Confessions of a Flarm Follower

1) FLARM has a proprietary algorithm that determines which nearby gliders will trigger an alarm. In an ADS-B world, don't we still need that? Don't we need a glider specific ADB-S set up? If so can't the competition mode be transferred to ADS-B?

2) Looks like building a cheap ADS-B specific for sailplane racing should be a breeze. At $120 there should be few complaints about adoption.


Easier said than done to mash Flarm collision algorithms onto ADS-B position reporting. The two systems have some fundamental architectural difference - previously discussed here - that make it hard to use ADS-B to both do good collision warning and not go totally nuts in thermals and other close proximity flying.

You could certainly in theory write software for a home brew ADS-B In receiver that did whatever you like in terms of filtering traffic. I think the challenge will be getting agreement to require pilots to carry that device and only that device for receiving ADS-B. You also get into the cost and complexities of supporting the code and the customers and....wait for it...product liability if it has a problem.

The other problem is Flarm will use ICAO addresses to de-duplicate targets carrying both ADS-B and Flarm, reverting to the more sophisticated Flarm algorithm and transmission when it has a good Flarm signal. Trying to do that across two separate devices would be very complicated.

The reason you'd want it would be to layer in UAT and ADS-R traffic that Flarm doesn't pick up...and in the process to circumvent stealth, I suppose.

9B

Something occurred to me as I was reading this thread. I left competitive soaring for 14 years, and was amazed at the phenomenal, gorgeous technology at our fingertips when I returned. FLARM was one of the most impressive. But, of course, its safety benefits are contingent upon a majority of gliders having one onboard.

Now we're talking about a rule that makes that FLARM less useful in competitions. This has the side effect of making some pilots, particularly in sports class, question the value of buying and installing one. That relatively small change in incentives to the individual may have the unintended consequence of reducing the usefulness of the technology to the group, perhaps even leading to the death of someone with a FLARM that hits someone without, because the latter just didn't think it was worth it.

I say, let's leave the technology completely available in contests. Do that, and installing a FLARM is utterly worth it, And the end result of that will be a higher take up of the technology, benefiting every single one of us.. And not only in contests, since that same pilot will have it on during every weekend flight thereafter.

Safety should come first. Let it be a tactical tool, because the wonderful side effect will be increased take up, and thereafter increased safety for all of us.

Andy,
So we'll really need a power FLARM and an ADS-B device. Wow I've already got 4 gps antennae floating around under my glare shield.

Serious question: What can the FLARM folks do to integrate the desirsed features of ads-b and Flarm into a single box? Isn't it quite possible that an enhanced Flarm will do all these things including a competition mode?

XC

What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.

I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.

FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct

Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.

But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?

But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.

I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.

FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct

Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.

But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?

But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....

This is why I have become apathetic about arguing against stealth mode. The RC's decision will be irrelevant in just a couple of years, and I will have all the situational awareness I want, stealth or no stealth. No one from that camp has responded to this issue, other than a desperate hope that the FAA will grant some sort of waiver for gliders in competition, allowing them to impose stealth mode on ADS-B. I am not the slightest bit concerned that such a thing would happen.

I fully agree with Sean's statement that situational awareness is 80% of the value of Flarm. I have stated several times that with situational awareness, if you are getting an unexpected collision alarm you were not paying attention and ought to review your procedures. ADS-B will provide this even absent Flarm. You won't get accurate rate of climb, but you don't get that from Flarm, either.

Given that much long range Flarm type data will be available to all without restriction shortly, the only rational decision the RC could make is to allow open Flarm now, so that it will be less of a shock to the racing community when it happens.

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.

I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.

FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct

Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.

But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?

But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....


Um - yup.

We had a discussion on another thread (or was it this one?) about implementing traffic filtering based on registered competitor ICAO addresses at the glide computer - which would require all glide software being used in contests to implement it (including the open source stuff where an enterprising pilot could "adjust" it himself). It would also likely require daily inspections that each pilot had a full and correct ICAO database. Those of us who have multiple glide computers/situational displays would have to submit some sort of file for each one for each day and failure to submit a file that shows the correct database for each display in the cockpit - my cockpit has 5 such devices - would be DQ'd for the day. Display can't produce a file because it lost power or was reset in flight or just had some sort of error - DQ for the day. Each display in the cockpit for each pilot would need to be verified each day by the scorer.

You'd have trouble eliminating tiny home-brew ADS-B receivers and you'd never eliminate the smartphone stuff. Makes my head spin - and gives me nightmares of nasty emails from Ron Gleason. ;-)

If I heard it correctly from Andrzej there will be at least one glider at the Nationals at Nephi with ADS-B Out - which should light up a 15 mi circle around his glider showing any glider carrying a transponder (and required by FAR to have it on). The resolution of SSR for transponder targets is a few tens to a few hundred feet (the angular resolution goes down with range from the radar).

Bottle ----- ...Genie

Might be good to find Andrzej in the start cylinder and go when he goes. It'll be like a having lantern on a moonless night. I am presuming any glider in range will be able to see the TIS-B traffic transmitted for Andrzej's benefit.

Good times.

9B

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:37:29 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.

I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.

FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct

Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.

But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?

But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....


