NATS to enable ADS-B transponder functionality for GA

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 10:00:36 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:

Thank Dave (who wrote the Flarm software for those out of the loop).

I probably should have said "re-wrote the PowerFLARM code" to be more precise. The Flarm team in Switzerland wrote the original code of course. It is pretty amazing what it can do given how closely gliders fly together.

9B

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:46:49 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:57:05 AM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:00:07 PM UTC-8, George Haeh wrote:
The Europeans can use ADS-B Out today in gliders. There may be elements
similar to FAA TSO-C199 which I just heard about.

I still question why WAAS GPS is/will be the price of admission to
controlled airspace at least in VFR. Yes on a Cat III ILS, WAAS is
warranted.

http://www.glidertracking.com/connecting-ads-b/

"René de Dreu from the Glider Pilot Shop has put together a document which
examines possible ADS-B connections between all Mode-S transponders and LX
flight computers / equipment. "

Unfortunately dead link for time being:

http://www.gliderpilotshop.nl/winkel...roducts_id=490

Right, but it's kind of the reason that the Europeans can use 1090ES Out in gliders today is there are no applicable ADS-B services they interface to (including ATC) and no regulations beyond the most basic transponder/1090ES out requirements they have to meet. In a way it is not too different than the non-certified gliders in the USA, those owners can install any GPS source with the same 1090ES capable transponders.... but in the USA that has limited use as it is not enough to get the FAA ADS-B ground stations to want to send you ADS-R and TIS-B services and you likely won't even show up on traffic displays of aircraft with certified ADS-B In systems. In Europe where there are ADS-B Out requirements/standards for high-performance aircraft which require Certified IFR GPS sources. So just kind of a worse case paranoid warning: what Europe exactly will do in future is not guaranteed. If say they were to mandate ADS-B Out for lower performance aircraft than the current ADS-B Out mandate for high-performance (which is just rolling out) then who knows what might be required as a GPS source in those aircraft.. But yes, damn it, things like testing/encouraging current COTS GPS use in the UK is great.

The issue that the FAA would argue with requiring a TSO/IFR/WAAS GPS source is not ultra-precision as it is with GPS reliability and failure detection. I am just saying what they would argue :-)

BTW European agencies should be well aware of the stuff behind TSO-C199. Actually that TSO has some European roots back to low power Mode-S transponders... which in the past tied in with some concern about UK airspace restrictions/mandatory Transponder (or low-powered Transponder) carriage. So the other warning here is be careful what you wish/want to encourage without watching out for what might end up encouraging/enabling excessive mandatory use/restrictions.

And again the technical part of actually connecting together this stuff is not the problem, its actually pretty simple. And you can do that today in an experimental glider in the USA. You must be careful and properly set up the ADS-B out to report it is not using an IFR/TSO GPS source, and as a result it has limited use, you won't receive those services you might expect and it does not allow flight in airspace that would require a 2020 Mandate compliant ADS-B out system (gliders have exemptions for some airspace, but a non-compliant install won't get you into the other airspace). But geeks with experimental gliders may still want to do this (and a few have).

I'm not defending the FAA, but they had huge issues with ADS-B being everything to everybody and ADS-B is a key part of the ambitious and underfunded NEXGEN project. But the highly complex dual-link ADS-B approach in the USA is a mess and was a very bad idea for many reasons. Not allowing a COTS GPS for VFR traffic (at least outside certain airspace) was also a bad idea. TSO-C199 is interesting, I take it overall as a good sign, but it is unclear at least to me where it will end up and what products will actually come from it. It could also hopefully be a model for future broader changes to allow more use of non-TSO GPS for general ADS-B Out. And I still have some paranoid reservations where TSO-C199 could lead long term as mentioned above. Europeans pushing ahead with COTS GPS trials/encouraging use is a great sign as well, but again, does not mean they won't end up in future requiring higher-spec ADS-B Out installs in GA and gliders etc. (but we all hope they do not, and so far in what they actually have and have not done with ADS-B shows a lot more modest/overall rational/pragmatic thought than in the USA).

This ADS-B mess is still mostly futureware(*) for glider pilots in the USA, we just don't know exactly where this will end up, whether we'll ever see say TSO-C199 devices, whether ADS-B Out GPS requirements will be relaxed, etc. And Transponders and/or PowerFLARM are very useful, pretty well understood and realtively easy to deploy traffic awareness and collision avoidance assistance actually available and usable today. And since ADS-B Out is not even mandatory for gliders in 2020 it's just not worth most glider pilots worrying about.

