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

MITRE is currently testing an ADS-B UAT transmitter that is the size of a
pack of cigarettes, runs for 14 hours and 4 internal AA batteries, and has a
parts cost of ~$150. With this kind of technology, there is no reason that
any aircraft, balloon, hang glider, or parachutist should be flying around
without one. Hopefully we'll see this commercialized within the next year
or so.

Mike Schumann

"Ron Gleason" wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 7:25 am, "Mike Schumann"
wrote:
Voluntary compliance is great. However, there are always people who
don't
get it and create situations that give the rest of us a black eye or
worse.

I don't think that it is unreasonable to require that all aircraft
(gliders,
balloons, etc.) who fly above 10K or near major airports are transponder
equipped. I would hope that rather than forcing everyone to install Mode
C
(an antiquated technology), that we could get the FAA to accelerate the
deployment of ADS-B ground stations in strategic areas, and let gliders
and
balloons meet the transponder requirements with low cost ADS-B
transceivers,
which will hopefully be available within the next year or so. A side
benefit of this, is that the power draw for ADS-B UAT transceivers should
be
a lot lower than Mode C.

Mike Schumann

I think this idea is bad and wrong. Not all aircraft that flies above
10K can feasibly fly with a transponder. Where can store the
transponder when flying my hang glider or paraglider? The technology
is not there to cover all aircraft.

Ron Gleason
DG303 N303MR




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

We have a couple of problems here TIm.
One is that we are talking to tha converted - pretty much everyone in this forum
understands that transponders do not offer a panacea, and would have major
negative results if mandated for all aviation.
Two is that the propaganda value is against us.

Consider human nature - The transponder issue - is in my opinion another example
of intellectual laziness. Generally speaking people are inherently given to
doing the smallest amount of thinking they can. Our problem here is that is is a
very easy thing to "understand" that if everything in the sky carries a
transponder then we (the general public, sitting in the nth row)will be safe.
Unfortunately this also extends to the bureaucrats occupying the nth desk at
FAA, because it is an easy decision. The FAA types probably do understand the
issues, but from their perspective less random aviation means less risk. In fact
it is easy to conclude that it is actually better for the people who are
resisting this idea, because even if this prevents large parts of a sport from
operating - they are better off not flying, than flying without this technology.
Because we have already accepted that this technology already somehow magically
ensures there will be no mid-airs.

We know that a transponder without human attention is an expensive waste of
panel space. We know that the speed differentials make ACAS etc a nice idea but
unlikely to help in a real emergency. We know there are a few places where a
transponder will substantially improve safety, and by all accounts most glider
pilots operating in those areas have voluntarily started fitting them.

From an intellectual effort perspective all of our arguments are much harder
work. If we want to win this argument we have to present a simpler case.

Maybe one way is to look at the behavioural consequences of a blanket policy of
fitting transponders . The airliners can now "safely" assume that they can fly
point to point at, over any point in the country, and at any time, because
everything in the sky is now visible to ATC. Apart from the assumption about ATC
capacity to monitor and manage, I wonder how many of the general public are
thinking of the intrusion this could mean for them. In this world the airlines
start having the contest finish problem, of aircraft are approaching from all
directions, and need to be sent via a couple of control points to straighten out
the kinks.

Look at it from the positive side, at least the lives of the ALTPs will get a
whole lot more interesting.

When the predictable incident/accident ensues, it is unlikely that the NTSB will
conclude that probable cause included inappropriate behavioural change as a
result of complacency resulting from the mandatory fitting of transponders. Too
many thoughts in one sentence - pilot error is something everyone understands.

The long report that started this looks like someone was actually trying to
understand and explain, and ended up getting edited somewhat.

Tim Mara wrote:
How many transponder equipped gliders, transponder on, have been hit by a
non-TCAS equipped general aviation aircraft? Is this really a problem? Can
it be addressed by training?

does that mean that having a transponder on board will eliminate this risk?
Does that then allow us to feel secure that it can't happen or won't? The
only way even with a transponder installed and operating to know what
traffic is around you is to be in contact with ATC....simply sending a
signal doesn't tell everyone around you that you are there.
tim

How would transponders have "negative" results if mandated for everyone in
aviation? The only argument against transponders is the cost.

Having a transponder is not a panacea, in that it will not protect you from
a 172 or other VFR traffic that doesn't happen to see you, either due to a
lack of attention, or due to the inherent difficulty of seeing other
traffic. However, it should protect you from IFR traffic that is under ATC
control.

Mike Schumann

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
We have a couple of problems here TIm.
One is that we are talking to tha converted - pretty much everyone in this
forum understands that transponders do not offer a panacea, and would have
major negative results if mandated for all aviation.
Two is that the propaganda value is against us.