Um - yup.

We had a discussion on another thread (or was it this one?) about implementing traffic filtering based on registered competitor ICAO addresses at the glide computer - which would require all glide software being used in contests to implement it (including the open source stuff where an enterprising pilot could "adjust" it himself). It would also likely require daily inspections that each pilot had a full and correct ICAO database. Those of us who have multiple glide computers/situational displays would have to submit some sort of file for each one for each day and failure to submit a file that shows the correct database for each display in the cockpit - my cockpit has 5 such devices - would be DQ'd for the day. Display can't produce a file because it lost power or was reset in flight or just had some sort of error - DQ for the day. Each display in the cockpit for each pilot would need to be verified each day by the scorer.

You'd have trouble eliminating tiny home-brew ADS-B receivers and you'd never eliminate the smartphone stuff. Makes my head spin - and gives me nightmares of nasty emails from Ron Gleason. ;-)

If I heard it correctly from Andrzej there will be at least one glider at the Nationals at Nephi with ADS-B Out - which should light up a 15 mi circle around his glider showing any glider carrying a transponder (and required by FAR to have it on). The resolution of SSR for transponder targets is a few tens to a few hundred feet (the angular resolution goes down with range from the radar).

Bottle ----- ...Genie

Might be good to find Andrzej in the start cylinder and go when he goes. It'll be like a having lantern on a moonless night. I am presuming any glider in range will be able to see the TIS-B traffic transmitted for Andrzej's benefit.

Good times.

9B

Andy, I was planning on attending one National contest this year, but since the RC vote, I am delaying registration. I may make other plans for this year as a result of this uncertainty.

If the Stealth mode were to be approved I am done flying contests.

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:37:29 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.

I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.

FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct

Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.

But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only.... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?

But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....


Um - yup.

We had a discussion on another thread (or was it this one?) about implementing traffic filtering based on registered competitor ICAO addresses at the glide computer - which would require all glide software being used in contests to implement it (including the open source stuff where an enterprising pilot could "adjust" it himself). It would also likely require daily inspections that each pilot had a full and correct ICAO database. Those of us who have multiple glide computers/situational displays would have to submit some sort of file for each one for each day and failure to submit a file that shows the correct database for each display in the cockpit - my cockpit has 5 such devices - would be DQ'd for the day. Display can't produce a file because it lost power or was reset in flight or just had some sort of error - DQ for the day. Each display in the cockpit for each pilot would need to be verified each day by the scorer.

You'd have trouble eliminating tiny home-brew ADS-B receivers and you'd never eliminate the smartphone stuff. Makes my head spin - and gives me nightmares of nasty emails from Ron Gleason. ;-)

If I heard it correctly from Andrzej there will be at least one glider at the Nationals at Nephi with ADS-B Out - which should light up a 15 mi circle around his glider showing any glider carrying a transponder (and required by FAR to have it on). The resolution of SSR for transponder targets is a few tens to a few hundred feet (the angular resolution goes down with range from the radar).

Bottle ----- ...Genie

Might be good to find Andrzej in the start cylinder and go when he goes.. It'll be like a having lantern on a moonless night. I am presuming any glider in range will be able to see the TIS-B traffic transmitted for Andrzej's benefit.

Good times.

9B

Andy, I was planning on attending one National contest this year, but since the RC vote, I am delaying registration. I may make other plans for this year as a result of this uncertainty.

If the Stealth mode were to be approved I am done flying contests.

whaaaaat? are you SERIOUS? Flarm isn't even mandatory yet. there are people still flying without them. i will stick with racing no matter what happens to it, because i love gliding and the spirit of coming together to fly/race together. one thing that doesn't go my way would never deter me.

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 11:37:29 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
/snip/

If I heard it correctly from Andrzej there will be at least one glider at the Nationals at Nephi with ADS-B Out - which should light up a 15 mi circle around his glider showing any glider carrying a transponder (and required by FAR to have it on). The resolution of SSR for transponder targets is a few tens to a few hundred feet (the angular resolution goes down with range from the radar).

The client service volume or "hockey puck" for TIS-B and ADS-R services is 15 nm radius and +/- 3,500' around the client aircraft. Still may be plenty entertaining with a few ADS-B Out equipped gliders amongst the contest fleet.

TIS-B relies on the ADS-B ground coverage and SSR coverage so in places won't work at low altitudes.

Yo get TIS-B for transponder equipped aircraft and only those not equipped with ADS-B Out (but obviously you get those with ADS-B direct or ADS-R which is even more accurate/better coverage) and you don't see ICAO codes for Mode A/C transponder equipped aircraft or those with UAT Out in anonymous mode.... so you won't necessarily be able to tell which glider/contest ID etc..

We have had serious safety issues in certain airspace and responsible pilots in those areas have equipped their gliders with transponders and a few with 1090ES Out as well. They don't get to decide to use those transponders or not in a contest if so equipped.

And I will not be surprised if mandatory transponder and ADS-B Out (or TABS) carriage is required for gliders in future, then it is even easier. With long range and no reliance on ground coverage.

The client/receiver side... Glider and body cavity searches for USB sticks....don't think that is going to work.

Yep the genie is out the bottle. Actually maybe several of them out of several bottles.