Midair Warning

Squeaky,

Very encouraged to hear about your active use of radar for VFR and Mode three
1200 squawks. So having a Mode S transponder on a glider does assist avoiding collisions with fighter aircraft. Does that include 1202 squawks, as that's how my tranponder will be set most of the time?

Walt Rogers WX

If the FAA could only assure the gliding and GA community that equipping with transponders and ADS-B would provide avoidance of midair collisions, perhaps there would be more acceptance. Even with a transponder, aircraft collide with each other. TCAS on airliners (mostly) is the only system that seems to assure a resolution to collisions.

GA that predominantly fly VFR and gliders would gain the most from Nextgen improvements by preventing midair collisions.

It seems that FAA's main thrust with Nextgen (adding a second tracking ADS-B system) is for THEIR BENEFIT to control traffic under postive control (IFR or VFR Advisories radar tracking). That is the premise and main policy motivating this change to transponders everywhere and ADS-B.

BTW, I do have empathy for those wishing to stay in gliding at the lowest cost, raising their family and educating their children. Adding transponders and ADS-B doesn't seem to have a sufficient cost benefit. My particular financial position allows me to add that equipment.

Walt Rogers WX

Walt Rogers WX

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 1:11:49 AM UTC-4, WaltWX wrote:
If the FAA could only assure the gliding and GA community that equipping with transponders and ADS-B would provide avoidance of midair collisions, perhaps there would be more acceptance. Even with a transponder, aircraft collide with each other. TCAS on airliners (mostly) is the only system that seems to assure a resolution to collisions.

GA that predominantly fly VFR and gliders would gain the most from Nextgen improvements by preventing midair collisions.

It seems that FAA's main thrust with Nextgen (adding a second tracking ADS-B system) is for THEIR BENEFIT to control traffic under postive control (IFR or VFR Advisories radar tracking). That is the premise and main policy motivating this change to transponders everywhere and ADS-B.

BTW, I do have empathy for those wishing to stay in gliding at the lowest cost, raising their family and educating their children. Adding transponders and ADS-B doesn't seem to have a sufficient cost benefit. My particular financial position allows me to add that equipment.

Walt Rogers WX

Walt Rogers WX

FAA's thrust is driven by 2 things:
1- Homeland security wants all(flying) weapons to be tracked.
2- Laying ground work for coming infestation of drones.
Conspiracy theorist
UH

Originally Posted by WaltWX[_2_]

Squeaky,

Very encouraged to hear about your active use of radar for VFR and Mode three
1200 squawks. So having a Mode S transponder on a glider does assist avoiding collisions with fighter aircraft. Does that include 1202 squawks, as that's how my tranponder will be set most of the time?

Walt Rogers WX

Ahhh... We can only interrogate one code at any time. 1200 Is what we always looked for in transit or when we were on an MTR. The 1202 Squawk came out after I retired, and I doubt it is looked for much.

That would imply meeting up with local bases and letting them know where you fly and suggest they check 1202 in those areas. For example, Bermuda High might tell Shaw AFB they are nearby when the F-16's are flying along Vr 87 and Vr 88...

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 7:43:08 AM UTC-5, Squeaky wrote:
'WaltWX[_2_ Wrote:
;906453']Squeaky,

Very encouraged to hear about your active use of radar for VFR and Mode
three
1200 squawks. So having a Mode S transponder on a glider does assist
avoiding collisions with fighter aircraft. Does that include 1202
squawks, as that's how my tranponder will be set most of the time?

Walt Rogers WX

Ahhh... We can only interrogate one code at any time. 1200 Is what we
always looked for in transit or when we were on an MTR. The 1202 Squawk
came out after I retired, and I doubt it is looked for much.

That would imply meeting up with local bases and letting them know where
you fly and suggest they check 1202 in those areas. For example,
Bermuda High might tell Shaw AFB they are nearby when the F-16's are
flying along Vr 87 and Vr 88...


