Case Study Near Mid Air Glider and C421 - Benefits of PowerFlarm and Transponders

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:10:06 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Well there are good controllers and not so good. I have had many very close calls, while flying under flight following, IFR plan, or under the Tower's control. Four of my nearest (one within inches) happened within several hundred or less feet of actually taking off, and still over the runway. Burbank, Santa Barbra (twice), and El Cajon. The one in Burbank also involved an United Airlines MD80, in Santa Barbra the control tower actually was ****ed off at the C414 pilot that loudly complained he had to take sudden low altitude evasive manouvers (we both did!) and go around because the control tower had directed me (departing in a helicopter) nose to nose with the C414 on short final. To this day I can hear the controller with a very annoyed tone, "yeah just go around, cleared to land..."

Another time flying a C340 through the Owens valley on flight following, Joshua approach in a harried/worried tone informed me that two F/A-18's were converging on my position from behind, then he asked if I had the traffic.. Told him I did not have much rear visibility. He then told me in a worried tone "they are approaching fast!" I asked him for a course to deviated, it was like he had never thought of that! I do not include this as a near miss, I have had so many. Some you cannot control like the AS---le that flew underneath me (i could see him via Mode S traffic display on my HSI/map/traffic instrument) and as he dove to go under I turned 90 degrees only to see him zoom up where I had been. I think this fool was trying to fly under me then scare me by zooming up from underneath, however, had I not turned, he would have hit me as he did not have vision above. I am in full support of anything that gives me the most situational awareness as possible!

Perhaps a better use of Flarm resources rather than to develop a stealth mode would be to certify the Flarm GPS for use with trig and garrecht transponders that have ADS-B out and then output the data so our computers will display all traffic from any acronym source. I already have three GPS' I am hoping I will not have to buy a fourth to get ADS-B.

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
That was very good watching, Walt.* I wonder why the ATC controller
did not give the 421 a slight turn rather than simply issuing a
warning of a conflict.* This also shows that it's not a bad idea to
monitor Approach and Departure frequencies when you're in or near
standard routes.* Glad there was nothing more than some unnecessary
excitement!




On 1/20/2016 12:09 AM, WaltWX wrote:



With all the discussion about FLARM, ADS-B and the Pros/Cons, I thought the time is right to bring some facts into the discussion. Last September I had a near mid air with a C421. Since I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.

Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions. I filed a near mid report to the FAA which resulted in two interviews and this radar ARTCC video with ATC controller audio. I think you'll find it quite interesting.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/k8ph9wogyif...1 TT.wmv?dl=0

The FAA statement incorrectly identified the twin as a King Air with only (my visual esimate)
horizontal separation estimate of 500ft.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/e6gvhn6dybx...FAA.pdf?dl =0

According to the radar we passed by at 10,000msl zero vertical and 1300ft horizontal. By pure luck and good scanning technique, I sighted the C421 15 seconds before crossing. PowerFlarm PCAS went off 2-3 seconds later. PowerFlarm would have got my attention if my visual scanning had failed me. No evasive action occurred on my part.

When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.

I am complete agreement with Darryl Ramm's analysis of this whole transponder (Mode S) PowerFlarm recommendation. They complement each other quite well... and this is the best solution for the time being. As he has said, the whole ADS-B thing with TABS looming in the near future is in a state of flux. I wouldn't be surprised to see combined Mode-S/ADS-B transponders coming onto the market in abundance within 3 or 4 years.

In case you are wondering ... I did NOT recommend in my response to the FAA NPRM immediately equipage of gliders with transponders. Instead, utilize good airspace practices, training and a short "wait and see" for more affordable equipment to become available. However, if you have the money... by all means equip with a transponder and PowerFlarm.

Walter Rogers "WX" Discus 2A





--

Dan, 5J

Flarm only outputs NMEA over a serial port. What does a Mode S Transponder with ADS-B Out capability look for as an input for GPS? I don't think the physical or logical interfaces are compatible are they? Also - the Flarm GPS is an off the shelf consumer unit so it is not clear to me that it would ever be able to be certified and may not even qualify for TABS.

I'm mostly asking (waiting for Darryl...)