Consider human nature - The transponder issue - is in my opinion another
example of intellectual laziness. Generally speaking people are inherently
given to doing the smallest amount of thinking they can. Our problem here
is that is is a very easy thing to "understand" that if everything in the
sky carries a transponder then we (the general public, sitting in the nth
row)will be safe. Unfortunately this also extends to the bureaucrats
occupying the nth desk at FAA, because it is an easy decision. The FAA
types probably do understand the issues, but from their perspective less
random aviation means less risk. In fact it is easy to conclude that it is
actually better for the people who are resisting this idea, because even
if this prevents large parts of a sport from operating - they are better
off not flying, than flying without this technology. Because we have
already accepted that this technology already somehow magically ensures
there will be no mid-airs.

We know that a transponder without human attention is an expensive waste
of panel space. We know that the speed differentials make ACAS etc a nice
idea but unlikely to help in a real emergency. We know there are a few
places where a transponder will substantially improve safety, and by all
accounts most glider pilots operating in those areas have voluntarily
started fitting them.

From an intellectual effort perspective all of our arguments are much
harder work. If we want to win this argument we have to present a simpler
case.

Maybe one way is to look at the behavioural consequences of a blanket
policy of fitting transponders . The airliners can now "safely" assume
that they can fly point to point at, over any point in the country, and at
any time, because everything in the sky is now visible to ATC. Apart from
the assumption about ATC capacity to monitor and manage, I wonder how many
of the general public are thinking of the intrusion this could mean for
them. In this world the airlines start having the contest finish problem,
of aircraft are approaching from all directions, and need to be sent via a
couple of control points to straighten out the kinks.

Look at it from the positive side, at least the lives of the ALTPs will
get a whole lot more interesting.

When the predictable incident/accident ensues, it is unlikely that the
NTSB will conclude that probable cause included inappropriate behavioural
change as a result of complacency resulting from the mandatory fitting of
transponders. Too many thoughts in one sentence - pilot error is something
everyone understands.

The long report that started this looks like someone was actually trying
to understand and explain, and ended up getting edited somewhat.

Tim Mara wrote:
How many transponder equipped gliders, transponder on, have been hit by
a non-TCAS equipped general aviation aircraft? Is this really a problem?
Can it be addressed by training?

does that mean that having a transponder on board will eliminate this
risk? Does that then allow us to feel secure that it can't happen or
won't? The only way even with a transponder installed and operating to
know what traffic is around you is to be in contact with ATC....simply
sending a signal doesn't tell everyone around you that you are there.
tim



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

On Apr 2, 4:44*pm, Tony Verhulst wrote:
LOV2AV8 wrote:
..We are also on
the ATIS for Tucson.

Why? ATIS is a recorded message. Perhaps you mean CTAF?

Tony V.

Not CTAF. That wouldn't do much in a Class C area with multiple
airports. On the recorded ATIS along with winds, runway in use,
contact approach control on XXX.XX it says "Caution, glider operations
in the vicinity of the Tucson VOR 297 radial at 28 miles up to
12,000'. This doesn't do much good as the commercial jets fly right
thru the area and even have a checkpoint near our field. I don't
think that these guys are doing too much "see and avoid" but are
counting on ATC and TCAS. I'm also not as concerned about two PCAS
gliders finding each other as a 200mph heavy metal airliner finding
me.

Randy "AV8"

wrote:
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!

This thread and (plus recent others, topically related) is a great
example of people at risk being more informed than regulators (e.g. FAA,
prodded over the years and at various times by the NTSB) and news types
(AP, MSNBC, ad nauseum, etc.). Being informed is a good thing, IMHO.

Its also well illustrates the very real absence of a technical 'panacea
fix' for traffic separation, despite everyone's fondest wishes. (Back
to this in a moment...)

Less good is inaccurate information and defeatism, both seen in this and
other recent threads.

The above-referenced mid-air brought Americans (so called) 'positive
control' for all commercial flights, NOT a reduction from 24.5K to 18K
for flights into the upper-air positive control airspace. That came
about in the late 1960's or early 1970's, as I recall. There was no
single act the FAA used to justify the lowering; it was a pure-n-simple
airspace grab 'in the interest of safety.'

As for 'defeatism' if you're in the "It's inevitable, so might as well
roll over and 'surrender' now before something REALLY bad happens camp,"
IMHO you're arguably contributing to the problem of under-informed,
politically-inspired, regulation. Personally, I'd rather go down in
(figurative!) flames fighting that depressing colossus, simply because I
believe doing right trumps doing the politically-expeditious thing.