The current fighters that I work on (F-15Es and F-15Cs) have interrogators that can interrogate either Modes (1,2,3, or 4) or specific codes. So when looking for civilian traffic, they would search Mode 3 and get anyone with their civilian transponder turned on. If they wanted to look specifically for gliders (say during a contest in a MOA?), they could look for Mode 3 Code 1202. These systems give a range and bearing but no altitude, but by correlating to a radar hit you get a real good idea of where other aircraft are..

I would imagine the systems in F-16s and F-18s are similar.

A-10s, unfortunately, don't have interrogators or radar. Eyeballs only!

Kirk
66

BTW, I do have empathy for those wishing to stay in gliding at the lowest cost, raising their family and educating their children. Adding transponders and ADS-B doesn't seem to have a sufficient cost benefit. My particular financial position allows me to add that equipment.

Walt Rogers WX

Thanks, Walt, for injecting a note of realism. There will always be ways to improve safety by spending more money, whether by buying another gadget or--farther out on the spectrum--flying an Open Class glider because 22m is the minimum wingspan to carry all the batteries and electronics.

I'm the pilot that one poster referred to somewhat incredulously as wanting to borrow/rent a PowerFLARM for the Standard Class Nationals because I hadn't made up my mind about purchase. Perhaps an explanation is in order apart from having two daughters in very expensive colleges in a post-divorce, pre-retirement environment.

Yes, not nearly all the U.S. glider fleet is PowerFLARM equipped. I suspect more competition gliders are but there's at least one that's not.

I'm well aware of the potential for a midair collision with power traffic and gliders. I've had a handful of close calls with both since I started flying 50 years ago, although only one that might have been prevented with FLARM onboard (almost being run over from behind by a GA airplane headed into the same local airport for which I was on final glide into the sun).

I'm no expert but in reading through the discussion above, short of the F-16 carrying TCAS, it doesn't sound like any of the current equipment would have prevented this collision.

I was out of flying for a few years so I missed the initial "spirited" debate over FLARM. My impression from the RAS sidelines was that the SSA Rule Committee made an excellent call (as they usually do), resisting pressure to move too fast to mandate it given the state of the technology, the availability of production units, and cost/benefit. I suspect they will revisit that decision again.

When I re-entered the competition arena last fall, it was at a smallish regional (NR4) where I didn't think PowerFLARM would be necessary. Yes, I'm headed to Elmira next week. No, I haven't made a buying decision. Thanks to the generosity of Bill Nockles, I installed a loaner portable PowerFLARM and flew with it last weekend. My impressions ranged from "wow, that's neat" to "that's great, I never would have noticed that airliner (flying 10,000' over me)", to "that guy is getting awfully close" to "I'm spending a lot of time watching yet another TV screen".

Summary after one flight: FLARM is a nice addition to the cockpit but doesn't confer immunity from collision with anyone or obviate the need to keep looking around. It also provides some tactical info on nearby gliders that changes the game in small but significant ways.

If I stay in soaring, I'll almost certainly buy a PowerFLARM unit, I'm just not sure when or which one. But that's close to $2,000. Adding a transponder would be another $2,000 or so.

In that event, I would love to upgrade my flight computer (LNAV, GPS-NAV, GNII) and that could add another $2,000-$4,000.

Say $7,000 just to "refresh" my avionics. But I can get a very nice glider for not much more than that, albeit not with the performance of my ASW 24. One person's "for that modest amount, I don't know why anyone wouldn't make the investment in safety" is another person's dealbreaker. Yes, I know we're talking about other people's safety, too, not just one individual.

I've been a safety advocate for decades. I've given safety talks to discuss the six-point harness I have in my ship; the ELT I installed WAY back when; the way I've secured heavy objects in/around the cockpit to preclude fracturing my skull in a crash (having lost two very dear people to that in separate accidents); the rear view mirror I installed for gaggles; the canopy wire deflector cage I paid extra to have Schleicher install; the large drinking water system that helps insure I won't get dehydrated; and the pilot relief system to deal with all the water I drink. I selected my ASW 24 over the more popular Discus many years ago because of Gerhard Waibel's safety cockpit design.