9B

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 8:01:06 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:10:06 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Well there are good controllers and not so good. I have had many very close calls, while flying under flight following, IFR plan, or under the Tower's control. Four of my nearest (one within inches) happened within several hundred or less feet of actually taking off, and still over the runway. Burbank, Santa Barbra (twice), and El Cajon. The one in Burbank also involved an United Airlines MD80, in Santa Barbra the control tower actually was ****ed off at the C414 pilot that loudly complained he had to take sudden low altitude evasive manouvers (we both did!) and go around because the control tower had directed me (departing in a helicopter) nose to nose with the C414 on short final. To this day I can hear the controller with a very annoyed tone, "yeah just go around, cleared to land..."

Another time flying a C340 through the Owens valley on flight following, Joshua approach in a harried/worried tone informed me that two F/A-18's were converging on my position from behind, then he asked if I had the traffic. Told him I did not have much rear visibility. He then told me in a worried tone "they are approaching fast!" I asked him for a course to deviated, it was like he had never thought of that! I do not include this as a near miss, I have had so many. Some you cannot control like the AS---le that flew underneath me (i could see him via Mode S traffic display on my HSI/map/traffic instrument) and as he dove to go under I turned 90 degrees only to see him zoom up where I had been. I think this fool was trying to fly under me then scare me by zooming up from underneath, however, had I not turned, he would have hit me as he did not have vision above. I am in full support of anything that gives me the most situational awareness as possible!

Perhaps a better use of Flarm resources rather than to develop a stealth mode would be to certify the Flarm GPS for use with trig and garrecht transponders that have ADS-B out and then output the data so our computers will display all traffic from any acronym source. I already have three GPS' I am hoping I will not have to buy a fourth to get ADS-B.

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
That was very good watching, Walt.* I wonder why the ATC controller
did not give the 421 a slight turn rather than simply issuing a
warning of a conflict.* This also shows that it's not a bad idea to
monitor Approach and Departure frequencies when you're in or near
standard routes.* Glad there was nothing more than some unnecessary
excitement!




On 1/20/2016 12:09 AM, WaltWX wrote:



With all the discussion about FLARM, ADS-B and the Pros/Cons, I thought the time is right to bring some facts into the discussion. Last September I had a near mid air with a C421. Since I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.

Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions. I filed a near mid report to the FAA which resulted in two interviews and this radar ARTCC video with ATC controller audio. I think you'll find it quite interesting.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/k8ph9wogyif...1 TT.wmv?dl=0

The FAA statement incorrectly identified the twin as a King Air with only (my visual esimate)
horizontal separation estimate of 500ft.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/e6gvhn6dybx...FAA.pdf?dl =0

According to the radar we passed by at 10,000msl zero vertical and 1300ft horizontal. By pure luck and good scanning technique, I sighted the C421 15 seconds before crossing. PowerFlarm PCAS went off 2-3 seconds later. PowerFlarm would have got my attention if my visual scanning had failed me. No evasive action occurred on my part.

When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.

I am complete agreement with Darryl Ramm's analysis of this whole transponder (Mode S) PowerFlarm recommendation. They complement each other quite well... and this is the best solution for the time being. As he has said, the whole ADS-B thing with TABS looming in the near future is in a state of flux. I wouldn't be surprised to see combined Mode-S/ADS-B transponders coming onto the market in abundance within 3 or 4 years.

In case you are wondering ... I did NOT recommend in my response to the FAA NPRM immediately equipage of gliders with transponders. Instead, utilize good airspace practices, training and a short "wait and see" for more affordable equipment to become available. However, if you have the money... by all means equip with a transponder and PowerFlarm.

Walter Rogers "WX" Discus 2A





--

Dan, 5J

Flarm only outputs NMEA over a serial port. What does a Mode S Transponder with ADS-B Out capability look for as an input for GPS? I don't think the physical or logical interfaces are compatible are they? Also - the Flarm GPS is an off the shelf consumer unit so it is not clear to me that it would ever be able to be certified and may not even qualify for TABS.

I'm mostly asking (waiting for Darryl...)

9B

For a TSO GPS source you can't do it over NMEA. You can do TABS Class B over NMEA. Pretty sure I've been over this before, sigh, many times. At this point its just a memory retention/IQ test.

