Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?

On Aug 20, 12:50*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 8/20/2010 12:18 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:

Personally, I don't care how we get a comprehensive collision avoidance
system in the US (whether it is UAT, 1090ES or FLARM).

Your arguments (even later in this same post) belie this statement.

The problem is not just contests. *Every day, we have near misses
between gliders, other aircraft, and jets. *Everyone who has purchased a
PCAS unit knows full well how many aircraft are flying around that they
never see.

PCAS is an important adjunct technology for the immediate future -
PowerFlarm has it but Navworx and Mitre units don't and therefore
can't see anything but ADS-B UAT direct outside the very limited
ground station deployment. Which meant you won't be able to see 1090ES
equipped jets unless you are near ground stations taht are yet to be
built (or even funded to be built I suspect) Correct?

You have this attitude that the only people who care about this problem
are the FLARM guys. *You completely ignore the significant efforts that
have been made by many people in the SSA, MITRE, AOPA, and even the FAA
to try to get the bureaucracy to address the mid-air threats in the GA
and glider world.

I think the point is that Flarm (and PowerFlarm by extension) has done
a much better job of actually solving for the primary glider collision
scenarios in a unit you can order today (and will likely be delivered
in time for next season) - that is why people are getting interested
in it. For instance, and as has been pointed out, the Navworx unit is
more expensive and draws 0.8 amps @ 12v before you add a GPS or
display. That likely doubles or triples the power requirements on most
gliders. We can recognize the efforts of Mitre and Navworx all we
want but the fact remains they are FAR more focused on GA than gliders
- a look at what they are producing confirms that.

This summer, the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA were conducting operation tests
in the DC area to demonstrate the effectiveness of low cost ADS-B
transceivers in gliders to help reduce the threat of mid-air collisions.

Good for them, but it's mostly not material to the discussion of which
products now coming on the market are most suitable for gliders. Just
because it works in an operational test doesn't mean its the BEST
solution.

It is very frustrating that Chris's death has not brought together the
leadership of the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to really get their hands
around a strategy to get these systems deployed in an expedited manner.

True - it's further evidence of how hard it is to get bureaucracies
with diverse interests to align. It gives strength to the argument
that a blanket approach is highly unlikely to end up producing a
superior solution to PowerFlarm and its successors.

The ultimate goal that we should all be be working towards is that every
aircraft, including gliders, balloons, jets, and even parachutists,
should be electronically visible to all other aircraft. *That visibility
should extend far enough that everyone can avoid other aircraft to their
own comfort level. *The 172 on a point to point excursion flight is
going to probably be much more interested in avoiding other aircraft
than a glider pilot participating in a contest. *A jet is going to want
to have an even wider safety margin.

Ultimate goals are nice but having a solution that works before 2020
would be better. For 2011 that is likely PowerFlarm or PowerFlarm plus
a Trig TT21/22 (or similar). The latter seems pretty future-proofed
too. I don't think the Navworx unit does me much good until the ground
infrastructure is built out over the next 10-20 years (particularly in
the remote deserts and ridges where many of us in the west fly). And
with UAT I may never get a solution for jets with 1090ES in those
areas.

Obviously in a high traffic environment, like a contest, you want to
have an intelligent system that minimizes false alarms. *If you don't do
that, then the alarms become meaningless and will be ignored. *That is a
legitimate goal.

It's the highest priority goal for many of us.

However, arbitrarily turning off position data, just to enhance the
competitive nature of an event, without any further justification, would
certainly result in some serious scrutiny, if this was a contributing
factor to an accident.

You need to look in detail at how contest mode works on PowerFlarm -
it does not turn off collision warnings, it simply makes it harder to
use it to find other gliders who are climbing better than you. Making
it harder for gaggle to form is a significant addition to safety. If
you ignore the human behavioral implications of rules you are left
only with theoretical rules that have limited practical value.

If the accident was between contest participants, all of whom agreed to
this arrangement, there might be a defense. *However, if the accident
involved another aircraft that just happened to be in the area, a good
trial lawyer could certainly make a serious case against the pilots
involved, as well as the contest organizers, any governing bodies that
created rules that contributed to the accident, as well as any avionics
manufacturer that artificially suppressed data that could have been
helpful without any legitimate justification.

This is how lawyers kill innovation - by making theoretical arguments
about specious causality.

Unfortunately, I don't think that this whole FLARM debate is moving us
any closer to widespread deployment of collision avoidance systems in
gliders. *What I see is a very narrow focus on a quick band-aid to try
to help the contest environment, while we continue to ignore a
comprehensive solution to the bigger problem.

I think the proposal on the table was to do just the opposite - drive
widespread adoption of PowerFlarm in the US rather than wait for UAT,
which is of more questionable value in glider-glider scenarios,
doesn't yet have the critical ground stations to make it work, and may
never work in seeing 1090ES jets in remote locations.

--
Mike Schumann

P.S. *I do have a legal background.

You style of argument is consistent with that Mike. Are you sure you
don't have a financial interest in UAT adoption?