Gliders and Transponders......again.

On Jan 19, 9:27*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:25:29 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:
As for wanting a Mode-S transponder with "TCAS" display. You can get
this today. In the USA PCAS units like the Zaon MRX are popular and use
very low power and relatively low cost (~$500). They provide an alert
but no RA or direction information.

I, for one, appreciate that Mode-S plus PCAS will do the full electronic
see-and-be-seen bit, but its a two box solution with any instruments I've
seen advertised.

Some of us just don't have the panel space for that. I fly a Libelle and
currently have all panel holes bar one full. The blanking plate in the
remaining one supports my GPS on a stalk. Nonetheless, I think I can get
a 57mm transponder in alongside the stalk mount, but that will certainly
need a replacement panel chassis and may need my 80mm altimeter to be
replaced with a 57mm unit.

That exercise leaves me with the transponder, but where can I put the
PCAS? In a Libelle there's no way it can be put on top of the panel and
there is little if any available space along the cockpit sides. This is
why I, for one, really need a single, 57mm instrument combines both
transponder and PCAS and is low power enough to run off a glider battery.

If such an instruments exists I'd love to know the details.

Derek is right about our airspace: I've never met anything other than *
other gliders, GA aircraft, a few helicopters, the odd hang glider/
parascender and one or two military aircraft when I've been on an xc
task. The usual opposition to a glider on an xc task is GA pilots. I bet
they don't carry PCAS/TCAS and I'm not under ATC control. Under these
conditions the introduction of transponders does not reduce my changes of
a collision unless I have PCAS onboard. Hence my interest in the combined
instrument. *

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

I know nothing about UK airspace (besides being stuck in it for far
too much time as a passenger holding over Heathrow), but it sounds
like the existing separation of airliner and jets in UK airspace is a
key point you folks should be arguing.

And again only one of the transponder aircraft needs to be talking to
ATC/radar facilities or have PCAS or higher. I don't know PCAS (and
higher-end systems) adoption in low-end GA aircraft in the UK, but in
the USA it seems pretty high (purely an anecdotal impression). I've
asked before but could not get adoption numbers for the USA.

Companies who make panel mounted transponders usually do so for the
larger GA market and they have to coexist with all sorts of PCAS,
active systems (like the Avidyne) and full on TCAS. I would not hold
my breath for a transponder with integrated PCAS. But maybe now
manufacturers will be making them mostly for UAVs and those UAVs could
do with integrated PCAS :-(

In the Libelle you might be able to make up a mount for a Zaon MRX
under the opaque areas of the front of the canopy, it might be canted
over parallel to the surface, and use an antenna mounted on suction
cups on the canopy. Obviously paying attention to canopy jettison
issues. I'd be kind of surprised it is impossible, but not saying its
going to be trivial.

Darryl

The part of the discussion about UK use of transponders has missed out
what I consider the main point, which is the complex regulatory
requirements placed on us for fitting transponders.

First, you can now only install approved kit, and our CAA imposes more
stringent requirements for approval than other aviation regulators.

Second, installation can only be done, as I understand it, if either (a)
the manufacture has issued an approved scheme for installation (I
believe none have, other than for motor gliders), or (b) if you pay an
installer to produce a formal modification scheme (fees) and then pay
our CAA substantial "major modification" fees to have the scheme approved.

On top of this there are further substantial fees for annual tests.

Currently, it is unlawful just to fit a transponder yourself or to get a
knowledgeable person to do so for you (or maybe it's lawful to do this,
but then unlawful to fly the aircraft).

Far be it from me to say that preventing voluntary transponder carriage
is foolish, but ...

Darryl Ramm wrote:
I know nothing about UK airspace (besides being stuck in it for far
too much time as a passenger holding over Heathrow), but it sounds
like the existing separation of airliner and jets in UK airspace is a
key point you folks should be arguing.

And again only one of the transponder aircraft needs to be talking to
ATC/radar facilities or have PCAS or higher. I don't know PCAS (and
higher-end systems) adoption in low-end GA aircraft in the UK, but in
the USA it seems pretty high (purely an anecdotal impression). I've
asked before but could not get adoption numbers for the USA.

Companies who make panel mounted transponders usually do so for the
larger GA market and they have to coexist with all sorts of PCAS,
active systems (like the Avidyne) and full on TCAS. I would not hold
my breath for a transponder with integrated PCAS. But maybe now
manufacturers will be making them mostly for UAVs and those UAVs could
do with integrated PCAS :-(

In the Libelle you might be able to make up a mount for a Zaon MRX
under the opaque areas of the front of the canopy, it might be canted
over parallel to the surface, and use an antenna mounted on suction
cups on the canopy. Obviously paying attention to canopy jettison
issues. I'd be kind of surprised it is impossible, but not saying its
going to be trivial.

