PowerFlarm at Region 9 Contest

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:03:26 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:

PCAS on the other hand is just a bad joke, especially if you are flying in proximity to gliders with transponders. The "alerts" in that case are continuous and therefore completely useless.

I'll buy that it is a bad joke if you're close to a number of transponder equipped gliders.

PCAS may have some utility in a really empty sky, but being non-directional, it's a pretty limited sort of utility.

A lot of ZAON owners would strenuously disagree that PCAS is a bad joke. Plus I was under the impression that the early problems with PF PCAS missing alerts that ZAON would catch had largely been resolved.

For a non-racer starting with the bare minimum of gadgets, a selling point of PF is that it incorporates PCAS, approved logger, and provides high quality NEMA GPS to other instruments (like a V7 vario or a PNA) that might need it.


With any density of "friendly" transponder traffic (for example at a contest), you'll want to turn PCAS off.


But turn it back ON when you're in the vicinity of random GA traffic, right? Do you really think that PCAS is of marginal utility?

Doug,

I firmly agree that transponders are a necessity for gliders flying in
busy airspace. Having recently installed PowerFLARM, too, I think that
it is very useful for helping me be more aware of traffic. But that's
not really enough for a glider only rated pilot like myself. I think
it's critical for VFR only trained pilots like me to get educated on
how IFR traffic flows through VFR airspace.

A few years ago I learned the hard way that VOR stations have
increased traffic levels, so I put their locations into my waypoint
database so I'd know when to increase my vigilance. Now I know that
there are low level approach routes outside Class B airspace (I
previously thought IFR approaches were either inside the Class B or
over 10,000 feet), I'm trying to figure out how to mark their location
in my airspace file. Another thing I'm doing is picking the brains of
some fellow glider pilots who are ATP rated, to try and find out if
there are some other nasty surprises out there.

It would be great if there was some AOPA or FAA course that would make
flying VFR around IFR traffic learning more formalized. Have I missed
something?

-John, Q3


On Jun 12, 11:26 am, Doug Mueller wrote:
John, I would like to share this with you and the entire glider community.
FWIW. I fly transport category aircraft for a living. I fly gliders and
small prop jobs for a hobby. I cannot over emphasis how critical
transponder usage is in this day and age. The airspace system has seen huge
pressure to condense for the number of airspace users. For example a
transport category aircraft is separated from another aircraft by only 1000
ft vertically above Flight Level 290(29000ft.)
The terminal airspace that is a 25 mile radius of a major airport is
overflowing and the Air Traffic Controllers are now spilling aircraft over
into other airspaces. Your EWR example is a perfect case.
In the lower altitudes of the controlled D airspace below 18000 along
airways and terminal areas, the transports rely on TCAS because we are
generally travelling anywhere from 4 to 9 miles per minute. I am a trained
general aviator and my head is outside of the cockpit 75% of the time. For
whatever reason sitting in the transport I can never see traffic with the
use of my own eyes before TCAS spots the traffic. It is probably because of
my focal length is geared to looking farther down the road at 4 to 9 miles
per minute. When I get a TCAS alert I change my focal range to look for
traffic that is within 5 miles of my aircraft. At the speeds I fly I have
approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute to acquire visual contact before I fly
past the vfr target. I have flown in and out of RENO and a lot up and down
the CA coast. Looking for gliders in the owns valley has always been a
challenge. I have not seen one yet. I have seen them on TCAS but have never
visually acquired one.
The day is coming when a glider or a small aircraft will collide with a
transport. The day that happens all gliders and GA aircraft will be
grounded since the transport industry is an economic contributor and will
not be punished or the incident. All General Aviators have a responsibility
to try to postpone that day. The transponder is a simple solution to
postponing that day. You can be part of the problem or part of the
solution. I wanna keep having the freedom to fly my glider. Thanks for
listening. Doug

Another comment for contest racers. As long as it is a sanctioned
contest and the contest directors have notified the FAA of the event,
the airspace should be protected with the issuance of NOTAM's for
all aircraft. High level airspace will be routed accordingly and Flarm
would be all that is needed and a transponder not be necessary. I
tend to fly like Dan M does and do not care for contests. But I have
every intention of being a good general aviation steward much like
Dan M and commend him for trying to postpone that inevitable day.
In full disclosure, I have a Portable Flarm and I will be installing a
transponder shortly in my ship. Kudos to anyone in the community
that has Dan M's mindset. Doug

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:43:49 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:03:26 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:



PCAS on the other hand is just a bad joke, especially if you are flying in proximity to gliders with transponders. The "alerts" in that case are continuous and therefore completely useless.



I'll buy that it is a bad joke if you're close to a number of transponder equipped gliders.



PCAS may have some utility in a really empty sky, but being non-directional, it's a pretty limited sort of utility.



A lot of ZAON owners would strenuously disagree that PCAS is a bad joke. Plus I was under the impression that the early problems with PF PCAS missing alerts that ZAON would catch had largely been resolved.



