SSA responds to ANPRM

Ah there are already very clear technical standards here, Mode C and S transponders, ADS-B, TCAS, and TABS. (FLARM does not really enter into it from a broader Aviation industry perspective... Especially because it is not compatible with TCAS or SSR). What the ANPR is asking about is wether some of these technologies should be mandated or not. Saying there needs to be more technology developed really does not seem helpful... And seems to be replying less to the ANPRM than you are criticising others for. Costs and installation issues with transponders or TABS are serious possible issues for *some* glider owners and are very much something the FAA expects in these responses.. and those folks worried about being affected by that should respond with supporting material (i personally hold little sympathy for folks flying near busy airspace, they should have transponders installed long ago--and those who have not may be helping force this whole thing other other owners. The cost issue, at least to me, is more about how many other gliders not near busy airspace will get caught up in a carriage mandate).

Any system needs to be as compatible as possible with what is in broad use today, and specifically this ANPRM is driven by the question from the NTSB about getting gliders visible to TCAS... Which needs a Mode C, Mode S transponder or TABS. And the FAA already has a massive SSR and ADS-B surveillance infrasructure, so any system better be compatible with that. There *is* a new standard/technology proposal, one developed with input/participation folks including in the UAV space... and that is TABS. Now the big questions there are what the carriage and use regulations for TABS devices might look like, and how many vendors will make those products and what they will be priced at (a chicken and egg problem). Nothing happens in broad aviation surveillance, collision avoidance, etc. without standards developed by RTCA and then adopted via TSO by the FAA and then actual install and use regulations. The road to any innovation there are ~decade long efforts by participants who want to contribute to RTCA standards, and right now we have more of those standards than we need, the practical question, and what the ANPRM is asking, are really which ones of these technologies gues, if any, should be mandated for gliders. Vendors are free within those standards to use new technology as much as they can (and for example modern FPGAs have helped lower transponder costs). We really do not need yet more standards/technology options.

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:53:16 AM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
The cost issue, at least to me, is more about how many other gliders not near busy airspace will get caught up in a carriage mandate.


Completely agree, says the man with lots of gliders showing up to his name on the FAA registry. All of which, when flown from my home gliderport, have the potential to get over 10,000 MSL over the field with the closest Class C airspace 15 or more miles away. And it is not particularly busy there.

Steve Leonard

Steve, this brings us back an old question:
Can one of the required devices be swapped back and forth between aircraft?
Something like one Trig TXP with separate wiring harnesses, mounting trays and display heads in each glider. Or whatever the TABS devices end up being..
The TXP would likely require calibration every two years in each aircraft.
Does anyone make a transponder out of velcro?
Jim


On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:14:50 AM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:53:16 AM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
The cost issue, at least to me, is more about how many other gliders not near busy airspace will get caught up in a carriage mandate.


Completely agree, says the man with lots of gliders showing up to his name on the FAA registry. All of which, when flown from my home gliderport, have the potential to get over 10,000 MSL over the field with the closest Class C airspace 15 or more miles away. And it is not particularly busy there.

Steve Leonard

JS wrote:
Steve, this brings us back an old question:
Can one of the required devices be swapped back and forth between aircraft?
Something like one Trig TXP with separate wiring harnesses, mounting
trays and display heads in each glider. Or whatever the TABS devices end up being.
The TXP would likely require calibration every two years in each aircraft.
Does anyone make a transponder out of velcro?
Jim

That is one of the questions. The TABS TSO does not exclude that, and some
of the thought possibility that lead to TABS were certainly for small
devices. The question will be what the install/carriage regulations will
look like. There might be concern with reliability of making connections to
antennas and static pressure sensors.... my expectation is this is all too
hard and likely won't be supported by install regulations but who knows. I
am more hoping that any TABS install regulations if they end up existing at
all are simple enough to allow low-cost fixed installs in certified
gliders. Maybe as easy as a Transponder today, but they have to be much
much easier than early ADS-B installs (which required STCs).

I have been slogging through the some
220 responses and came across a
response from the NTSB:

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStrea
mer?documentId=FAA-2015-2147-
0137&attachmentNumber=1&disposition
=attachment&contentType=pdf

"our main concern was to ensure that
gliders are detectable by an aircraft
equipped with a traffic alert and collision
avoidance system (TCAS)"

Gliders are already kept well away from
air carriers by Class B and C.

That makes the primary beneficiaries of
the ANPRM private jet owners able to
afford TCAS - $30K to $200K before
installation.

As long as they're transmitting ADS-B,
anybody with PowerFLARM knows
exactly where they are from several miles
away and can avoid.

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 8:45:12 PM UTC-7, George Haeh wrote:
I have been slogging through the some
220 responses and came across a
response from the NTSB:

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStrea
mer?documentId=FAA-2015-2147-
0137&attachmentNumber=1&disposition
=attachment&contentType=pdf

"our main concern was to ensure that
gliders are detectable by an aircraft
equipped with a traffic alert and collision
avoidance system (TCAS)"

Gliders are already kept well away from
air carriers by Class B and C.