Safety is very important to me. But there are no absolutes in life. Even maintaining life itself is subject to balancing medical capabilities with quality of life. It may sound harsh to some, but safety must be subject to the same cost/benefit analysis as anything else, and that includes weighing the impact that watching a TV screen or relaxing your see-and-avoid vigilence because FLARM is "protecting" you will have. It also admittedly involves weighing the impact that a midair between a glider and an airliner could have on innocent passengers and on our sport.

Thanks, again, to all who responded to my original request, including Noelle Mayes, who offered to rent a portable PowerFLARM for a very modest amount.. I'm happy I'll have one at Elmira. I'm also happy I wasn't forced to buy it or a transponder.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 12:11:49 AM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
If the FAA could only assure the gliding and GA community that equipping with transponders and ADS-B would provide avoidance of midair collisions, perhaps there would be more acceptance. Even with a transponder, aircraft collide with each other. TCAS on airliners (mostly) is the only system that seems to assure a resolution to collisions.

GA that predominantly fly VFR and gliders would gain the most from Nextgen improvements by preventing midair collisions.

It seems that FAA's main thrust with Nextgen (adding a second tracking ADS-B system) is for THEIR BENEFIT to control traffic under postive control (IFR or VFR Advisories radar tracking). That is the premise and main policy motivating this change to transponders everywhere and ADS-B.

BTW, I do have empathy for those wishing to stay in gliding at the lowest cost, raising their family and educating their children. Adding transponders and ADS-B doesn't seem to have a sufficient cost benefit. My particular financial position allows me to add that equipment.

Walt Rogers WX

Walt Rogers WX

Walt:

You've hit the nail on the head. The FAA wants us to spend all this money, but then they don't use the data. Right now, under the FAA rules, ATC can watch an airliner heading straight for a transponder equipped VFR aircraft and not even give the airliner a traffic advisory, much less a minor course deviation to avoid a potential collision. Everybody is putting their trust in eyeballs and TCAS.

Eyeballs don't work when you are dealing with jet traffic. TCAS also is useless when you have Military jets, who are exempt from ALL the rules, flying around at 400+ knots 500' above the ground without TCAS or ADS-B, and maybe not even an operating transponder.

Before we have any more FAA mandates, we should insist that all Military jets be equipped with TCAS and ADS-B just like everyone else, and that ATC (both civilian and military) provide active separation services for all IFR aircraft under their control to avoid any transponder or ADS-B OUT equipped VFR aircraft that are visible on their radar screens.

Once everyone (including Military jets) are ADS-B OUT equipped, we will have an environment where low cost ADS-B IN systems can provide very accurate collision warnings to VFR pilots, so we can actively stay out of harms way.

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 11:58:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:

You've hit the nail on the head. The FAA wants us to spend all this money, but then they don't use the data. Right now, under the FAA rules, ATC can watch an airliner heading straight for a transponder equipped VFR aircraft and not even give the airliner a traffic advisory, much less a minor course deviation to avoid a potential collision. Everybody is putting their trust in eyeballs and TCAS.


Care to provide a cite for that statement? Ever heard of flight following - or even used it?

Eyeballs don't work when you are dealing with jet traffic. TCAS also is useless when you have Military jets, who are exempt from ALL the rules, flying around at 400+ knots 500' above the ground without TCAS or ADS-B, and maybe not even an operating transponder.


Wow - so much BS in one paragraph, I'm impressed!. First, if you can't see an airliner coming towards you and avoid it, you should ground yourself (and not drive, either). Even F-16s are visible in plenty of time to avoid if you are actively looking. The real problem is the human eye and brain are not very good at the sustained task of visual lookout for ANYTHING. Second, since TCAS detects transponders, and ALL military aircraft are required to have their transponders ON when operating in joint civilian/military use airspace, TCAS is totally compatible with military jets (and many of the military transports have it also). Third, military aviation has even MORE restrictive rules than civilians, and military aviation is required to comply with civilian rules to the maximum possible when in joint use airspace. The only exception is speed, since some jets need to be above the 250 knot max airspeed limit down low - but that doesn't mean they are blasting around anywhere they want. VR and IR low level routes, along with MOA's, are other areas where some military flying will be fast and low - BUT THAT IS ALL TIGHTLY CONTROLLED AND SCHEDULED, AND YOU CAN FIND OUT WHERE IT IS HAPPENING BY CALLING THE LOCAL FSS! And finally, what military jet doesn't have an operating transponder? Again, ALL mil aircraft (including most UAVs) have transponders. Sure, it could fail inflight, but if it was broken before takeoff, that flight would not go until it was fixed - BECAUSE IT'S REQUIRED BY MILITARY RULES!

