Gliders and Transponders......again.

Just pointing out that the owner of the Examiner where these articles
are coming from was the guy in the back seat of the jet that got hit
in 2006 - so given the fact that he miraculously came out unscathed,
he's got a vested interest for pushing this content.

As many point out though, even if every GA aircraft (including
gliders) had a transponder, unless you've got a linked in PCAS/TCAS or
independent FLARM, its not going to help much. One or both a/c HAVE to
have one of those systems to make this whole transponder issue
actually make an impact in providing a degree of collision avoidance
protection.
a
- P

On Jan 18, 9:38*am, Jim wrote:
On Jan 17, 10:16*pm, 309 wrote:

Did the geese in New York have transponders?

The New York Port Authority shoots birds near the airport, what will
they do with us glider pilots that get in the way.

Jim

On Jan 18, 12:41*pm, YFCpilots wrote:
Just pointing out that the owner of the Examiner where these articles
are coming from was the guy in the back seat of the jet that got hit
in 2006 - so given the fact that he miraculously came out unscathed,
he's got a vested interest for pushing this content.

As many point out though, even if every GA aircraft (including
gliders) had a transponder, unless you've got a linked in PCAS/TCAS or
independent FLARM, its not going to help much. One or both a/c HAVE to
have one of those systems to make this whole transponder issue
actually make an impact in providing a degree of collision avoidance
protection.
a
- P

Can we try to get basic facts right? Phil Anshuz the owner of the
Examiner media mentioned earlier was *not* in the Hawker 800 that
collided with the ASG-29 Glider near Minden. There was a separate near
call involving a jet Anshutz was a passenger in over Colorado. Which
has been mentioned before and in the comments in the article. There
were two flight crew and three passengers aboard the Minden Hawker
800, Steve DiZio, and Evy and Mike Chipman.

The danger to our sport is the collision that takes out a fast jet or
airliner and kills innocent people. So far we've been lucky. Most fast
jets and airliners have TCAS (like the Minden Hawker 800) or are under
active control/communicating with ATC (also like the Minden Hawker
800) and could "see"/respond to gliders that have transponders. If the
glider community keeps up this bull**** about transponders not
providing a significant increase in collision avoidance then the best
thing would be for for the FAA to require transponders for all gliders
before we suffer the effects much worse restrictions when a glider-
airliner collision kills hundreds of innocent people.

Darryl

On Jan 18, 8:39*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jan 18, 12:41*pm, YFCpilots wrote:

Just pointing out that the owner of the Examiner where these articles
are coming from was the guy in the back seat of the jet that got hit
in 2006 - so given the fact that he miraculously came out unscathed,
he's got a vested interest for pushing this content.

As many point out though, even if every GA aircraft (including
gliders) had a transponder, unless you've got a linked in PCAS/TCAS or
independent FLARM, its not going to help much. One or both a/c HAVE to
have one of those systems to make this whole transponder issue
actually make an impact in providing a degree of collision avoidance
protection.
a
- P

Can we try to get basic facts right? *Phil Anshuz the owner of the
Examiner media *mentioned earlier was *not* in the Hawker 800 that
collided with the ASG-29 Glider near Minden. There was a separate near
call involving a jet Anshutz was a passenger in over Colorado. Which
has been mentioned before and in the comments in the article. There
were two flight crew and three passengers aboard the Minden Hawker
800, Steve DiZio, and Evy and Mike Chipman.

The danger to our sport is the collision that takes out a fast jet or
airliner and kills innocent people. So far we've been lucky. Most fast
jets and airliners have TCAS (like the Minden Hawker 800) or are under
active control/communicating with ATC (also like the Minden Hawker
800) and could "see"/respond to gliders that have transponders. If the
glider community keeps up this bull**** about transponders not
providing a significant increase in collision avoidance then the best
thing would be for for the FAA to require transponders for all gliders
before we suffer the effects much worse restrictions when a glider-
airliner collision kills hundreds of innocent people.

