Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios

In rec.aviation.soaring Larry Dighera wrote:
I wonder if those power consumption figures include the heater in the
encoder.


Perhaps it's a good idea to require equipping all gliders with
transponders after all. :-(

Keep in mind that the recommendation is not to require equipping all
gliders with transponders. It's to remove the exemption given to gliders
and give them the same rules as powered aircraft with electrical systems,
to require them to have a transponder for flight into a mode C veil or
above 10,000ft. In some places this would do almost nothing; where I fly
we are outside the veil (barely) and hit 10,000ft maybe a couple of times
a year. In other places it would severely limit activity for gliders
without transponders to the extent that it would essentially be required.

The power requirements are a secondary concern, the primary concern is
cost. Power requirements of course influence cost. There are gliders with
transponders out there, so obviously it can be done. But there are a lot
of gliders for which the cost of a transponder installation would be a
sizable fraction of the total value of the aircraft, and this change could
put their owners in a very bad spot.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

In article
Larry Dighera quotes the NTSB report:


Before the
collision, the Hawker had been descending toward RNO on a stable
northwest heading for several miles, and the glider was in a 30 [degree],
left-banked, spiraling climb.

. . .

Because of the lack of radar data for the glider's flight, it was not
possible to determine at which points in each flight each aircraft may
have been in the other's available field of view. Although Federal
Aviation Regulations (FARs) require all pilots to maintain vigilance
to see and avoid other aircraft (this includes pilots of flights
operated under IFR, when visibility permits), a number of factors that
can diminish the effectiveness of the see-and-avoid principle were
evident in this accident. For example, the high-speed closure rate of
the Hawker as it approached the glider would have given the glider
pilot only limited time to see and avoid the jet. Likewise, the
closure rate would have limited the time that the Hawker crew had to
detect the glider, and the slim design of the glider would have made
it difficult for the Hawker crew to see it.


Am I the only one to question this? If the glider was in a 30 degree
left banked spiraling climb, we should be able to predict where it was
for several minutes prior to the collision --- it was spiraling in the
thermal, moving upwards. His nominal thermal airspeed can be looked up
for the model of glider; the actual value, and the rate of climb can
be determined from the glider pilot.

Since the jet was flying in a straight line (rate of descent, if any
can be found from radar data), it should be fairly easy to figure where
the glider was in the field of view of the jet pilots. As the glider
was probably moving about 50 kt, and the jet was reported at 300 kt, the
glider would have been within no more than about 9 degrees from directly
ahead of the jet.

The glider didn't jump in front of the jet.

I guess the NTSB did not want to do this calculation.

Alan

In article "BT" writes:

But not all aircraft are required to have a transponder in all categories of
airspace...
Sure.. all AIRPLANES with electrical generating systems should have a
transponder, but not all AIRCRAFT have electrical generating systems. Even
ones built today, sort of a Catch-22.

Quite true. Aside from things like Balloons, even things like hang
gliders and paragliders fly. Some quick searching tells that hang
gliders get up above 10,000 feet as well. Where does one mount the
transponder and battery on a hang glider or paraglider?


Alan

WingFlaps wrote:

Only perfectly flat surfaces are more stealthy because they bounce the
radar away from the source, whereas a convex surface always bounces
some energy back (falling rapidly with distance). A concave surface
starts to act as a retroreflector. I am sure that the nicely curved
body of a high performance glass glider has a much lower radar cross
section than any aluminium GA aircraft. It's not stealth but
fiberglass is so transparent it's used for radomes.

But, gliders have been made with carbon fiber for decades now, and even
fiberglass gliders have metal parts. Do pilots in your area find ATC
(typically "approach" ATC) unable to detect ANY of your gliders?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Larry Dighera wrote:

Locally, approach radar has no trouble finding our transponderless
gliders (when we call them), tracking them, and warning/diverting other
traffic. We generally do this within 15-20 miles of our towered
airports. It works well for us, given the altitudes we fly at.


Thank you for this information.

Would the gliders you mention be of glass-fiber, aluminum, or
carbon-fiber composite construction? I would expect a glass ship with
few metal parts to be rather transparent to radar.

In my local area, some glider are fiberglass with some carbon, like a
spar (like a PIK 20 E), or are entirely carbon. All are motorgliders. At
Ephrata, WA, where most of the state's gliders fly, the construction
varies from fiberglass through carbon. Only a few of the gliders are
motorgliders. I expect materials to make a difference, but it's hard to
tell from the anecdotal information. The biggest difference seems to be
making that radio call to ATC.

It's worth contacting ATC in your area to see if they are willing and
able to do the same for you. It's not practical everywhere, but it's
cheap and easy if it is.


I'm not so much concerned about my personal situation as I am about
the FAA rescinding the glider exemption from FARs that require
transponder use. If we can give the FAA some guidance on this issue,
the outcome will likely be more acceptable, than if the draft their
NPRM without pilot input, IMO.