Don't misunderstand. I'd love a (genuine) panacea fix as much as any
faceless, white-collar-welfare, bureaucrat. Where our approaches differ
is me being prepared to NOT do certain things IF those things arguably
make 'the regulateds' situations worse, without corresponding societal
(as distinct from political) benefit. 'Rolling over and surrendering to
the inevitable' certainly panders to a political approach more than it
reflects interactively working with the regulators to regulate sensibly.
I define 'sensibly' as blending risk amelioration (for the traveling
public), practicality, cost, technical reality, etc.

Who regulates air safety in the U.S.? Congress, via the FAA.

Who does NOT regulate air safety in the U.S.? The NTSB and the news
media...and anyone else not in Congress of the FAA.

Tangentially, diligent, chronological reading NTSB crash investigations
in "Aviation Week & Space Technology" will make it abundantly clear that
whenever the NTSB pressures the FAA to 'do something' in the wake of a
crash (i.e. after nearly every crash of a U.S. carrier), this is
'merely' a turf war between a wannabe regulating agency and a regulating
one. Not that I'm defending either one...merely pointing out facts.

My recommendation?
Since our particular interest group has not YET been threatened with an
imminent bureaucratic bludgeon, is to begin educating and interacting
NOW, rather then after the crisis has occurred. Thanks to computers,
the creation - and circulation - of accurate, necessarily-detailed,
educational letter(s) is trivially easy. Rationalizing your
congress-critters won't take the time to read such letters is
practically begging for them to join the panacea bandwagon when it rolls
into town. Ditto, the 'whomevers' in the FAA.

Just because your target isn't the 'panacea target' doesn't mean your
information doesn't have potential to bear fruit.

Unless you control a media typewriter, ignore the media...at best
they're a noisy agitator, with little likelihood to prove an ally in any
way. Their job is 'news,' the more 'scare-ific' the better. (If it
bleeds, it leads.) Nuance isn't their strong suit.

Time to start educating the regulatory world, folks...the choir already
knows!

Respectfully,
Bob W.

Mike Schumann wrote:
How would transponders have "negative" results if mandated for everyone in
aviation? The only argument against transponders is the cost.

The cost is certainly one negative result. A lot of people own machines
for which the cost of instaling a transpoder would make up a significant
fraction of the total value of the aircraft. A lot of owners couldn't
easily absorb such a cost. I don't know if there are other downsides, but
the cost shouldn't simply be dismissed.

Having a transponder is not a panacea, in that it will not protect you from
a 172 or other VFR traffic that doesn't happen to see you, either due to a
lack of attention, or due to the inherent difficulty of seeing other
traffic. However, it should protect you from IFR traffic that is under ATC
control.

It will *help* protect you, but ATC isn't perfect. Mid-air collisions have
occurred between aircraft equipped with transponders and under ATC
control. All things being equal I'd certainly rather have one than not,
but it won't always save you.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Mike Schumann wrote:

Having a transponder is not a panacea, in that it will not protect you from
a 172 or other VFR traffic that doesn't happen to see you, either due to a
lack of attention, or due to the inherent difficulty of seeing other
traffic. However, it should protect you from IFR traffic that is under ATC
control.


"Should"?

ATC _may_ give traffic information involving VFR traffic if they have
time. In other circumstances "protection" would come from the fact that
the IFR traffic _may_ have TCAS.

Mandating transponders is only a partial solution. Until every aircraft
also has a collision avoidance system of some type TCAS, PCAS, etc., the
regulatory push for more, and more expensive, equipment will never stop.
And in fact it will not stop until we have positive control of all
aircraft at all times in all places. We do not want to go there.

If the traffic that worries you is likely to have a transponder, then
spend a few hundred bucks and get a PCAS unit so you know where that
traffic is. And whether you add such equipment or not, learn how to scan
visually. It isn't something that comes naturally, even though you think
you are doing a great job. When you operate with a PCAS for a short
time, you will find out how much traffic you've been missing. As always,
we don't know what we don't know.


Jack

Mike Schumann wrote:
"Most gliders aren't a hazard to airliners or other controlled traffic"?????
What is the basis for that claim? There's IFR traffic everywhere. The
stuff you see isn't the threat, it's the targets you don't. Anyone who
thinks that they are immune from mid-airs because of where they fly is just
rolling the dice.

"Most" was too strong, so let me replace that with "At least half the
gliders aren't a hazard...". It is a guess, but a reasonable one, I
think. By "hazard", I mean that an IFR pilot might actually pause for a
seconds before deciding to make the flight anyway, once he is informed
about where the glider is. In other words, the risk to IFR traffic is so
low, no one is worried about it.