Look FLARM is just not ever going to produce a TSO- or "meets TSO" or even TABS spec GPS device... that would be effectively be a lot of work just for the tiny USA market. Even something as simple as TABS requires a manufacture used to dealing with TSO approval, engineering and paperwork teams, GPS constellation testers, folks to write test suites,... not the stuff that a small nimble company like FLARM which plays in the unregulated electronics space is ever likely to do, or anybody in the glider community should be asking them to do. And yes I now some parts of their OEMs do play in this space, but the economics and hassle required is just awful. Bad bad waste of their resources. All this stuff will likely come from GPS vendors used to doing this regulatory approval dance. If I heard rumors of FLARM wanting to do even TABS certification, I'd be banging on them pointing out how that is likely a lot of work and a bad business decision. I like for good companies doing good stuff to make smart decisions and be around in future.

Oh and on TABS. We have no relevant installation or use regulations *at all* yet do we? So getting too worried about any of that stuff now is kinda premature. It may work out that there is no way this can be done in practice and actually installed in a glider even if FLARM wanted to.

I know just waiting and seeing must be *SO* hard...

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 8:18:45 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 8:01:06 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:10:06 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Well there are good controllers and not so good. I have had many very close calls, while flying under flight following, IFR plan, or under the Tower's control. Four of my nearest (one within inches) happened within several hundred or less feet of actually taking off, and still over the runway. Burbank, Santa Barbra (twice), and El Cajon. The one in Burbank also involved an United Airlines MD80, in Santa Barbra the control tower actually was ****ed off at the C414 pilot that loudly complained he had to take sudden low altitude evasive manouvers (we both did!) and go around because the control tower had directed me (departing in a helicopter) nose to nose with the C414 on short final. To this day I can hear the controller with a very annoyed tone, "yeah just go around, cleared to land..."

Another time flying a C340 through the Owens valley on flight following, Joshua approach in a harried/worried tone informed me that two F/A-18's were converging on my position from behind, then he asked if I had the traffic. Told him I did not have much rear visibility. He then told me in a worried tone "they are approaching fast!" I asked him for a course to deviated, it was like he had never thought of that! I do not include this as a near miss, I have had so many. Some you cannot control like the AS---le that flew underneath me (i could see him via Mode S traffic display on my HSI/map/traffic instrument) and as he dove to go under I turned 90 degrees only to see him zoom up where I had been. I think this fool was trying to fly under me then scare me by zooming up from underneath, however, had I not turned, he would have hit me as he did not have vision above. I am in full support of anything that gives me the most situational awareness as possible!

Perhaps a better use of Flarm resources rather than to develop a stealth mode would be to certify the Flarm GPS for use with trig and garrecht transponders that have ADS-B out and then output the data so our computers will display all traffic from any acronym source. I already have three GPS' I am hoping I will not have to buy a fourth to get ADS-B.

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
That was very good watching, Walt.* I wonder why the ATC controller
did not give the 421 a slight turn rather than simply issuing a
warning of a conflict.* This also shows that it's not a bad idea to
monitor Approach and Departure frequencies when you're in or near
standard routes.* Glad there was nothing more than some unnecessary
excitement!




On 1/20/2016 12:09 AM, WaltWX wrote:



With all the discussion about FLARM, ADS-B and the Pros/Cons, I thought the time is right to bring some facts into the discussion. Last September I had a near mid air with a C421. Since I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.

Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions. I filed a near mid report to the FAA which resulted in two interviews and this radar ARTCC video with ATC controller audio. I think you'll find it quite interesting.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/k8ph9wogyif...1 TT.wmv?dl=0

The FAA statement incorrectly identified the twin as a King Air with only (my visual esimate)
horizontal separation estimate of 500ft.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/e6gvhn6dybx...FAA.pdf?dl =0

According to the radar we passed by at 10,000msl zero vertical and 1300ft horizontal. By pure luck and good scanning technique, I sighted the C421 15 seconds before crossing. PowerFlarm PCAS went off 2-3 seconds later.. PowerFlarm would have got my attention if my visual scanning had failed me. No evasive action occurred on my part.

When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.