(*) the part that of ADS-B that is not futureware for USA glider pilots is of course that the PowerFLARM with 1090ES In capability can "see" aircraft nearby that are transmitting 1090ES Out.

Non-certified aircraft that transmit ADS-B OUT signals using non-TSO'd GPS sources do apparently trigger TIS-B transmissions from ADS-B ground stations, according to the people I have talked to at Dynon and pilots who have Dynon systems installed in their aircraft. The Dynon system uses a proprietary version of the Trig 21 transponder and does transmit a 1090ES ADS-B out signal. The pilots I have talked to who have this system installed in their aircraft (RV-8 and Phoenix Motorgliders), consistently see all of the transponder equipped aircraft in their vicinity as a result of this capability. The guys I have talked to say this it is a real eye opener on how much traffic is there that they would otherwise never see visually.

The FAA had allowed TIS-B and other services to work in the past, the
implication seem to be that this and other things were not going to be supported with non certified GPS inputs in future. But that is not entirely clear.

But I'd be very careful of anecdotal observations, it is very easy to look at a traffic display and see lots of icons flying around, but it's hard to know if you are looking at traffic appearing there via TIS-B, ADS-R or ADS-B direct -- the Dynon Sykwatch provide *no* way for a user to tell. The danger especially with TIS-B is you'll definitely expect to receive TIS-B broadcasts within the service volume around other aircraft who are transmitting a ADS-B with certified GPS and the capability code set to who they have ADS-B UAT In.

Oh Dynon Skywatch, shudder, they use Trig transponder technology, great, but their Skywatch is a crazy split-brain 1090ES Out, UAT In system, something the FAA has consistently warned against. Sure it lets them provide a FIS-B weather etc. product, but as a traffic solution it is just a bad idea. There are much better options out there from better vendors who have realized the best approach in the USA dual-link environment is 1090ES Out and dual 1090ES In and UAT In. The idea that you could have two Dynon Skywatch equipped aircraft right next to each out at a remote airport and both could run into each other with no traffic warning is just bat**** crazy, hopefully they will go dual-link ADS-B In in future and existing users will have an easy upgrade path.

I'm not suggesting that Dynon is a perfect solution. Dual band ADS-B receivers are important for the reasons that you indicate. There are a number of very reasonably priced ADS-B IN solutions available that are dual band, providing full visibility of all ADS-B OUT equipped aircraft in addition to supporting TIS-B if you are transmitting an ADS-B OUT signal and are within range of an ADS-B ground station.

I'm not disputing that FLARM is a better solution for glider to glider collision avoidance, when both gliders are appropriately equipped. What I have a lot of difficulty understanding is why PowerFLARM doesn't support TIS-B. If that were supported this would be a great solution today for all glider pilots, whether they are flying in contests, or recreationally where they are interested in seeing other GA and airline traffic.

Without TIS-B support PowerFLARM is of no interest to me. PowerFlarm's ability to see transponder equipped aircraft only provides altitude and an approximate estimate of the range of conflicting traffic with absolutely no indication of where the A/C is located. Virtually every other ADS-B IN solution out there supports TIS-B which shows you the exact location and track of all transponder equipped A/C that are visible to ATC.

If the PowerFLARM community really wants to solve the bigger collision avoidance problem, they need to get serious about supporting TIS-B. Otherwise, PowerFLARM's long term future is going to be limited to a very small niche market.

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:03:18 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:

For gliders, the ideal solution would be a combination of PowerFLARM and a mode S transponder hooked up to transmit 1090ES position, without the need for a TSOd WAAS GPS. All the hardware is present, just need the FAA to wake up.


What Kirk said. This is settled science, to borrow a phrase.

9B

PowerFLARM still doesn't support TIS-B, so you can't accurately see non ADS-B out equipped A/C.

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 3:03:08 PM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:03:18 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:

For gliders, the ideal solution would be a combination of PowerFLARM and a mode S transponder hooked up to transmit 1090ES position, without the need for a TSOd WAAS GPS. All the hardware is present, just need the FAA to wake up.


What Kirk said. This is settled science, to borrow a phrase.

9B

PowerFLARM still doesn't support TIS-B, so you can't accurately see non ADS-B out equipped A/C.