For a non-racer starting with the bare minimum of gadgets, a selling point of PF is that it incorporates PCAS, approved logger, and provides high quality NEMA GPS to other instruments (like a V7 vario or a PNA) that might need it.





With any density of "friendly" transponder traffic (for example at a contest), you'll want to turn PCAS off.





But turn it back ON when you're in the vicinity of random GA traffic, right? Do you really think that PCAS is of marginal utility?

PowerFlarm PCAS "works" now (v 3.0), at least so far as I can tell. It (and Zaon) have some marginal utility if you are not flying in the company of other transponder equipped gliders. All you need to make it worse than useless is one mode C, or one mode S (and no powerflarm) equipped glider within 6 miles.

"Worse than useless" in this case means a cockpit distraction with no utility.

Evan Ludeman / T8

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, Doug Mueller wrote:
Another comment for contest racers. As long as it is a sanctioned contest and the contest directors have notified the FAA of the event, the airspace should be protected with the issuance of NOTAM's for all aircraft. High level airspace will be routed accordingly and Flarm would be all that is needed and a transponder not be necessary. I tend to fly like Dan M does and do not care for contests. But I have every intention of being a good general aviation steward much like Dan M and commend him for trying to postpone that inevitable day. In full disclosure, I have a Portable Flarm and I will be installing a transponder shortly in my ship. Kudos to anyone in the community that has Dan M's mindset. Doug

Just imagine the response when some CD calls and asks for a NOTAM "protecting" airspace over an area of 100 miles by 150 miles. The laughter would be deafening.
It is possible and common to temporarily close an airport to permit grid and launch, but that is about all one can do.
UH

At 17:31 12 June 2013, John Carlyle wrote:
Doug,

I firmly agree that transponders are a necessity for gliders flying in
busy airspace. Having recently installed PowerFLARM, too, I think that
it is very useful for helping me be more aware of traffic. But that's
not really enough for a glider only rated pilot like myself. I think
it's critical for VFR only trained pilots like me to get educated on
how IFR traffic flows through VFR airspace.

A few years ago I learned the hard way that VOR stations have
increased traffic levels, so I put their locations into my waypoint
database so I'd know when to increase my vigilance. Now I know that
there are low level approach routes outside Class B airspace (I
previously thought IFR approaches were either inside the Class B or
over 10,000 feet), I'm trying to figure out how to mark their location
in my airspace file. Another thing I'm doing is picking the brains of
some fellow glider pilots who are ATP rated, to try and find out if
there are some other nasty surprises out there.

It would be great if there was some AOPA or FAA course that would make
flying VFR around IFR traffic learning more formalized. Have I missed
something?

-John, Q3
Hi John, I applaud you for wanting to learn more. It is often an overlooked
or forgotten concept in soaring. Most pilots who get their PPL in gliders
think thats all there is to know aside from badge flying and contest prep.
If one was to pursue a
powered rating they would quickly realize the short sided philosophy. There
are commercially available courses out there offered by Jeppeson and by
King courses to name a couple on airspace. By looking at airspace use by
the IFR pilot you
can come to the conclusions you have already with VOR's. Although VOR's are
going to the wayside, it would be good to understand the Lat Long structure
of GPS. In the IFR world, due to airspace consolidation, aircraft are now
flying along
GPS coordinate system waypoints. There are preferential National Airspace
routing system wayponts in the continental United States. Airspace highways
for transcontinental flight if you will. Airspace is the most often
misunderstood concept
even in powered flight. It can get you in the most trouble as well. It is
understandable that emphasis is not placed on airspace in the glider
ratings but for the pilots wishing to persue X-C flight, it becomes
critically important to understand. In
the interest of safety I would be glad to answer any questions you might
have if you use this public forum so all could read and understand. Doug

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:07:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, Doug Mueller wrote: Another comment for contest racers. As long as it is a sanctioned contest and the contest directors have notified the FAA of the event, the airspace should be protected with the issuance of NOTAM's for all aircraft. High level airspace will be routed accordingly and Flarm would be all that is needed and a transponder not be necessary. I tend to fly like Dan M does and do not care for contests. But I have every intention of being a good general aviation steward much like Dan M and commend him for trying to postpone that inevitable day. In full disclosure, I have a Portable Flarm and I will be installing a transponder shortly in my ship. Kudos to anyone in the community that has Dan M's mindset. Doug Just imagine the response when some CD calls and asks for a NOTAM "protecting" airspace over an area of 100 miles by 150 miles. The laughter would be deafening. It is possible and common to temporarily close an airport to permit grid and launch, but that is about all one can do. UH

Getting back to Region 9 specifically...The airport was NOTAM'd closed each day until 3 PM to allow for gridding and launch. Also, through some coordination with Albuquerque Approach and/or Center controllers, traffic from the east was held above 18,000 feet as they passed over instead of the more typical mid teens.

At one of the morning pilots meetings Billy Hill showed a time lapse video of the center radar screen from the day before. Impressive how you could see all the 1202's flying around the course and all the jets coming in over us.