Darryl

Oops I spotted a typo, its Phil Anschutz

"YFCpilots" wrote in message news:a6b548f4-34b9-As
many point out though, even if every GA aircraft (including
gliders) had a transponder, unless you've got a linked in PCAS/TCAS or
independent FLARM, its not going to help much. One or both a/c HAVE to
have one of those systems to make this whole transponder issue
actually make an impact in providing a degree of collision avoidance
protection.
a
- P


I disagree. If the conflicting aircraft have transponder only, as long as
they are on and operating in a radar environment, and at least one is
talking to ATC (IFR or receiving flight following - - which is likely in a
busy area like Reno/Minden), there is a substantial "degree of collision
avoidance protection" - - and without PCAS or TCAS.

If one or both also have PCAS or TCAS, that's better yet. Now the protection
becomes more autonomous, with no need either aircraft be talking with ATC.
If there is an interrogating aircraft (TCAS), then the protection may extend
beyond the radar environment.

Transponders are the bottom line in terms of safety, at least in the US for
now. To fly, especially high, without one in an area like Reno/Minden is
irresponsible, IMO. It risks the safety of innocent people and places in
jeopardy those freedoms we still enjoy as soaring pilots.

bumper
Minden
zz
PCAS and transponder

As a UK glider pilot, I would be happy to fit a Mode S transponder to my
glider if only they where cheap, ran all day on a small battery, gave ME
some form of collision warning (TCAS?) from other gliders and light
aircraft, and didn't fry my n*ts off with 120 Watt Radio Freqency being
emitted from an antenna 6 inches behind my unshielded backside.

There is a GPS based collision avoidance system called Flarm which meets
most of my requirements and could be cheaply fitted to all aircraft
including airliners. Our CAA won't even countenance this, as it is not
compatable with their existing WW2 technology Radar Systems. The push to
fly UAVs all over our isle may also come into this.

I should add that in the UK commercial aircraft generally fly in
segregated Class A, B, and D airspace, and gliders in the rest, so
conflicts are exceedingly rare.

Derek Copeland


At 04:46 19 January 2009, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jan 18, 8:39=A0pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jan 18, 12:41=A0pm, YFCpilots wrote:

Just pointing out that the owner of the Examiner where these
articles
are coming from was the guy in the back seat of the jet that got hit
in 2006 - so given the fact that he miraculously came out unscathed,
he's got a vested interest for pushing this content.

As many point out though, even if every GA aircraft (including
gliders) had a transponder, unless you've got a linked in PCAS/TCAS
or
independent FLARM, its not going to help much. One or both a/c HAVE
to
have one of those systems to make this whole transponder issue
actually make an impact in providing a degree of collision avoidance
protection.
a
- P

Can we try to get basic facts right? =A0Phil Anshuz the owner of the
Examiner media =A0mentioned earlier was *not* in the Hawker 800 that
collided with the ASG-29 Glider near Minden. There was a separate near
call involving a jet Anshutz was a passenger in over Colorado. Which
has been mentioned before and in the comments in the article. There
were two flight crew and three passengers aboard the Minden Hawker
800, Steve DiZio, and Evy and Mike Chipman.

The danger to our sport is the collision that takes out a fast jet or
airliner and kills innocent people. So far we've been lucky. Most
fast
jets and airliners have TCAS (like the Minden Hawker 800) or are under
active control/communicating with ATC (also like the Minden Hawker
800) and could "see"/respond to gliders that have transponders. If
the
glider community keeps up this bull**** about transponders not
providing a significant increase in collision avoidance then the best
thing would be for for the FAA to require transponders for all gliders
before we suffer the effects much worse restrictions when a glider-
airliner collision kills hundreds of innocent people.

Darryl

Oops I spotted a typo, its Phil Anschutz

On Jan 19, 12:00*am, Derek Copeland wrote:
As a UK glider pilot, I would be happy to fit a Mode S transponder to my
glider if only they where cheap, ran all day on a small battery, gave ME
some form of collision warning (TCAS?) from other gliders and light
aircraft, and didn't fry my n*ts off with 120 Watt Radio Freqency being
emitted from an antenna 6 inches behind my unshielded backside.