And without that affordable and deployable ADS-B out solution that is largely irrelevant. So it's a discussion about futureware again. Would it be nice if PowerFLARM supported TIS-B for that long term future for some pilots, sure -- but even then what it can do would need to be tailored to the glider user, be able to handle the relatively large positional uncertainty in TIS-B, dedupe FLARM/TIS-B and appropriately suppress TIS-B warnings etc. when in say a gaggle. If I was FLARM none of that would be near my company's top priority, especially not as it only affects some very small number of glider pilots in the USA (those are equipped with ADS-B Out). And eventually TIS-B just goes away as something interesting as more aircraft equip with ADS-B Out. But today PowerFLARM does a fantastic job for the niche market (glider pilots, us!) it was designed for.

What is especially painful is the continued nitpicking of something aimed at the glider pilot community that does so well for that community. If you are not after a glider oriented solution then just go buy somethign like a *great* Garmin dual-link ADS-B In based system maybe with a Trig TT-22 1090ES Out system and be done with your whining. If your aircraft is certificated then just pay for a real TSO GPS Out, after all this whining surely it must be worth a few $k for you to get what you keep saying here you need?

You've spent years on r.a.s. pushing one ADS-B thing after another, small battery powered UATs Out vaporware, power hungry GA oriented UAT Out, TIS-B etc. if there is a market for folks craving whatever ideas you are selling now why don't you actually show people what is usable, what exactly can be installed and actually works, the benefits and limitations of that, and describe your own experiences with using that system? What of all technology you keep talking about have you actually got installed and actually flow with in what aircraft?

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 3:03:08 PM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:

PowerFLARM still doesn't support TIS-B, so you can't accurately see non ADS-B out equipped A/C.


That is a pointless argument in more ways that I can possibly describe.

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 6:38:39 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 3:03:08 PM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:03:18 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:

For gliders, the ideal solution would be a combination of PowerFLARM and a mode S transponder hooked up to transmit 1090ES position, without the need for a TSOd WAAS GPS. All the hardware is present, just need the FAA to wake up.


What Kirk said. This is settled science, to borrow a phrase.

9B

PowerFLARM still doesn't support TIS-B, so you can't accurately see non ADS-B out equipped A/C.

And without that affordable and deployable ADS-B out solution that is largely irrelevant. So it's a discussion about futureware again. Would it be nice if PowerFLARM supported TIS-B for that long term future for some pilots, sure -- but even then what it can do would need to be tailored to the glider user, be able to handle the relatively large positional uncertainty in TIS-B, dedupe FLARM/TIS-B and appropriately suppress TIS-B warnings etc. when in say a gaggle. If I was FLARM none of that would be near my company's top priority, especially not as it only affects some very small number of glider pilots in the USA (those are equipped with ADS-B Out). And eventually TIS-B just goes away as something interesting as more aircraft equip with ADS-B Out. But today PowerFLARM does a fantastic job for the niche market (glider pilots, us!) it was designed for.

What is especially painful is the continued nitpicking of something aimed at the glider pilot community that does so well for that community. If you are not after a glider oriented solution then just go buy somethign like a *great* Garmin dual-link ADS-B In based system maybe with a Trig TT-22 1090ES Out system and be done with your whining. If your aircraft is certificated then just pay for a real TSO GPS Out, after all this whining surely it must be worth a few $k for you to get what you keep saying here you need?

You've spent years on r.a.s. pushing one ADS-B thing after another, small battery powered UATs Out vaporware, power hungry GA oriented UAT Out, TIS-B etc. if there is a market for folks craving whatever ideas you are selling now why don't you actually show people what is usable, what exactly can be installed and actually works, the benefits and limitations of that, and describe your own experiences with using that system? What of all technology you keep talking about have you actually got installed and actually flow with in what aircraft?

What is just as painful is listening to the constant koolaid on how PowerFLARM is the answer for all glider pilots. It is NOT. It may be a good solution for the sub-niche market of contest glider pilots (which is at most 1/4 of the overall glider community). It is not a good solution for those of us who are concerned about traffic conflicts with non-glider traffic.

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 11:50:01 PM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 6:38:39 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 3:03:08 PM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:03:18 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:

For gliders, the ideal solution would be a combination of PowerFLARM and a mode S transponder hooked up to transmit 1090ES position, without the need for a TSOd WAAS GPS. All the hardware is present, just need the FAA to wake up.


What Kirk said. This is settled science, to borrow a phrase.

9B

PowerFLARM still doesn't support TIS-B, so you can't accurately see non ADS-B out equipped A/C.

