Does FLARM meet TABS requirement?

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 2:42:30 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:53:38 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
... I expect the best that would happen there is that
TABS Class B GPS device manufacturers, and maybe others,
will produce even lower cost "non-TSO" TABS GPS sources.

For example, probably:
http://newsroom.garmin.com/press-rel...w-capabilities

... The GPS 20A, GA 35 WAAS antenna and install kit is available for $1,225*
... anticipated to become available Q3 2015.
... For additional information, visit: www.garmin.com/experimental.

And that Garmin GPS 20A box is already meeting more than the TABS requirement... but because it meets the FAA ADS-B Out mandate requirement it should also be usable with TABS Class A devices. Exact device compatibility would need to be checked and is somethign potentially that TABS installation/use regulations may address (as regulations did by requiring only specific installs of confirmed compatible (via an earlier STC process) of ADS-B Out and GPS devices). Ultimately I expect if TABS takes off pure TABS boxes will mostly end up being integrated Class A and B devices... with some standard Mode S/1090ES out transponders used for TABS compatibility maybe with TABS specific GPS sources.

I think what strategically happens for TABS, for better or worse, is in the hands of large potential drone operators and manufacturers and their lobbyists.

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:22:37 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
I think what strategically happens for TABS, for better or worse,
is in the hands of large potential drone operators and manufacturers
and their lobbyists.

So should be lobbying for a TABS solution for gliders, and at the same time push for being able to use it in class A airspace?

Sure would be nice to be able to get up to cloudbase in the Great Basin area. I'm guessing there's very little traffic near the bottom of this airspace out in this neck of the woods. And ATC could learn how to deal with us since we're pretty much stationary compared everyone else.

5Z

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 7:27:16 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:22:37 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
I think what strategically happens for TABS, for better or worse,
is in the hands of large potential drone operators and manufacturers
and their lobbyists.

So should be lobbying for a TABS solution for gliders, and at the same time push for being able to use it in class A airspace?

Sure would be nice to be able to get up to cloudbase in the Great Basin area. I'm guessing there's very little traffic near the bottom of this airspace out in this neck of the woods. And ATC could learn how to deal with us since we're pretty much stationary compared everyone else.

5Z

I think any lobbying should carefully lay out what would make TABS suitable for the glider community. And I would include Class A use of TABS in that.....and lots of things about easy installation regulations and more, work with EAA and AOPA on use of TABS Class B devices in towplanes (and all GA aircraft) say near Class C/B airspace instead of full 1090ES Out. But I would expect Class A stuff to apply to block IFR clearance for those Sierra Wave big dogs and use in wave windows where necessary, as transponders are today.. Hoping for a radical change to Class A use is probably a bit much.

Darryl,

Thanks for the information. That was a lot to think about. I submitted my response to the FAA online just a bit ago. Only 123 responses so far. Several were pro transponder - tended to come from airline and 121 operators.

Mark