Before we have any more FAA mandates, we should insist that all Military jets be equipped with TCAS and ADS-B just like everyone else, and that ATC (both civilian and military) provide active separation services for all IFR aircraft under their control to avoid any transponder or ADS-B OUT equipped VFR aircraft that are visible on their radar screens.


More BS. Do you actually do ANY research before putting out this drivel?

Once everyone (including Military jets) are ADS-B OUT equipped, we will have an environment where low cost ADS-B IN systems can provide very accurate collision warnings to VFR pilots, so we can actively stay out of harms way.

Total, absolute BS. The time delay inherent with the ADS-B system, and the poor coverage at low altitude, makes it pretty useless as a collision avoidance system for military jets. Who, by the way, have a much better system (air-to-air radar, JTIDS, interrogators).

Will any military aircraft ever get ADS-B? Sure, airlifters and transports will probably get 1090ES so they can use international airspace. Fighters? probably not - unless it's a software upgrade to existing Mode-S transponders they now carry.

As usual, Mike, you are totally clueless.

Kirk
66

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 9:58:46 AM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:


Walt:

You've hit the nail on the head. The FAA wants us to spend all this money, but then they don't use the data. Right now, under the FAA rules, ATC can watch an airliner heading straight for a transponder equipped VFR aircraft and not even give the airliner a traffic advisory, much less a minor course deviation to avoid a potential collision. Everybody is putting their trust in eyeballs and TCAS.

Eyeballs don't work when you are dealing with jet traffic. TCAS also is useless when you have Military jets, who are exempt from ALL the rules, flying around at 400+ knots 500' above the ground without TCAS or ADS-B, and maybe not even an operating transponder.

Before we have any more FAA mandates, we should insist that all Military jets be equipped with TCAS and ADS-B just like everyone else, and that ATC (both civilian and military) provide active separation services for all IFR aircraft under their control to avoid any transponder or ADS-B OUT equipped VFR aircraft that are visible on their radar screens.


Mike, I agree with you and on practically all of that. Kirk... I'm sorry... my eyeballs simply can't see (although my ears "heard one") a fighter jet crossing my path or coming up from behind.

ATC has all that data from transponders and in the future ADS-B. They could easily provide collision advisory servic if IT WERE A PRIORITY ... which it isn't (BTW... asking for radar VFR flight following isn't a practical solution). SSA in their argument against the transponder mandate should point this out. No transponders or ADS-B should be mandated for gliders until FAA provides a safety service for collision avoidance. I worked in the ARTCC (ZLA) as a meteorologist for 30yrs and looked over the shoulder of air traffic controllers. Sure, it's a burden to call collision advisories to non IFR traffic. But, with further automation... that's the point of Nextgen... a robotic voice COULD call the traffic on VHF sector frequencies or alarm the air traffic controller to broadcast these collision avoidance advisories.

BTW, Mike... I'm not on your side w.r.t equipping ADS-B on gliders. I'm definitely on the side of PowerFlarm with Daryl and Andy Blackburn...augmented by a Mode S (Trig) transponder. However, if FAA lowered the requirements for a certified GPS (lowered cost), and we could hook up our existing GPS's to the Trig... I'd be in favor of that.

Walt Rogers WX

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 1:24:31 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 11:58:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:

You've hit the nail on the head. The FAA wants us to spend all this money, but then they don't use the data. Right now, under the FAA rules, ATC can watch an airliner heading straight for a transponder equipped VFR aircraft and not even give the airliner a traffic advisory, much less a minor course deviation to avoid a potential collision. Everybody is putting their trust in eyeballs and TCAS.