There is a GPS based collision avoidance system called Flarm which meets
most of my requirements and could be cheaply fitted to all aircraft
including airliners. Our CAA won't even countenance this, as it is not
compatable with their existing WW2 technology Radar Systems. The push to
fly UAVs all over our isle may also come into this.

I should add that in the UK commercial aircraft generally fly in
segregated Class A, B, and D airspace, and gliders in the rest, so
conflicts are exceedingly rare.

Derek Copeland

I really don't want to get into a debate about UK and USA transponder
issues. I think some of the issues facing the UK are different,
including issues with attempts to grab airspace and UK specfic UAVs
issues (we may have some of our own here) etc. However yet again in
this transponder debate people keep raising red herrings or offering
misinformation. I hope the BGA and others in the UK are not using all
these sorts of arguments in their debate, because some of them are
embarrassingly silly and would take away from other valid points.

So lets waste more space on this..

There is no reason to believe that you would get excessive RF exposure
form a properly installed transponder antenna. Most antennas are 1/4
wave stubs or blades that require a ground plane and when mounted
where glider manufactures recommend (on the underbody of the fuselage
near the undercarriage) just won't expose the pilot to significant RF
radiation. If your glider is metal or carbon fibre you have even more
isolation. Also be careful when comparing to other RF sources -- the
power specifications of transponders are the peak pulse power. The
duty cycle is quite low even in an environments with lots of active
TCAS interrogations. I've seen transponder antennas installed between
pilots legs, nearly in contact with he pilot. Darwin has something to
say about that.

As for power requirements there are several choices of transponder
that along with an encoder draw ~0.5 A. This is the sort of power
consumption that if your glider's batteries are absolutely already at
the maximum could usually be met by the addition of a small 7Ah
battery VRLA batttery. Say derating the battery 7Ah spec by 50% (for
operating temps below 20C and the load being above 0.05C) would gives
7 hours of run time. Mode-S transponders like the Becker will work
fine down to 10V (which at a 0.5 A load is lower then the discharge
point voltage used to calculate VRLA battery specs). How long are
typical flying days in the UK? The worse case is going to be long cold
wave flights and they may well need a larger battery or use a more
advanced technology battery. But these devices are already in the "use
small battery" category in my book. And I know installing that
battery (or even better a 12Ah battery if you have space) may be a
pain in the neck and cost some money but it is a tough argument to try
to push onto the traveling public, airline and jet owners etc. If I
was the CAA and having to put up with these arguments. I'd be making
the point by showing actual 7Ah battery sizes to highlight the (small)
problem glider pilots and owners are facing.

It is likely unrealistic to expect airliners and fast jets to use
flarm. Most of these aircraft have sophisticate TCAS systems. I hope
glider pilots are not presuming somebody just installs a flarm into
the airliner cockpit. Any flarm type input would need to be integrated
into the TCAS so it can provide s single traffic display and issue a
single RA. This is unlikely to be a low cost modification and why
should those owners do something to accommodate gliders which could
just "get with the system" and install transponders? Then there may be
technical issues with flarm like effective range (can flarm be
modified to respond to airliner interrogations at tens of km? TCAS can
work over distances like that, giving pilots a head's up of traffic
before a RA is required). While flarm seems a fantastic technology
where it is used (not in the USA) I suspect it is a read herring when
talking about providing airliners and fast jets tools to avoid
collisions with gliders.

As for wanting a Mode-S transponder with "TCAS" display. You can get
this today. In the USA PCAS units like the Zaon MRX are popular and
use very low power and relatively low cost (~$500). They provide an
alert but no RA or direction information. But they are impresssively
effective at highlighting traffic (I've flow with one for three
years). They work fine with Mode-S transponders. Yes I know this may
seem a waste of money if you already have a flarm unit. But back to
where I think the Examiner opinion article was trying to focus and
where I'd argue the higher risk to our aport is -- avoiding a
collison with a airliner or passenger carrying jet -- then the glider
does *not* need PCAS or TCAS type capablities. Letting ATC, and if
that fails, TCAS-II in the jet, deal with the conflict is going to be
highly effective.