The only day I saw a jet below 18K was a DC-10 fire tanker that was headed for one of the wildfires up by Santa Fe. We were on the grid at the time.

I didn't have my portable PowerFLARM for the first two days of the contest. It was on its way back from the recall upgrade. I had one close encounter on Day 1 that I was unaware of until the other glider talked to me after landing. I got plenty of warnings on Day 3 and 4 to make me happy that I had it. I did have a few times where I was with a glider that was Transponder and FLARM equipped (Air Force Academy for example) but never had multiples of those where it wasn't clear to me that the transponder and FLARM target I was seeing were the same glider.

I bought the PowerFLARM in the beginning for the PCAS functionality as there are only 2 or 3 other PowerFLARM users in my area but a lot of GA traffic that is not talking to ATC but is squawking 1200. I also have transponders in the Cherokee and the Cirrus now.

NOTAMS do not mean closure of Airspace. It is only notification
that something is going on. If CD's dont do that they are doing a
dis service to the aviation community. I also believe they are
requested to do it by the AIM but I will check on that.

At 18:07 12 June 2013, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, Doug
Mueller wrote:
Another comment for contest racers. As long as it is a
sanctioned
contest=
and the contest directors have notified the FAA of the event,
the
airspace=
should be protected with the issuance of NOTAM's for all
aircraft. High
le=
vel airspace will be routed accordingly and Flarm would be all
that is
need=
ed and a transponder not be necessary. I tend to fly like Dan
M does and
do=
not care for contests. But I have every intention of being a
good general
=
aviation steward much like Dan M and commend him for trying
to postpone
tha=
t inevitable day. In full disclosure, I have a Portable Flarm and
I will
be=
installing a transponder shortly in my ship. Kudos to anyone in
the
commun=
ity that has Dan M's mindset. Doug

Just imagine the response when some CD calls and asks for a
NOTAM
"protecti=
ng" airspace over an area of 100 miles by 150 miles. The
laughter would be
=
deafening.
It is possible and common to temporarily close an airport to
permit grid
an=
d launch, but that is about all one can do.
UH

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:53:32 AM UTC-4, guy wrote:
I've installed the PF Brick unit in my plane so far. *I fly in a busy area

(three class C airports within ~50 miles, plus lots of military traffic)

so a transponder is on the wish list. *I also fly contests so FLARM was

a really good idea. *At least with PF I get warnings about traffic.



Matt



Now this is the thinking that really gets my attention. Someone who

flies in crowded and busy airspace with the majority of the traffic

using transponders chooses to install a Flarm before installing a

transponder.

Why? Flarm is cool and transponders are not?



Remember the glider/Hawker collision at Minden? Glider had a

transponder but it was not turned on. Would a Flarm in the glider

(turned on) have made any difference? Several approach routes for

Reno go right over Minden and go right over the mountain ridges we

like to hang out on. I would argue that these types of areas would

make a transponder the primary instrument of choice.



These discussions will go nowhere. We all will rationalize our

personnal point of view. The fact remains that transponders are the

primary instrument for identifying traffic (along with eyeballs

looking OUTSIDE the cockpit) in the United States. If I were emperor,

all aircraft in the United States would be required to have a

transponder and a PCAS/ADSB device. I bet if that were the law there

would be combination units, kind of like the Flarm.



OK. Burn me.



Guy

Well, it had to do with personal experience with transponders. On more than
one occasion flying small planes I saw opposing traffic up close and personal.
The scariest case happened when both myself and the other guy were talking
to approach radar, were called as traffic to each other, and passed in
opposite directions about 50 feet apart. (Apparently the radar guy thought
that a 10kt crosswind required a 60 degree crab angle. Sigh.) I've also
seen commuter planes blow by, within 100 yards, at the wrong altitude. I
*know* those guys fly IFR so I know I was called as traffic to them.

Anyway, as John points out, the PF provides traffic depiction for ADSB
targets. Also, I'm off the approach paths to the big commercial hub
most of the time. The traffic I usually see is the big military transports
on the way to drops at Ft. Bragg, and that stuff is fairly low and REALLY BIG.
Plus, it squawks ADSB.

Lastly, it just had to do with how much cash I could pry loose at a time.
The PF came in at less than $1500, and a transponder will run at least $3000
by the time I get it certified. I just have to save up longer to handle that.

Matt

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:07:08 PM UTC-6, wrote:

Just imagine the response when some CD calls and asks for a NOTAM "protecting" airspace over an area of 100 miles by 150 miles. The laughter would be deafening.

It is possible and common to temporarily close an airport to permit grid and launch, but that is about all one can do.

UH
Actually this is not all one can do. Further, a CD can only "Issue" a local notam (with the concent of an airport manager). ATC can issue Notams for glider , balloon, model rockets and any other activity as they see fit. Kind of like the old days when you had to report towing activity in a control zone. Why do you find this amusing?