(USA) NTSB issues recommendations to the FAA and the SSA regarding transponder use in gliders

On Apr 2, 7:25 am, "Mike Schumann"
wrote:
Voluntary compliance is great. However, there are always people who don't
get it and create situations that give the rest of us a black eye or worse.

I don't think that it is unreasonable to require that all aircraft (gliders,
balloons, etc.) who fly above 10K or near major airports are transponder
equipped. I would hope that rather than forcing everyone to install Mode C
(an antiquated technology), that we could get the FAA to accelerate the
deployment of ADS-B ground stations in strategic areas, and let gliders and
balloons meet the transponder requirements with low cost ADS-B transceivers,
which will hopefully be available within the next year or so. A side
benefit of this, is that the power draw for ADS-B UAT transceivers should be
a lot lower than Mode C.

Mike Schumann

I think this idea is bad and wrong. Not all aircraft that flies above
10K can feasibly fly with a transponder. Where can store the
transponder when flying my hang glider or paraglider? The technology
is not there to cover all aircraft.

Ron Gleason
DG303 N303MR

precisely why I do recommend PCAS and do not always recommend
transponders....
the PCAS more or less tell you to "look out"...the transponder by nature of
it's apparent shield of protection can leave you feeling pretty secure that
someone else is "looking out" for you..
tim

"Darryl Ramm" wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 8:09 am, "Tim Mara" wrote:
Tim

I do fly in high traffic density areas (with transponder and PCAS and
talking to ATC when appropriate) and know many other pilots that also
at least have a transponder in their ship and none that I know have
this naive view of transponders and safety bubbles. If anything the
fact that they have a transponder in their glider, tends to be
correlated with an awareness of traffic, ATC, etc. and I suspect if
anything these folks are more likely to have their heads outside the
cockpit. And since many of those same pilots also fly with PCAS I can
guarantee they understand the need to be looking outside.

I am glad you can "Guarantee" this.....that makes it a lot easier
tim



I know of many light aircraft flying with PCAS (Zaon) and a few (new
expensive ones) with the Avidyne/Ryan system that is between PCAS and
TCAS.

Darryl


Tim you are welcome. :-) But if I do ever meet anybody flying with
PCAS who does not admit after a while there was lot more traffic out
there than they thought I'll be sure to let you know.

Darryl

On Apr 2, 1:03*pm, "Tim Mara" wrote:
precisely why I do recommend PCAS and do not always recommend
transponders....
the PCAS more or less tell you to "look out"...the transponder by nature of
it's apparent shield of protection can leave you feeling pretty secure that
someone else is "looking out" for you..
tim

"Darryl Ramm" wrote in message

...



On Apr 2, 8:09 am, "Tim Mara" wrote:
Tim

I do fly in high traffic density areas (with transponder and PCAS and
talking to ATC when appropriate) and know many other pilots that also
at least have a transponder in their ship and none that I know have
this naive view of transponders and safety bubbles. If anything the
fact that they have a transponder in their glider, tends to be
correlated with an awareness of traffic, ATC, etc. and I suspect if
anything these folks are more likely to have their heads outside the
cockpit. And since many of those same pilots also fly with PCAS I can
guarantee they understand the need to be looking outside.

I am glad you can "Guarantee" this.....that makes it a lot easier
tim

I know of many light aircraft flying with PCAS (Zaon) and a few (new
expensive ones) with the Avidyne/Ryan system that is between PCAS and
TCAS.

Darryl

Tim you are welcome. :-) But if I do ever meet anybody flying with
PCAS who does not admit after a while there was *lot more traffic out
there than they thought I'll be sure to let you know.

Darryl- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I humbly submit that two PCAS-equipped aircraft have no protection
unless at least one has a transponder!
Tom

On Apr 2, 1:22*pm, Tom Nau wrote:
On Apr 2, 1:03*pm, "Tim Mara" wrote:





precisely why I do recommend PCAS and do not always recommend
transponders....
the PCAS more or less tell you to "look out"...the transponder by nature of
it's apparent shield of protection can leave you feeling pretty secure that
someone else is "looking out" for you..
tim

"Darryl Ramm" wrote in message

...