I am complete agreement with Darryl Ramm's analysis of this whole transponder (Mode S) PowerFlarm recommendation. They complement each other quite well... and this is the best solution for the time being. As he has said, the whole ADS-B thing with TABS looming in the near future is in a state of flux. I wouldn't be surprised to see combined Mode-S/ADS-B transponders coming onto the market in abundance within 3 or 4 years.

In case you are wondering ... I did NOT recommend in my response to the FAA NPRM immediately equipage of gliders with transponders. Instead, utilize good airspace practices, training and a short "wait and see" for more affordable equipment to become available. However, if you have the money.... by all means equip with a transponder and PowerFlarm.

Walter Rogers "WX" Discus 2A





--

Dan, 5J

Flarm only outputs NMEA over a serial port. What does a Mode S Transponder with ADS-B Out capability look for as an input for GPS? I don't think the physical or logical interfaces are compatible are they? Also - the Flarm GPS is an off the shelf consumer unit so it is not clear to me that it would ever be able to be certified and may not even qualify for TABS.

I'm mostly asking (waiting for Darryl...)

9B

For a TSO GPS source you can't do it over NMEA. You can do TABS Class B over NMEA. Pretty sure I've been over this before, sigh, many times. At this point its just a memory retention/IQ test.

Look FLARM is just not ever going to produce a TSO- or "meets TSO" or even TABS spec GPS device... that would be effectively be a lot of work just for the tiny USA market. Even something as simple as TABS requires a manufacture used to dealing with TSO approval, engineering and paperwork teams, GPS constellation testers, folks to write test suites,... not the stuff that a small nimble company like FLARM which plays in the unregulated electronics space is ever likely to do, or anybody in the glider community should be asking them to do. And yes I now some parts of their OEMs do play in this space, but the economics and hassle required is just awful. Bad bad waste of their resources. All this stuff will likely come from GPS vendors used to doing this regulatory approval dance. If I heard rumors of FLARM wanting to do even TABS certification, I'd be banging on them pointing out how that is likely a lot of work and a bad business decision. I like for good companies doing good stuff to make smart decisions and be around in future.

I had a similar near miss over Reno when a light twin passed about 500 feet below me. We were both monitoring center freq and squawking appropriate codes (1201 & VFR). After giving it some thought, I realized the controllers didn't know who we were. No flight plan and neither had asked for flight following. This was before FLARM.......keep your head on a swivel!

The closest I ever came to another ship was over Mono Lake at 16,000 when I suddenly saw a B-52 off to my left and climbing. Much too late to maneuver, I watched in disbelief as it flew right below me............how close? I could see the co-pilot was reading his check-list!
Keep your head on a swivel,
JJ

I had an experience I did not consider a near miss as I had a visual for several miles and more as my Sandel showed the traffic long before, but I was flying a C340 at 16,500 with flight following and a turboprop regional airliner was flying at 17,000 we crossed exactly on path only 500 ft in altitude difference at 45 degree convergence, pretty sure the airliner never saw me, but when the airline pilot called control to complain about not receiving a traffic warning I could hear in the background his traffic alert blaring. The controller, was verbally annoyed he has been called to task, only stating, "that wasn't a conflict you had altitude separation." The same controller should have also warned me.

I have had too many close, and I mean CLOSE calls to count. Have had them in the sky and just above the runway. This is why I am against stealth mode in Flarm! I want all the situational awareness I can get!

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:55:10 AM UTC-8, wrote:
I had a similar near miss over Reno when a light twin passed about 500 feet below me. We were both monitoring center freq and squawking appropriate codes (1201 & VFR). After giving it some thought, I realized the controllers didn't know who we were. No flight plan and neither had asked for flight following. This was before FLARM.......keep your head on a swivel!

The closest I ever came to another ship was over Mono Lake at 16,000 when I suddenly saw a B-52 off to my left and climbing. Much too late to maneuver, I watched in disbelief as it flew right below me............how close? I could see the co-pilot was reading his check-list!
Keep your head on a swivel,
JJ

I have one question getting back to Andy's question about FLARM GPS being fed into a transponder for ADS-B out usage (and Darryl, I apologize in advance if you already answered this).... But, "in a hypothetical world where cats and dogs sleep together, and the FAA decided to allow non-TSO'd GPSs to be used for VFR operations".... would there be anything technically missing that would prevent a FLARM GPS from being used as a GPS source for ADS-B out (e.g. protocol or some missing information in the data sentences that would result in the transponder from forwarding the GPS data?