That situation describes a lot of training operations, ride operations,
and even cross-country flights. The risk can be low for several reasons:

*there aren't any airliners going through the area when the gliders are
operating, and very few other IFR flights.
*Or, operations are conducted in a manner where installing a transponder
wouldn't change the risk significantly. For example, where procedures
such as contact with the tower at the nearby field ensure separation.

Yes, the odds are different in different places, but the
risk is 0 everywhere.

There are many places without airliners or IFR traffic. Lots and lots of
small airfields, even municipal airports, simply don't attract that kind
of traffic. I think it's important to recognize that not every airfield
is not just outside a Class B airspace.

--
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

If you are flying cross country, or even local, on a good day and are
getting up to 8-10K MSL, I don't care where you are in the country, there is
a 0 chance that you may end up in the vicinity of an airliner or someone
else flying IFR who thinks that ATC is protecting them from everyone else.
Without a transponder, you have no protection.

Outside of the $ involved, why would you not want everyone to have a
transponder on board?

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:JugJj.1492$at6.1201@trndny01...
Mike Schumann wrote:
"Most gliders aren't a hazard to airliners or other controlled
traffic"????? What is the basis for that claim? There's IFR traffic
everywhere. The stuff you see isn't the threat, it's the targets you
don't. Anyone who thinks that they are immune from mid-airs because of
where they fly is just rolling the dice.

"Most" was too strong, so let me replace that with "At least half the
gliders aren't a hazard...". It is a guess, but a reasonable one, I think.
By "hazard", I mean that an IFR pilot might actually pause for a seconds
before deciding to make the flight anyway, once he is informed about where
the glider is. In other words, the risk to IFR traffic is so low, no one
is worried about it.

That situation describes a lot of training operations, ride operations,
and even cross-country flights. The risk can be low for several reasons:

*there aren't any airliners going through the area when the gliders are
operating, and very few other IFR flights.
*Or, operations are conducted in a manner where installing a transponder
wouldn't change the risk significantly. For example, where procedures such
as contact with the tower at the nearby field ensure separation.

Yes, the odds are different in different places, but the risk is 0
everywhere.

There are many places without airliners or IFR traffic. Lots and lots of
small airfields, even municipal airports, simply don't attract that kind
of traffic. I think it's important to recognize that not every airfield is
not just outside a Class B airspace.

--
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 don't know what the rules or current procedures are. I suspect that
virtually 100% of pilots flying IFR, and certainly 100% of the passengers on
commercial jets, expect ATC to vector IFR traffic around, and provide
separation from, every aircraft that has an identifiable location and
altitude (i.e. Mode C transponder equipped), regardless if that aircraft is
also flying IFR or VFR.

If this is not what the current rules say, or what is current procedure is,
then that needs to be changed as a 1st step. As a second step, we should
try to get all aircraft equipped with transponders. The argument should not
be on whether that is worthwhile doing, etc., but rather how we can make it
affordable so that it is not unduly burdensome to do so.

Once we get the price down under $1K, which I firmly believe is possible in
the not too distant future with ADS-B, the price argument will no longer
fly. Can you imagine the uproar if there was an airliner collision with a
non-transponder equipped glider with thousands of dollars worth of flight
recorders and other goodies, and the justification for not having a
transponder was the lack of willingness to spend another $1K? That would
put a quick end to our sport.

A more productive track than trying to stop a transponder mandate, is to
negotiate an agreement to require transponders in all gliders in exchange
for increased ATC separation of IFR traffic from glider targets and VFR
access to higher altitudes. This is an argument we can win, that doesn't
make us all look like a bunch of whiners.

Mike Schumann

"J a c k" wrote in message
...
Mike Schumann wrote:

Having a transponder is not a panacea, in that it will not protect you
from a 172 or other VFR traffic that doesn't happen to see you, either
due to a lack of attention, or due to the inherent difficulty of seeing
other traffic. However, it should protect you from IFR traffic that is
under ATC control.


"Should"?

ATC _may_ give traffic information involving VFR traffic if they have
time. In other circumstances "protection" would come from the fact that
the IFR traffic _may_ have TCAS.

Mandating transponders is only a partial solution. Until every aircraft
also has a collision avoidance system of some type TCAS, PCAS, etc., the
regulatory push for more, and more expensive, equipment will never stop.
And in fact it will not stop until we have positive control of all
aircraft at all times in all places. We do not want to go there.

If the traffic that worries you is likely to have a transponder, then
spend a few hundred bucks and get a PCAS unit so you know where that
traffic is. And whether you add such equipment or not, learn how to scan
visually. It isn't something that comes naturally, even though you think
you are doing a great job. When you operate with a PCAS for a short time,
you will find out how much traffic you've been missing. As always, we
don't know what we don't know.


Jack



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