On Apr 2, 8:09 am, "Tim Mara" wrote:
Tim

I do fly in high traffic density areas (with transponder and PCAS and
talking to ATC when appropriate) and know many other pilots that also
at least have a transponder in their ship and none that I know have
this naive view of transponders and safety bubbles. If anything the
fact that they have a transponder in their glider, tends to be
correlated with an awareness of traffic, ATC, etc. and I suspect if
anything these folks are more likely to have their heads outside the
cockpit. And since many of those same pilots also fly with PCAS I can
guarantee they understand the need to be looking outside.

I am glad you can "Guarantee" this.....that makes it a lot easier
tim

I know of many light aircraft flying with PCAS (Zaon) and a few (new
expensive ones) with the Avidyne/Ryan system that is between PCAS and
TCAS.

Darryl

Tim you are welcome. :-) But if I do ever meet anybody flying with
PCAS who does not admit after a while there was *lot more traffic out
there than they thought I'll be sure to let you know.

Darryl- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I humbly submit that two PCAS-equipped aircraft have no protection
unless at least one has a transponder!
Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What we need is a combination PCAS/FLARM/Transponder...

Kirk 66

kirk.stant wrote:
What we need is a combination PCAS/FLARM/Transponder...

It's called "ADS-B". Seriously, at the SSA convention, a representative
from MITRE showed a proof of concept cigarette pack size ADS-B UAT
transmitter that is powered by 2 AA batteries. It is currently
undergoing flight testing on the east coast. Constructed primarily
using about $150 worth of cellphone RF components, the estimated retail
cost if produced would be $750 to $1000, and MITRE is willing to license
the design for a nominal cost. A transceiver is currently on the
drawing board. The major problem with this device is that it uses a
consumer GPS receiver module, and the FAA has apparently not given much
thought to the idea of VFR-only ADS-B devices, instead assuming that
everyone will be using certified GPS units at $3000 or so a pop.
Efforts are being made to counter this assumption, hopefully there will
be news on this front in a few months...

Marc

ATC is tasked only with separating IFR traffic from other IFR
traffic. Even when VMC, IFR traffic is supposed to "see and avoid".
Tom

Ah do you fly much in high traffic areas, talk much to ATC? ATC
regularly issues traffic advisories to help separate all types of
traffic.


Tom is right. ATC does often issue traffic advisories to VFR traffic but
they don't *have* to. See section 4.1.16 (3)(e) of the Airman
Information Manual at
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...4/aim0401.html.
They can, and have, denied me radar service when they're hip deep in IFR
traffic - not that I think that it's a good idea.

Tony V.

LOV2AV8 wrote:
..We are also on
the ATIS for Tucson.


Why? ATIS is a recorded message. Perhaps you mean CTAF?

Tony V.

.... ATC does often issue traffic advisories to VFR traffic but
they don't *have* to. See section 4.1.16 (3)(e) of the Airman
Information Manual at
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...4/aim0401.html.
They can, and have, denied me radar service when they're hip deep in IFR
traffic - not that I think that it's a good idea.

Tony V.


And be sure not to miss section 4-1-1.

T

Why can't the FAA implement something similar to mode-c veils (or
whatever the technology should be) around certain high risk areas?
Maybe a new "veil" designation for gliders above 10k?

do you really want to be limited to 10K MSL?
Out here the airport elevations are 3-6K MSL, a 10K ceiling doe not give
much breathing room with land out areas few and far between.

Wait until ADS-B, you will be limited to 10K (according to the NPRM) if you
are not ADS-B capable.

B

wrote in message
...
Why can't the FAA implement something similar to mode-c veils (or
whatever the technology should be) around certain high risk areas?
Maybe a new "veil" designation for gliders above 10k?