Better change that to ..."in a hypothetical world where Hillary and Trump sleep together". I'm just trying to understand when someone says "Can't do it" whether that is based on technical or regulation reasons.

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-8, ZP wrote:
I have one question getting back to Andy's question about FLARM GPS being fed into a transponder for ADS-B out usage (and Darryl, I apologize in advance if you already answered this).... But, "in a hypothetical world where cats and dogs sleep together, and the FAA decided to allow non-TSO'd GPSs to be used for VFR operations".... would there be anything technically missing that would prevent a FLARM GPS from being used as a GPS source for ADS-B out (e.g. protocol or some missing information in the data sentences that would result in the transponder from forwarding the GPS data?

Better change that to ..."in a hypothetical world where Hillary and Trump sleep together". I'm just trying to understand when someone says "Can't do it" whether that is based on technical or regulation reasons.

Covered before already on r.a.s. in many posts. Did you try searching?

The FAA is not going to allow any old GPS source for ADS-B. That should be absolutely frigging obvious. I've been over this many times. The *only* thing on the horizon is TSO-C199/TABS Class B GPS related regulations (if they happen). And TABS is *not* about you using any random GPS source. And I've explained just in this thread why it's unreasonable to expect FLARM to pursue TABS approval of their devices.

Is stuff missing in a NEMA source like FLARM? Yes stuff is missing. I kind of mentioned that in this very thread ("you can't do it over NMEA"... technically stuff is missing, but it's not even up to anybody to worry about for a certified aircraft, there you have to follow an approved install/pairing of GPS and ADS-B Out to obtain FSDO field approval).

So for actual installation using PowerFLARM GPS to drive ADS-B out.

A certified aircraft? Can't be done. You have no choice.

An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you). You have to know what you are doing when this is configured and get it wrong and the FAA may come looking for you. And you certainly can not use this to meet 2020 Carriage mandates, say when/if gliders lose the ADS-B Out carriage exemption.

Wanting to use PowerFLARM GPS to power ADS-B Out is the *wrong* thing to want. A complete waste of your and everybody else's and FLARMs time. What if anything changes moving forward is going to depend on TABS/TSO-C199C GPS devices. TSO-C199 *was* the FAA's response to folks wanting to use low-cost GPS sources--and it certainly does not just let you connect any GPS source up to ADS-B out, never was going to and nobody should have ever expected it to.

So yet again, just wait until we see what effect TABS carriage and installation regulations have in this area. If you have something specific now that makes any sense to worry about, like a specific transponder in a specific certified/experiential glider, a pressing need to get 1090ES Out and maybe willingness to spend some money. Cough up the actual details and question and you'll get help.

And get along to the SSA convention and listen to Dave Nadler's talk, he's much nicer than me.

Hi Darryl,

You say:

An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you).

That is half correct. The FAA has decided to grant "target status" to uncertified NPE ADSB-out emitters, but is changing or has changed the rules to disallow "client status" for them.

I've posted this befo

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/...3-15-webV2.pdf

I copied to here also, as when I checked the above link the FAA site was down. Must be the snow.

https://www.dropbox.com/l/s/Zr0Ik3xoA0xzvK1mKcbMgs

--Sarah Anderson


On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 3:39:28 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-8, ZP wrote:
I have one question getting back to Andy's question about FLARM GPS being fed into a transponder for ADS-B out usage (and Darryl, I apologize in advance if you already answered this).... But, "in a hypothetical world where cats and dogs sleep together, and the FAA decided to allow non-TSO'd GPSs to be used for VFR operations".... would there be anything technically missing that would prevent a FLARM GPS from being used as a GPS source for ADS-B out (e.g. protocol or some missing information in the data sentences that would result in the transponder from forwarding the GPS data?

Better change that to ..."in a hypothetical world where Hillary and Trump sleep together". I'm just trying to understand when someone says "Can't do it" whether that is based on technical or regulation reasons.

Covered before already on r.a.s. in many posts. Did you try searching?