Darryl

On Jan 19, 10:18*am, Chris Reed wrote:



Second, installation can only be done, as I understand it, if either
(a)
the manufacture has issued an approved scheme for installation
(Ibelieve none have,

--------------------------------------------------------------------

DG has a TN for the installation, probably others do as well, but you
have to dig a bit for it.

I agree that the power issue might not be that important. Selecting a
lower current encoder (ACK?) can help. For my installation I installed
wiring for a second battery but am waiting to see if it's really
needed. It might only be required for unusually long flights, and in
those cases might be avoided by using a 'load shedding' check list- by
using the back-up battery in the vario, shifting the PDA to it's
internal battery, and avoiding idle chatter on the radio you get some
extra hours.

Schempp-Hirth has TNs for transponders as well - permitting three different
antenna types - blade, rod or bendy.

The new Trig Avionics TT21 transponder, with built-in altitude encoder is
estimated by the makers to consume 320 mA from a 12 V battery when busy.
Assuming the 7Ah battery is only delivering 50% of nominal capacity this
equates to 10 hours continuous use.

The controller that needs to be accessed by the pilot is 6.4 x 4.5 x 4.5
cm, the transponder itself can be installed anywhere convenient in the
glider so will fit most gliders. (And I don't have an interest in it.)

At 22:47 19 January 2009, brianDG303 wrote:
On Jan 19, 10:18=A0am, Chris Reed wrote:



Second, installation can only be done, as I understand it, if either
(a)
the manufacture has issued an approved scheme for installation
(Ibelieve none have,

--------------------------------------------------------------------

DG has a TN for the installation, probably others do as well, but you
have to dig a bit for it.

I agree that the power issue might not be that important. Selecting a
lower current encoder (ACK?) can help. For my installation I installed
wiring for a second battery but am waiting to see if it's really
needed. It might only be required for unusually long flights, and in
those cases might be avoided by using a 'load shedding' check list- by
using the back-up battery in the vario, shifting the PDA to it's
internal battery, and avoiding idle chatter on the radio you get some
extra hours.

So do the many wooden and vintage gliders still flying have TNs from their
manufacturers for fitting Mode S transponders then? Somehow I rather doubt
it!

Derek C

At 00:15 20 January 2009, Big Wings wrote:
Schempp-Hirth has TNs for transponders as well - permitting three
different
antenna types - blade, rod or bendy.

The new Trig Avionics TT21 transponder, with built-in altitude encoder
is
estimated by the makers to consume 320 mA from a 12 V battery when busy.

Assuming the 7Ah battery is only delivering 50% of nominal capacity this
equates to 10 hours continuous use.

The controller that needs to be accessed by the pilot is 6.4 x 4.5 x 4.5
cm, the transponder itself can be installed anywhere convenient in the
glider so will fit most gliders. (And I don't have an interest in it.)


At 22:47 19 January 2009, brianDG303 wrote:
On Jan 19, 10:18=A0am, Chris Reed wrote:



Second, installation can only be done, as I understand it, if either
(a)
the manufacture has issued an approved scheme for installation
(Ibelieve none have,

--------------------------------------------------------------------

DG has a TN for the installation, probably others do as well, but you
have to dig a bit for it.

I agree that the power issue might not be that important. Selecting a
lower current encoder (ACK?) can help. For my installation I installed
wiring for a second battery but am waiting to see if it's really
needed. It might only be required for unusually long flights, and in
those cases might be avoided by using a 'load shedding' check list-
by
using the back-up battery in the vario, shifting the PDA to it's
internal battery, and avoiding idle chatter on the radio you get some
extra hours.

On Jan 19, 6:45*pm, Derek Copeland wrote:
So do the many wooden and vintage gliders still flying have TNs from their
manufacturers for fitting Mode S transponders then? Somehow I rather doubt
it!

Derek C *

At 00:15 20 January 2009, Big Wings wrote:



Schempp-Hirth has TNs for transponders as well - permitting three
different
antenna types - blade, rod or bendy.

The new Trig Avionics TT21 transponder, with built-in altitude encoder
is
estimated by the makers to consume 320 mA from a 12 V battery when busy.
Assuming the 7Ah battery is only delivering 50% of nominal capacity this
equates to 10 hours continuous use.