My thought is pilots, ATC, and FAA might discover contacting ATC
achieves enough of what everyone wants, that a complete revocation of
our exemption might be avoided. To make the case, we need to try the ATC
system to determine this.


A problem the reflector can not solve is TCAS will still not detect the
glider. This might be deal-breaker for the FAA/NTSB people.

I agree. But rescinding the glider exemption from FARs requiring
transponder use won't address that issue with powered aircraft that
lack an electrical system either.

True. I don't know where that is going, but maybe if a jet runs into a
Champ, they'll get their exemption removed, too. Or maybe they are next
to lose it, regardless.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

"Peter Dohm" wrote ...

"Big John" wrote ...
Does ATC use skin paint any more????

Yes. The story I heard was that they were about to do away
with it--but some sort of incident occured in the third quarter
of '01 and they changed their minds...

Yeah,... I can just see the FAA/DOT b-crats spending a few years trying to
schmooze the congress criters on how much money can be saved if they get rid
of those pesky & troublesome primary radar sites, then 911 happens the whole
ADS-B sales job goes back to the drawing board.

Alan wrote:
Likewise, the
closure rate would have limited the time that the Hawker crew had to
detect the glider, and the slim design of the glider would have made
it difficult for the Hawker crew to see it.


Am I the only one to question this? If the glider was in a 30 degree
left banked spiraling climb, we should be able to predict where it was
for several minutes prior to the collision --- it was spiraling in the
thermal, moving upwards. His nominal thermal airspeed can be looked up
for the model of glider; the actual value, and the rate of climb can
be determined from the glider pilot.

Since the jet was flying in a straight line (rate of descent, if any
can be found from radar data), it should be fairly easy to figure where
the glider was in the field of view of the jet pilots. As the glider
was probably moving about 50 kt, and the jet was reported at 300 kt, the
glider would have been within no more than about 9 degrees from directly
ahead of the jet.

The glider didn't jump in front of the jet.

I guess the NTSB did not want to do this calculation.

Lets cut the NTSB (and the Hawker pilots) some slack: sometimes *I*
can't spot a glider that is only a mile or two away, even though we're
talking to each other, and sometimes, he doesn't see me either! And we
aren't closing at 300 knots, maybe not closing at all.

It's not just gliders, but the small GA aircraft, too. I'm much more
aware of this since I got a Zaon MRX, because I sometimes get an alert
but still don't find the airplane.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Larry Dighera wrote:


You are correct. Here's another with even less power consumption:
http://www.sportflyingshop.com/Avion...ansponder.html
Microair T2000 Transponder, $1,825
Wiring harness for T2000, $149
Ameri-King AK-350 Blind Encoder, $179

Power input: .25 amps @ 27.50 volts;
.4 amps @ 13.75 volts TX,
80 mA RX

I wonder if those power consumption figures include the heater in the
encoder.

No, that figure doesn't include the encoder. The heater can be 200-300
ma when it's fully on, but the typical unit won't be fully on unless
it's "really" cold outside. In my glider, that seems to be lower than
~10 deg F - winter wave flying for me. There are encoders with less low
temperature draw, but they tend to be expensive.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

In article dSuRj.7182$r12.6971@trndny03,
Eric Greenwell wrote:

But, gliders have been made with carbon fiber for decades now, and even
fiberglass gliders have metal parts.

Is carbon more reflective than glass?

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:48:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Alan) wrote in :

Where does one mount the transponder and battery on a hang glider
or paraglider?


Not to worry. The EAA is workin' on it: :-)

http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-04-26_symposium.asp

EAA Asks FAA to Authorize Electric Motors in Ultralights and
Light-Sport Aircraft

Announcement at Electric Aircraft Symposium draws applause
April 26, 2008 — In an effort to gain attention and support for
electric aircraft innovation and to help advance efforts to bring
affordable electric aircraft to recreational aviators, EAA at today’s
CAFE Foundation 2008 Electric Aircraft Symposium announced a
significant advocacy measure. As the final speaker on the Symposium
agenda, EAA Lifetime Member Craig Willan wrapped up the one-day event
in San Francisco announcing that EAA this week filed a request to the
FAA for regulatory exemptions that would allow the use of electric
motors in ultralight and light-sport aircraft.

“The announcement drew enthusiastic applause,” Willan reported shortly
after the event’s conclusion. “After a full day’s in-depth exploration
of the cutting-edge work being done, the group was already energized
by the promising developments in the science and engineering arenas.
When I announced at the end of the day EAA’s action in the regulatory
arena aimed at allowing the application of this technology, it was
like an additional shot of adrenaline,” he said.

“I also informed the group that this is only a first step. I’m
participating on an EAA task force charged with further facilitating
progress in the use of electric energy to power aircraft,” he said.
“The EAA community is committed to this direction. More announcements
are coming.”

EAA’s petition to the FAA specifically proposes specifications for
battery-pa...