The FAA is not going to allow any old GPS source for ADS-B. That should be absolutely frigging obvious. I've been over this many times. The *only* thing on the horizon is TSO-C199/TABS Class B GPS related regulations (if they happen). And TABS is *not* about you using any random GPS source. And I've explained just in this thread why it's unreasonable to expect FLARM to pursue TABS approval of their devices.

Is stuff missing in a NEMA source like FLARM? Yes stuff is missing. I kind of mentioned that in this very thread ("you can't do it over NMEA"... technically stuff is missing, but it's not even up to anybody to worry about for a certified aircraft, there you have to follow an approved install/pairing of GPS and ADS-B Out to obtain FSDO field approval).

So for actual installation using PowerFLARM GPS to drive ADS-B out.

A certified aircraft? Can't be done. You have no choice.

An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you). You have to know what you are doing when this is configured and get it wrong and the FAA may come looking for you. And you certainly can not use this to meet 2020 Carriage mandates, say when/if gliders lose the ADS-B Out carriage exemption.

Wanting to use PowerFLARM GPS to power ADS-B Out is the *wrong* thing to want. A complete waste of your and everybody else's and FLARMs time. What if anything changes moving forward is going to depend on TABS/TSO-C199C GPS devices. TSO-C199 *was* the FAA's response to folks wanting to use low-cost GPS sources--and it certainly does not just let you connect any GPS source up to ADS-B out, never was going to and nobody should have ever expected it to.

So yet again, just wait until we see what effect TABS carriage and installation regulations have in this area. If you have something specific now that makes any sense to worry about, like a specific transponder in a specific certified/experiential glider, a pressing need to get 1090ES Out and maybe willingness to spend some money. Cough up the actual details and question and you'll get help.

And get along to the SSA convention and listen to Dave Nadler's talk, he's much nicer than me.

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 7:34:07 AM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
Hi Darryl,

You say:

An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want.... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you).

That is half correct. The FAA has decided to grant "target status" to uncertified NPE ADSB-out emitters, but is changing or has changed the rules to disallow "client status" for them.


Actually what I said is correct. But you are adding another layer of detail.. And I've posted that link before as well and described how it does not mean what many folks assume it does.

So to recap and avoid confusion, a glider using PowerFLARM as a GPS source for ADS-B Out...

Certified ADS-B In traffic systems will *not* receive/display ADS-B (direct) from that glider

(the point Sarah is making): The FAA ground infrastructure will now/beginning soon broadcast a TIS-B target for that non-complaint ADS-B Out system equipped glider (it knows it has a non-complaint ADS-B Out system from it's ADS-B data) to all ADS-B client aircraft -- just exactly as if the glider was not ADS-B Out equipped at all. All that is doing is removing a loop-hole where it did not used to do this because the target had ADS-B out.. yet a flavor of ADS-B Out that ADS-B In certified systems were not allowed to see. Oh doh, no you cannot make this stuff up. This is just TIS-B, you need to be in SSR radar and ADS-B coverage. So the glider with PowerFLARM GPS source in this case has no better traffic warning to certified ADS-B In systems than if it just had a transponder. It has a lot better warning to portable ADS-B systems and PowerFLARM etc. that will receive this "non compliant" ADS-B In. The safety things to remember here is other aircraft with certified ADS-B In are *not* seeing the gliders's ADS-B Out. So say meet a King Air with 1090ES ADS-B In traffic system out at some busy GA airport with no low-level TIS-B coverage and it can run right over you without any indication from their ADS-B In system.

The glider will not be a client for the ADS-B Ground infrastructure, so will not receive reliable ADS-R or TIS-B (not interesting to most glider pilots anyhow since PowerFLARM won't display that). If you do want to use TIS-B or ADS-R with some other traffic display system, you *must* have a compliant ADS-B Out system in your glider. Relying on other ADS-B clients to "paint traffic" is dangerous and can get very confusing.

That system would not meet 2020 ADS-B carriage mandates.

---

And maybe the most important point on that link Sarah gave is it does *not* grant ADS-B client status to non-complaint ADS-B Out systems (i.e. they are not clients to receive ADS-R and TIS-B), that is a frequent point of confusion with some folks (and is not the point that Sarah was making). This confusion is worsened by AOPA and others talking about how they *want* that behavior (but that is not what the FAA is doing), including at the same time they discuss this change documented in that link---what the FAA is actually doing.

