was also caught on IGC flight logs. According to the contest web site
both gliders were able to land and the pilots are OK. See flight logs
for 8K and GX (reported as FX on the score sheet).

According to the contest site, one glider had an anti-collision
device, presumably Flarm, the other did not. One glider was thermaling
and the other appears to join the thermal (or at least try to avoid
the thermal circle?) but misjudges and there is a collision. That
pilot had the day disqualified and a two day suspension for what the
CD determined was dangerous flying.

As with the Parowan mid-air there was a gaggle stacked up above the
collision point and the collision involves at least one of the gliders
entering the thermal. Likely a lot of gliders to look at and I wonder
in both cases how much the pilots may have been distracted from seeing
the gliders at the same altitude by looking up at the gaggle above to
help judge the thermal location.

And as discussed in this thread earlier, continuing on task after a
collision is specifically not allowed by FAI rules (Annex A 4.1.4).
Here one glider did continue back to the contest airport/finish. He
was already on the final leg but did seem to pass up several other
closer options to land. I wonder how the CD interprets the 4.1.4 "land
as soon as practicable" requirement, but moot in this case since the
pilot was disqualified anyhow. I mention that only to point it out,
not to judge, without knowing the condition of the glider and
facilities available at the landing sites I do not know what I would
do.

Darryl

I didn't see any mention that there were additional gliders in the
vicinity of the Parowan mid-air. *Is there some further documentation
that describes this?

--
Mike Schumann

Download all the IGC files for that Parowan contest day and play those
in SeeYou (EditAdd Flight and do a multiple select on all the IGC
files). There were at least three gliders in a thermal, one just
starting to leave, and the two gliders in the collision appear to be
joining that thermal below those other gliders. I have _no_ idea if
either pilot of the colliding gliders have ever commented on watching
those gliders above or whether this was a factor.

Darryl

i know one pilot who was under the colliding pilots in the same
thermal.

From the flight traces there appear to be two gliders below the
general are of the collision, neither appear to be actually working
the same thermal so I did not mention them. One of them in particular
flies towards and under the gliders a short time after the collide.

It's worth sitting down with SeeYou on a fast computer and playing
either the Parowan or WGC collision in 3D (complete with all the other
gliders) and imagine looking at that other traffic while joining a
thermal. A healthy reminder how easy this is to happen when there are
enough gliders around trying to work the same thermals.

Darryl