Darryl

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:25:29 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:

As for wanting a Mode-S transponder with "TCAS" display. You can get
this today. In the USA PCAS units like the Zaon MRX are popular and use
very low power and relatively low cost (~$500). They provide an alert
but no RA or direction information.

I, for one, appreciate that Mode-S plus PCAS will do the full electronic
see-and-be-seen bit, but its a two box solution with any instruments I've
seen advertised.

Some of us just don't have the panel space for that. I fly a Libelle and
currently have all panel holes bar one full. The blanking plate in the
remaining one supports my GPS on a stalk. Nonetheless, I think I can get
a 57mm transponder in alongside the stalk mount, but that will certainly
need a replacement panel chassis and may need my 80mm altimeter to be
replaced with a 57mm unit.

That exercise leaves me with the transponder, but where can I put the
PCAS? In a Libelle there's no way it can be put on top of the panel and
there is little if any available space along the cockpit sides. This is
why I, for one, really need a single, 57mm instrument combines both
transponder and PCAS and is low power enough to run off a glider battery.

If such an instruments exists I'd love to know the details.

Derek is right about our airspace: I've never met anything other than
other gliders, GA aircraft, a few helicopters, the odd hang glider/
parascender and one or two military aircraft when I've been on an xc
task. The usual opposition to a glider on an xc task is GA pilots. I bet
they don't carry PCAS/TCAS and I'm not under ATC control. Under these
conditions the introduction of transponders does not reduce my changes of
a collision unless I have PCAS onboard. Hence my interest in the combined
instrument.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

The ultimate solution to the transponder issue in the US is going to be a
low cost ADS-B transceiver. These units will be able to connect to a PDA or
other GPS navigation unit which will show all transponder equipped traffic
(both ADS-B and Mode C/S) if you are flying within range of an ADS-B ground
station.

Mike Schumann

"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:25:29 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:

As for wanting a Mode-S transponder with "TCAS" display. You can get
this today. In the USA PCAS units like the Zaon MRX are popular and use
very low power and relatively low cost (~$500). They provide an alert
but no RA or direction information.

I, for one, appreciate that Mode-S plus PCAS will do the full electronic
see-and-be-seen bit, but its a two box solution with any instruments I've
seen advertised.

Some of us just don't have the panel space for that. I fly a Libelle and
currently have all panel holes bar one full. The blanking plate in the
remaining one supports my GPS on a stalk. Nonetheless, I think I can get
a 57mm transponder in alongside the stalk mount, but that will certainly
need a replacement panel chassis and may need my 80mm altimeter to be
replaced with a 57mm unit.

That exercise leaves me with the transponder, but where can I put the
PCAS? In a Libelle there's no way it can be put on top of the panel and
there is little if any available space along the cockpit sides. This is
why I, for one, really need a single, 57mm instrument combines both
transponder and PCAS and is low power enough to run off a glider battery.

If such an instruments exists I'd love to know the details.

Derek is right about our airspace: I've never met anything other than
other gliders, GA aircraft, a few helicopters, the odd hang glider/
parascender and one or two military aircraft when I've been on an xc
task. The usual opposition to a glider on an xc task is GA pilots. I bet
they don't carry PCAS/TCAS and I'm not under ATC control. Under these
conditions the introduction of transponders does not reduce my changes of
a collision unless I have PCAS onboard. Hence my interest in the combined
instrument.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Jan 19, 9:27*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:25:29 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:
As for wanting a Mode-S transponder with "TCAS" display. You can get
this today. In the USA PCAS units like the Zaon MRX are popular and use
very low power and relatively low cost (~$500). They provide an alert
but no RA or direction information.

I, for one, appreciate that Mode-S plus PCAS will do the full electronic
see-and-be-seen bit, but its a two box solution with any instruments I've
seen advertised.

Some of us just don't have the panel space for that. I fly a Libelle and
currently have all panel holes bar one full. The blanking plate in the
remaining one supports my GPS on a stalk. Nonetheless, I think I can get
a 57mm transponder in alongside the stalk mount, but that will certainly
need a replacement panel chassis and may need my 80mm altimeter to be
replaced with a 57mm unit.

