Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?

On Aug 19, 8:19*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Aug 19, 12:10 am, *wrote:
BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.

Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
with and a separate one to leach with?

-Paul

You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then
if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other
devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those
warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g.
I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and
even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a
traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an
attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up
on that display (if the software supports that)).

Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log
file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm
analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if
turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even
if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts
between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your
"official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit
in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to
suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC
log file.

I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/
require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not
transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT
trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any
tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably
implies.

Darryl

Banning ADS-B in contests???? *We are all trying to increase the safety
of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you
guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies
out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest?????

Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside
(even inside) of our small insular world???

--
Mike Schumann


None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that
the rules committee and contest community has already decided that
anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other
collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/
being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any
details on what these product features are?

I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others
as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real-
world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried
about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific
areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with
transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that
community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also
GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and
products that solve these real world problems.

Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve
a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance
issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly
damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local
contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so
I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I
definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real
sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to
provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and
traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A
perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might
allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious
contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes
restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the
receiver side).

BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules
have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how
they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver
(since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning
"two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based
devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the
issues.

---

Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision
avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to
provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios
like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting
the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are
important vectors for introducing new technology and developing
official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing
that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight
recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good
examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas.

You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if
(and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide
some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's
stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need
products developed specifically for the glider community. And this
again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what
is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another
reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing
downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build
any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B
position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is
inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a
single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing
the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial
display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the
market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors
creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the
threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings
differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company
willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate
many of the things Flarm has already done.

For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using
stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B
direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km
or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point
is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly
reduce leeching concerns.


Darryl