And without that affordable and deployable ADS-B out solution that is largely irrelevant. So it's a discussion about futureware again. Would it be nice if PowerFLARM supported TIS-B for that long term future for some pilots, sure -- but even then what it can do would need to be tailored to the glider user, be able to handle the relatively large positional uncertainty in TIS-B, dedupe FLARM/TIS-B and appropriately suppress TIS-B warnings etc. when in say a gaggle. If I was FLARM none of that would be near my company's top priority, especially not as it only affects some very small number of glider pilots in the USA (those are equipped with ADS-B Out). And eventually TIS-B just goes away as something interesting as more aircraft equip with ADS-B Out. But today PowerFLARM does a fantastic job for the niche market (glider pilots, us!) it was designed for.

What is especially painful is the continued nitpicking of something aimed at the glider pilot community that does so well for that community. If you are not after a glider oriented solution then just go buy somethign like a *great* Garmin dual-link ADS-B In based system maybe with a Trig TT-22 1090ES Out system and be done with your whining. If your aircraft is certificated then just pay for a real TSO GPS Out, after all this whining surely it must be worth a few $k for you to get what you keep saying here you need?

You've spent years on r.a.s. pushing one ADS-B thing after another, small battery powered UATs Out vaporware, power hungry GA oriented UAT Out, TIS-B etc. if there is a market for folks craving whatever ideas you are selling now why don't you actually show people what is usable, what exactly can be installed and actually works, the benefits and limitations of that, and describe your own experiences with using that system? What of all technology you keep talking about have you actually got installed and actually flow with in what aircraft?

What is just as painful is listening to the constant koolaid on how PowerFLARM is the answer for all glider pilots. It is NOT. It may be a good solution for the sub-niche market of contest glider pilots (which is at most 1/4 of the overall glider community). It is not a good solution for those of us who are concerned about traffic conflicts with non-glider traffic.

What of all technology you keep talking about have you actually got installed and actually flow with in what aircraft?

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 11:50:01 PM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:

What is just as painful is listening to the constant koolaid on how PowerFLARM is the answer for all glider pilots. It is NOT. It may be a good solution for the sub-niche market of contest glider pilots (which is at most 1/4 of the overall glider community). It is not a good solution for those of us who are concerned about traffic conflicts with non-glider traffic.

Sorry for your pain Mike, but you keep making unsubstantiated assertions that are contrary to known facts. That is at minimum a disservice to your fellow pilots and in some cases potentially dangerous to them as well.

The simple fact of the matter is that over the past 20 years 60 percent of the 20 reported midair collisions involving gliders have been glider-glider and 75 percent have been glider-glider or glider-towplane. There was one towplane-GA and four glider-GA collisions over the same period. Contests are not by a long shot the only circumstances where gliders come together. 40 percent of collisions were in a contest environment, 60 percent were not. Even if you never fly a contest two-thirds of the collisions have been with another glider and of the the other one-third one was with a J-3 Cub which would likely never have had ADS-B installed, one was between a glider with a transponder that was turned off and a business jet. I'd have to look up the circumstance of the other two.

The simple fact of the matter is that the biggest risk for glider midair collision is another glider, so the scenario you describe of a glider pilot who doesn't fly out of a gliderport or near a gliderport is actually the sub-niche market. The vast majority of people flying gliders need to look out primarily for other gliders and secondarily for towplanes. Those aircraft, if they have any GPS-based collision technology at all, are equipped with a PowerFLARM. If you want to avoid conflict with jets and turboprops and other aircraft by all means get a Mode S transponder too - that'll be your second best investment.

Facts and analysis based on data please - especially when it comes to decisions that affect people's safety.

9B

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 1:50:01 AM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:

What is just as painful is listening to the constant koolaid on how PowerFLARM is the answer for all glider pilots. It is NOT. It may be a good solution for the sub-niche market of contest glider pilots (which is at most 1/4 of the overall glider community). It is not a good solution for those of us who are concerned about traffic conflicts with non-glider traffic.

Bull****.

With PF I get real time (not delayed, like TIS-B)1090ES position on fast movers, and real time altitude and approx range for Mode C/S traffic, which is good enough to start looking, and if necessary avoid, gen av traffic.

And I've had it in my glider for 2 years.

To get TIS-B into my cockpit, I would need ADS-B out and in. And displays. And be in range of ground stations. And hope that the data latency isn't too great. And I still could get hit in a gaggle by another glider without warning! Or even under that one nice Cu in the middle of nowhere...

Talk about drinking the coolaid - you are just plain in denial!

Kirk
66

Obviously Mike didn't read or understood Andy's article in soaring magazine..
That said I learn something new from Mike, that since I am not a contest pilot I must have been imagining that powerflarm is useful and helpful for me during the last 3 years I am using it, and I be better off selling it to a contest pilot and install ADS-B instead...

Ramy