The controller that needs to be accessed by the pilot is 6.4 x 4.5 x 4.5
cm, the transponder itself can be installed anywhere convenient in the
glider so will fit most gliders. *(And I don't have an interest in it.)

At 22:47 19 January 2009, brianDG303 wrote:
On Jan 19, 10:18=A0am, Chris Reed *wrote:

Second, installation can only be done, as I understand it, if either
(a)
the manufacture has issued an approved scheme for installation
(Ibelieve none have,

--------------------------------------------------------------------

DG has a TN for the installation, probably others do as well, but you
have to dig a bit for it.

I agree that the power issue might not be that important. Selecting a
lower current encoder (ACK?) can help. For my installation I installed
wiring for a second battery but am waiting to see if it's really
needed. It might only be required for unusually long flights, and in
those cases might be avoided by using a 'load shedding' check list-
by
using the back-up battery in the vario, shifting the PDA to it's
internal battery, and avoiding idle chatter on the radio you get some
extra hours.

Well Schleicher has a TM concerning the installation of a transponder
for my Ka-6

http://alexander-schleicher.de/tm/06/060_TM24_D.pdf

Still doesn't address the cost issue though

Pete

On Jan 19, 1:18*pm, Chris Reed wrote:
Second, installation can only be done, as I understand it, if either (a)
the manufacture has issued an approved scheme for installation (I
believe none have, other than for motor gliders), or (b) if you pay an
installer to produce a formal modification scheme (fees) and then pay
our CAA substantial "major modification" fees to have the scheme approved..

Lange gliders have transponder antenna mount built-in, and
most are delivered with antenna and wiring installed with
transponder... Includes Antares 18 pure glider...

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:06:40 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:

I know nothing about UK airspace (besides being stuck in it for far too
much time as a passenger holding over Heathrow), but it sounds like the
existing separation of airliner and jets in UK airspace is a key point
you folks should be arguing.

Yes, agreed. The public will be with us on noise grounds if the commuter
airlines get their way and start flying direct routes through class G
airspace - this is something they can't do at present, but the CAA's
transponder consultation seems designed to let them do it.

And again only one of the transponder aircraft needs to be talking to
ATC/radar facilities or have PCAS or higher. I don't know PCAS (and
higher-end systems) adoption in low-end GA aircraft in the UK, but in
the USA it seems pretty high (purely an anecdotal impression). I've
asked before but could not get adoption numbers for the USA.

I've not seen figures either, but the GA density is probably lower here.
There are flying schools on either side of our club field and there's no
doubt that our weekend movements vastly outnumber both of theirs.

In the Libelle you might be able to make up a mount for a Zaon MRX under
the opaque areas of the front of the canopy.

There's less space there than you might imagine. The panel is inset no
more than 65mm (2.5"), so an end-on cigarette pack would not fit under in
font of the panel while anything thicker would start to hide the top row
instruments.

It might be canted over parallel to the surface,

It would have to be. If it was in the center it would interfere with the
canopy lock. On the other hand, the antenna is probably not an issue - a
remote one could be mounted above the instrument tray that forms the
front of the panel. My GPS antenna is mounted there and gets an excellent
view of the sky.

I wouldn't want anything much bigger than a MH flowmeter on the cockpit
wall in front of me: lets just say the cockpit is 'snug'.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Jan 19, 4:24*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:06:40 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:
I know nothing about UK airspace (besides being stuck in it for far too
much time as a passenger holding over Heathrow), but it sounds like the
existing separation of airliner and jets in UK airspace is a key point
you folks should be arguing.

Yes, agreed. The public will be with us on noise grounds if the commuter
airlines get their way and start flying direct routes through class G
airspace - this is something they can't do at present, but the CAA's
transponder consultation seems designed to let them do it.

And again only one of the transponder aircraft needs to be talking to
ATC/radar facilities or have PCAS or higher. *I don't know PCAS (and
higher-end systems) adoption in low-end GA aircraft in the UK, but in
the USA it seems pretty high (purely an anecdotal impression). I've
asked before but could not get adoption numbers for the USA.

I've not seen figures either, but the GA density is probably lower here.
There are flying schools on either side of our club field and there's no
doubt that our weekend movements vastly outnumber both of theirs.

In the Libelle you might be able to make up a mount for a Zaon MRX under
the opaque areas of the front of the canopy.

There's less space there than you might imagine. The panel is inset no
more than 65mm (2.5"), so an end-on cigarette pack would not fit under in
font of the panel while anything thicker would start to hide the top row
instruments.