And a reminder again to folks interested, get along to Dave Nadlers' talk at the SSA convention.

Darryl


I've posted this befo

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/...3-15-webV2.pdf

I copied to here also, as when I checked the above link the FAA site was down. Must be the snow.

https://www.dropbox.com/l/s/Zr0Ik3xoA0xzvK1mKcbMgs

--Sarah Anderson


On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 3:39:28 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-8, ZP wrote:
I have one question getting back to Andy's question about FLARM GPS being fed into a transponder for ADS-B out usage (and Darryl, I apologize in advance if you already answered this).... But, "in a hypothetical world where cats and dogs sleep together, and the FAA decided to allow non-TSO'd GPSs to be used for VFR operations".... would there be anything technically missing that would prevent a FLARM GPS from being used as a GPS source for ADS-B out (e.g. protocol or some missing information in the data sentences that would result in the transponder from forwarding the GPS data?

Better change that to ..."in a hypothetical world where Hillary and Trump sleep together". I'm just trying to understand when someone says "Can't do it" whether that is based on technical or regulation reasons.

Covered before already on r.a.s. in many posts. Did you try searching?

The FAA is not going to allow any old GPS source for ADS-B. That should be absolutely frigging obvious. I've been over this many times. The *only* thing on the horizon is TSO-C199/TABS Class B GPS related regulations (if they happen). And TABS is *not* about you using any random GPS source. And I've explained just in this thread why it's unreasonable to expect FLARM to pursue TABS approval of their devices.

Is stuff missing in a NEMA source like FLARM? Yes stuff is missing. I kind of mentioned that in this very thread ("you can't do it over NMEA"... technically stuff is missing, but it's not even up to anybody to worry about for a certified aircraft, there you have to follow an approved install/pairing of GPS and ADS-B Out to obtain FSDO field approval).

So for actual installation using PowerFLARM GPS to drive ADS-B out.

A certified aircraft? Can't be done. You have no choice.

An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want.... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you). You have to know what you are doing when this is configured and get it wrong and the FAA may come looking for you. And you certainly can not use this to meet 2020 Carriage mandates, say when/if gliders lose the ADS-B Out carriage exemption.

Wanting to use PowerFLARM GPS to power ADS-B Out is the *wrong* thing to want. A complete waste of your and everybody else's and FLARMs time. What if anything changes moving forward is going to depend on TABS/TSO-C199C GPS devices. TSO-C199 *was* the FAA's response to folks wanting to use low-cost GPS sources--and it certainly does not just let you connect any GPS source up to ADS-B out, never was going to and nobody should have ever expected it to.

So yet again, just wait until we see what effect TABS carriage and installation regulations have in this area. If you have something specific now that makes any sense to worry about, like a specific transponder in a specific certified/experiential glider, a pressing need to get 1090ES Out and maybe willingness to spend some money. Cough up the actual details and question and you'll get help.

And get along to the SSA convention and listen to Dave Nadler's talk, he's much nicer than me.

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 8:53:20 AM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:

And maybe the most important point on that link Sarah gave is it does *not* grant ADS-B client status to non-complaint ADS-B Out systems (i.e. they are not clients to receive ADS-R and TIS-B), that is a frequent point of confusion with some folks (and is not the point that Sarah was making). This confusion is worsened by AOPA and others talking about how they *want* that behavior (but that is not what the FAA is doing), including at the same time they discuss this change documented in that link---what the FAA is actually doing.

Actually what I said maybe should have been a little stronger: if anything the FAA is kind of more heading in the reverse direction from what AOPA and some others want (they want open-broadcast of TIS-B for example with no client aircraft needed)... the FAA is making non-complaint ADS-B Out aircraft no longer work as TIS-B and ADS-R clients. And how all this is being presented by AOPA in particular can be confusing. They want something but describe the FAA doing somewhat the reverse. e.g. I have seen this AOPA article cause some confusion: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/A...anges-to-TIS-B.

And starting around now non-complaint ADS-B out systems will stop being clients for TIS-B and ADS-R. If anybody here is relying on that *pay attention*, it it going to stop working for you. I expect that mostly affects folks in powered experimental airplanes.