That makes the primary beneficiaries of
the ANPRM private jet owners able to
afford TCAS - $30K to $200K before
installation.

As long as they're transmitting ADS-B,
anybody with PowerFLARM knows
exactly where they are from several miles
away and can avoid.

This can not be further from the truth! Is NTSB really that clueless? Are they assuming that air carriers are immediately in class A when outside of class B/C, or do they assume that gliders only fly in patterns around small airports outside class B/C? Anyone who is flying in Reno area, Las Vegas area, in the Bay Area and any other soaring area within 50 miles of a major airport knows that we sharing the same airspace with airliners, including inside Mode C veil!

Ramy

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 10:07:01 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 8:45:12 PM UTC-7, George Haeh wrote:
I have been slogging through the some
220 responses and came across a
response from the NTSB:

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStrea
mer?documentId=FAA-2015-2147-
0137&attachmentNumber=1&disposition
=attachment&contentType=pdf

"our main concern was to ensure that
gliders are detectable by an aircraft
equipped with a traffic alert and collision
avoidance system (TCAS)"

Gliders are already kept well away from
air carriers by Class B and C.

That makes the primary beneficiaries of
the ANPRM private jet owners able to
afford TCAS - $30K to $200K before
installation.

As long as they're transmitting ADS-B,
anybody with PowerFLARM knows
exactly where they are from several miles
away and can avoid.

This can not be further from the truth! Is NTSB really that clueless? Are they assuming that air carriers are immediately in class A when outside of class B/C, or do they assume that gliders only fly in patterns around small airports outside class B/C? Anyone who is flying in Reno area, Las Vegas area, in the Bay Area and any other soaring area within 50 miles of a major airport knows that we sharing the same airspace with airliners, including inside Mode C veil!

Ramy

Ramy - the NTSB only said the part in the quotes, the rest of it was the opinion (or mistake) of the poster.

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 8:45:12 PM UTC-7, George Haeh wrote:
I have been slogging through the some
220 responses and came across a
response from the NTSB:

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStrea
mer?documentId=FAA-2015-2147-
0137&attachmentNumber=1&disposition
=attachment&contentType=pdf

"our main concern was to ensure that
gliders are detectable by an aircraft
equipped with a traffic alert and collision
avoidance system (TCAS)"

Gliders are already kept well away from
air carriers by Class B and C.

That makes the primary beneficiaries of
the ANPRM private jet owners able to
afford TCAS - $30K to $200K before
installation.

As long as they're transmitting ADS-B,
anybody with PowerFLARM knows
exactly where they are from several miles
away and can avoid.

At least some air carriers are not transmitting ADS-B as of this writing. Southwest for example - none of their jets flying into and out of Reno show up on PowerFlarm. Biz jets seem to have a higher install rate than airlines.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:45:18 -0700, jfitch wrote:

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 8:45:12 PM UTC-7, George Haeh wrote:
I have been slogging through the some 220 responses and came across a
response from the NTSB:

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStrea mer?documentId=FAA-2015-2147-
0137&attachmentNumber=1&disposition =attachment&contentType=pdf

"our main concern was to ensure that gliders are detectable by an
aircraft equipped with a traffic alert and collision avoidance system
(TCAS)"

Gliders are already kept well away from air carriers by Class B and C.

That makes the primary beneficiaries of the ANPRM private jet owners
able to afford TCAS - $30K to $200K before installation.

As long as they're transmitting ADS-B, anybody with PowerFLARM knows
exactly where they are from several miles away and can avoid.

At least some air carriers are not transmitting ADS-B as of this
writing. Southwest for example - none of their jets flying into and out
of Reno show up on PowerFlarm. Biz jets seem to have a higher install
rate than airlines.

So SouthWest isn't using their transponders these days?? Hope you report
that to FAA.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 03:32:29 +0000, George Haeh wrote:

I have been slogging through the some 220 responses and came across a
response from the NTSB:

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStrea mer?documentId=FAA-2015-2147-
0137&attachmentNumber=1&disposition =attachment&contentType=pdf

"our main concern was to ensure that gliders are detectable by an
aircraft equipped with a traffic alert and collision avoidance system
(TCAS)"

Gliders are already kept well away from air carriers by Class B and C.

That makes the primary beneficiaries of the ANPRM private jet owners
able to afford TCAS - $30K to $200K before installation.

As long as they're transmitting ADS-B, anybody with PowerFLARM knows
exactly where they are from several miles away and can avoid.

You took that one sentence well out of context. With the advent of ADS-
B, the NTSB now believes gliders should also lose their ADS-B exemption.
ADS-B In capability is a whole lot cheaper than TCAS, and will be much
more widely deployed.

As I keep saying, this ANPRM isn't about transponders, it's about
transponders and ADS-B, as should be obvious from the survey questions
they asked. I believe FAA has decided to suck gliders into NextGen, and
are using the (extremely late) letters from Reid and Amodei as
justification. I'm generally in favor of that in principle, but hope we
can get regulations that make it more practical given the constraints of
gliders.

-Dave