It might be canted over parallel to the surface,

It would have to be. If it was in the center it would interfere with the
canopy lock. On the other hand, the antenna is probably not an issue - a
remote one could be mounted above the instrument tray that forms the
front of the panel. My GPS antenna is mounted there and gets an excellent
view of the sky.

I wouldn't want anything much bigger than a MH flowmeter on the cockpit
wall in front of me: lets just say the cockpit is 'snug'.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

The proponents of transponders in gliders should study a recent
Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigation report into a
tragic mid-air collision between a Cessna 182 and a Cessa near Toronto
in August 2006. Three people died in the collision. The full
investigation report is available on the TSB web site at
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re...6/a06o0206.asp

The TSB report states: "Both aeroplanes were operating in accordance
with visual flight rules in Class E airspace....Both aeroplanes were
equipped with functioning transponders. C-GCHN was also equipped with
a traffic information service (TIS) system that can provide a display
of nearby aircraft using information provided by ground-based radar;
this service is not available in Canada."

A transponder can reduce the risk of collision with Traffic Collision
Advisory System (TCAS) equipped aircraft, i.e. mostly air transport
category aircraft. Maybe that reduction in risk is worth the cost in
some places.

However, as this accident shows, simply installing a transponder gives
no guarantee against collision with non-TCAS equipped aircraft.

Ian Grant
Ottawa Canada

Hi Gang
Without belaboring it I think it has been said enough times that
currently there is no single fool proof way to guaranty avoiding mid
airs. Having an operating transponder, without argument, will diminish
your chance of a mid air since both ATC and aircraft with TCAS or PCAS
will see you. You may not see them and that is why in my world,
without argument, you should also have, at the minimum, a PCAS so that
you will see another aircraft with an operating transponder. A Zaon
PCAS can be had for only $500 - a trivial amount when it comes to
safety. I don't know why we are still discussing these issues -
transponders and PCAS are mandatory safety devices in my world. I
can't think of a reason why anyone would think otherwise.
Dave

On Jan 22, 11:35*am, wrote:
On Jan 19, 4:24*pm, Martin Gregorie



wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:06:40 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:
I know nothing about UK airspace (besides being stuck in it for far too
much time as a passenger holding over Heathrow), but it sounds like the
existing separation of airliner and jets in UK airspace is a key point
you folks should be arguing.

Yes, agreed. The public will be with us on noise grounds if the commuter
airlines get their way and start flying direct routes through class G
airspace - this is something they can't do at present, but the CAA's
transponder consultation seems designed to let them do it.

And again only one of the transponder aircraft needs to be talking to
ATC/radar facilities or have PCAS or higher. *I don't know PCAS (and
higher-end systems) adoption in low-end GA aircraft in the UK, but in
the USA it seems pretty high (purely an anecdotal impression). I've
asked before but could not get adoption numbers for the USA.

I've not seen figures either, but the GA density is probably lower here..
There are flying schools on either side of our club field and there's no
doubt that our weekend movements vastly outnumber both of theirs.

In the Libelle you might be able to make up a mount for a Zaon MRX under
the opaque areas of the front of the canopy.

There's less space there than you might imagine. The panel is inset no
more than 65mm (2.5"), so an end-on cigarette pack would not fit under in
font of the panel while anything thicker would start to hide the top row
instruments.

It might be canted over parallel to the surface,

It would have to be. If it was in the center it would interfere with the
canopy lock. On the other hand, the antenna is probably not an issue - a
remote one could be mounted above the instrument tray that forms the
front of the panel. My GPS antenna is mounted there and gets an excellent
view of the sky.

I wouldn't want anything much bigger than a MH flowmeter on the cockpit
wall in front of me: lets just say the cockpit is 'snug'.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

The proponents of transponders in gliders should study a recent
Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigation report into a
tragic mid-air collision between a Cessna 182 and a Cessa near Toronto
in August 2006. Three people died in the collision. The full
investigation report is available on the TSB web site athttp://www.tsb.gc..ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2006/a06o0206/a06o...

The TSB report states: "Both aeroplanes were operating in accordance
with visual flight rules in Class E airspace....Both aeroplanes were
equipped with functioning transponders. C-GCHN was also equipped with
a traffic information service (TIS) system that can provide a display
of nearby aircraft using information provided by ground-based radar;
this service is not available in Canada."

A transponder can reduce the risk of collision with Traffic Collision
Advisory System (TCAS) equipped aircraft, i.e. mostly air transport
category aircraft. Maybe that reduction in risk is worth the cost in
some places.

However, as this accident shows, simply installing a transponder gives
no guarantee against collision with non-TCAS equipped aircraft.

Ian Grant
Ottawa Canada