Care to provide a cite for that statement? Ever heard of flight following - or even used it?

Eyeballs don't work when you are dealing with jet traffic. TCAS also is useless when you have Military jets, who are exempt from ALL the rules, flying around at 400+ knots 500' above the ground without TCAS or ADS-B, and maybe not even an operating transponder.


Wow - so much BS in one paragraph, I'm impressed!. First, if you can't see an airliner coming towards you and avoid it, you should ground yourself (and not drive, either). Even F-16s are visible in plenty of time to avoid if you are actively looking. The real problem is the human eye and brain are not very good at the sustained task of visual lookout for ANYTHING. Second, since TCAS detects transponders, and ALL military aircraft are required to have their transponders ON when operating in joint civilian/military use airspace, TCAS is totally compatible with military jets (and many of the military transports have it also). Third, military aviation has even MORE restrictive rules than civilians, and military aviation is required to comply with civilian rules to the maximum possible when in joint use airspace. The only exception is speed, since some jets need to be above the 250 knot max airspeed limit down low - but that doesn't mean they are blasting around anywhere they want. VR and IR low level routes, along with MOA's, are other areas where some military flying will be fast and low - BUT THAT IS ALL TIGHTLY CONTROLLED AND SCHEDULED, AND YOU CAN FIND OUT WHERE IT IS HAPPENING BY CALLING THE LOCAL FSS! And finally, what military jet doesn't have an operating transponder? Again, ALL mil aircraft (including most UAVs) have transponders. Sure, it could fail inflight, but if it was broken before takeoff, that flight would not go until it was fixed - BECAUSE IT'S REQUIRED BY MILITARY RULES!

Before we have any more FAA mandates, we should insist that all Military jets be equipped with TCAS and ADS-B just like everyone else, and that ATC (both civilian and military) provide active separation services for all IFR aircraft under their control to avoid any transponder or ADS-B OUT equipped VFR aircraft that are visible on their radar screens.


More BS. Do you actually do ANY research before putting out this drivel?

Once everyone (including Military jets) are ADS-B OUT equipped, we will have an environment where low cost ADS-B IN systems can provide very accurate collision warnings to VFR pilots, so we can actively stay out of harms way.

Total, absolute BS. The time delay inherent with the ADS-B system, and the poor coverage at low altitude, makes it pretty useless as a collision avoidance system for military jets. Who, by the way, have a much better system (air-to-air radar, JTIDS, interrogators).

Will any military aircraft ever get ADS-B? Sure, airlifters and transports will probably get 1090ES so they can use international airspace. Fighters? probably not - unless it's a software upgrade to existing Mode-S transponders they now carry.

As usual, Mike, you are totally clueless.

Kirk
66

Kirk:

Maybe YOU should do a little more research before you start flaming people. Please explain to me how I'm suppose to visually see and a avoid a jet that is approaching me from behind at 250 knots?

You might also want to study up on how ADS-B works. All ADS-B OUT (both UAT and 1090ES) equipped aircraft transmit their position once every second. Any aircraft with an ADS-B IN receiver of the same flavor that is in the area will immediately receive this data directly without any time delays.

If an aircraft has a single frequency ADS-B IN receiver, and the conflicting aircraft is transmitting ADS-B OUT on a different frequency, an ADS-B ground station is required to translate the ADS-B OUT transmission to the other frequency. This introduces a 1-2 second delay into the process, which for most aircraft, which are trying to avoid each other by comfortable margins, is not significant. This delay obviously is a problem for gliders flying in close proximity in a gaggle.

A bigger problem is that if either aircraft is out of range of an ADS-B ground station (which can occur in remote areas at low elevations), the two ADS-B aircraft will not see each other. The simple solution to this is to install dual frequency ADS-B IN receivers. The current price delta between single and dual frequency receivers is so small ($200), that it doesn't make any sense to buy a single frequency ADS-B receiver, and I suspect that these units will disappear from the market in the not too distant future.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Keep in mind that you need to be ADS-B OUT equipped to reliably see any traffic data (both TIS-B and ADS-R) that is being transmitted by ADS-B ground stations.