Case Study Near Mid Air Glider and C421 - Benefits of PowerFlarm and Transponders

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 11:10:13 AM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:



I'm not sure the PowerFLARM would receive this, if it is a TIS-B style message, my understanding is it would not. But yes ideally for lots of reasons the FAA would have thought all this through a decade ago and just broadcast blind TIS-B transponder traffic conflicts like this on both ADS-B links. That would likely be a useful safety improvement for lots of GA traffic..... I would hope not, but I do would not be totally surprised in the past if some factions within the FAA may have been concerned about doing that as it decreases incentives for traffic to equip with complaint ADS-B Out.

One argument for equipping glider with a transponder and/or ADS-B for all it's cost... would be that we get something in return... namely Collision Advisory "CA" alerts like the controllers get. Your probably right, it would likely come in the form of a TIS-B packet which is not detected by PowerFlarm at this time on both ADS-B channels. By only doing it for "CA"'s, bandwidth would not be an issue. Do you think the PowerFlarm people could easily add TIB-B and ADS-R packets?


I know lots of the glider pilots who fly in your area are fantastic at working working with ATC, Joshua Approach etc. One thing that listening to that tape that maybe shows is the benefit of having a airband radio with channel monitoring listening to ATC. Now overall is that distraction worth it? Maybe, maybe not. In some hotspots I'm sure it is. If I was buying a radio now, that feature be on my want-list.


Monitoring of local ARTCC or Approach frequencies for traffic, I've found is not worth the trouble. You know something fast and big is in the area, but do not have any idea where... just like receiving PCAS alerts.

Walt Rogers