That exercise leaves me with the transponder, but where can I put the
PCAS? In a Libelle there's no way it can be put on top of the panel and
there is little if any available space along the cockpit sides. This is
why I, for one, really need a single, 57mm instrument combines both
transponder and PCAS and is low power enough to run off a glider battery.

If such an instruments exists I'd love to know the details.

Derek is right about our airspace: I've never met anything other than *
other gliders, GA aircraft, a few helicopters, the odd hang glider/
parascender and one or two military aircraft when I've been on an xc
task. The usual opposition to a glider on an xc task is GA pilots. I bet
they don't carry PCAS/TCAS and I'm not under ATC control. Under these
conditions the introduction of transponders does not reduce my changes of
a collision unless I have PCAS onboard. Hence my interest in the combined
instrument. *

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

I know nothing about UK airspace (besides being stuck in it for far
too much time as a passenger holding over Heathrow), but it sounds
like the existing separation of airliner and jets in UK airspace is a
key point you folks should be arguing.

And again only one of the transponder aircraft needs to be talking to
ATC/radar facilities or have PCAS or higher. I don't know PCAS (and
higher-end systems) adoption in low-end GA aircraft in the UK, but in
the USA it seems pretty high (purely an anecdotal impression). I've
asked before but could not get adoption numbers for the USA.

Companies who make panel mounted transponders usually do so for the
larger GA market and they have to coexist with all sorts of PCAS,
active systems (like the Avidyne) and full on TCAS. I would not hold
my breath for a transponder with integrated PCAS. But maybe now
manufacturers will be making them mostly for UAVs and those UAVs could
do with integrated PCAS :-(

In the Libelle you might be able to make up a mount for a Zaon MRX
under the opaque areas of the front of the canopy, it might be canted
over parallel to the surface, and use an antenna mounted on suction
cups on the canopy. Obviously paying attention to canopy jettison
issues. I'd be kind of surprised it is impossible, but not saying its
going to be trivial.

Darryl

The part of the discussion about UK use of transponders has missed out
what I consider the main point, which is the complex regulatory
requirements placed on us for fitting transponders.

First, you can now only install approved kit, and our CAA imposes more
stringent requirements for approval than other aviation regulators.

Second, installation can only be done, as I understand it, if either (a)
the manufacture has issued an approved scheme for installation (I
believe none have, other than for motor gliders), or (b) if you pay an
installer to produce a formal modification scheme (fees) and then pay
our CAA substantial "major modification" fees to have the scheme approved.

On top of this there are further substantial fees for annual tests.

Currently, it is unlawful just to fit a transponder yourself or to get a
knowledgeable person to do so for you (or maybe it's lawful to do this,
but then unlawful to fly the aircraft).

Far be it from me to say that preventing voluntary transponder carriage
is foolish, but ...

Darryl Ramm wrote:
I know nothing about UK airspace (besides being stuck in it for far
too much time as a passenger holding over Heathrow), but it sounds
like the existing separation of airliner and jets in UK airspace is a
key point you folks should be arguing.

And again only one of the transponder aircraft needs to be talking to
ATC/radar facilities or have PCAS or higher. I don't know PCAS (and
higher-end systems) adoption in low-end GA aircraft in the UK, but in
the USA it seems pretty high (purely an anecdotal impression). I've
asked before but could not get adoption numbers for the USA.

Companies who make panel mounted transponders usually do so for the
larger GA market and they have to coexist with all sorts of PCAS,
active systems (like the Avidyne) and full on TCAS. I would not hold
my breath for a transponder with integrated PCAS. But maybe now
manufacturers will be making them mostly for UAVs and those UAVs could
do with integrated PCAS :-(

In the Libelle you might be able to make up a mount for a Zaon MRX
under the opaque areas of the front of the canopy, it might be canted
over parallel to the surface, and use an antenna mounted on suction
cups on the canopy. Obviously paying attention to canopy jettison
issues. I'd be kind of surprised it is impossible, but not saying its
going to be trivial.

Darryl