A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FAA Eases ADS-B STC Requirement



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 20th 16, 12:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default FAA Eases ADS-B STC Requirement

Hi Ramy, I am not against new technology, I will have one in my bird by next year, but I am against the incrementalistic encroachment of flight freedom that is occurring. As for the usefullness of these systems, yes they are helpfull, but there is a falacy regarding crowded airspace that is being fostered. If I flew around minden or dallas or any other major hub, sure the sytem is good. If one looks at the very vast majority of glider midairs, they involve gaggles and not commercial traffic.

However I see more and more pilots of all classes of aircraft becoming lulled into false senses of security in dependance on these systems to the detriment of good airmanship, ie continual scanning, keeping ones eyes out of the cockpit. Yes some have given examples of the usefullness of these systems in identifying someone coming up on them frim behind, the blind quarter. I do not trust me behind to traffic alert systems unless no other choice exists (when I am flying IFR).
  #12  
Old May 20th 16, 02:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default FAA Eases ADS-B STC Requirement

Ramy, let me couch my comments in a larger context.

This ideology that everyone needs to install the latest and greatest in 'safety' devices can be compared to concepts like; everyone should fly higher performance ship cause landing out is bad for the sport, you might **** off some farmer or get the county sheriff stirred up thinking theres been an airplane crash. Or another; 'dont ever thermal below 1000ft agl cause your risking spinning it in'. Or; 'why stretch a glide late in the day risking landing away from an airport'. I could go on with many more 'chicken little' examples.
Note this, a vast majority of those who hold these kind of views are the very folks that think a busy year of flying is 50 hours. These are the folks that fly birds all over 35/1 and never venture away from home beyond gliding distance or only go out on a booming day when even a tin can could make 100 miles. These are the very folks who are so distracted trying to sort out their electronics in the cockpit that they dont look outside to see whats going on around them.These are the very folks I try to stay way away from when in the air.

A slow year for me is 500 hours of high performance taildragger time flying 15 ft above the ground carrying ridiculously high wing loadings with 3000 lbs of product in the hopper. A slow year is 200 hours in my sailplane dang near all xc with dozens of outlandings. I regularly thermal below 1000ft, I regularly land out, I regularly stretch my glides for max distance at the end of a day. I have owned and flow high performance sailplanes but I prefer to fly a little spam can which barely makes 23/1 . This in many peoples minds is ridiculous. But to me it is a challenge, and an expression of flying freedom. I chaff when that freedom is curtailed by more and more regulations and burdomsome gadgets under the umbrella of 'safety'. These ney sayers who hardly ever do squat in their high dollar birds but want to dictate the future of our sport do not, in my opinion represent what we are all about.
  #13  
Old May 20th 16, 02:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default FAA Eases ADS-B STC Requirement

Thanks Ramy, a good discussion here. I am periferally talking about the FAA's penchant for adopting the 'small sky' theory, where restriction, regulation, and requirments are used under the auspices of 'its crowded and we beed safety' to virtually eliminate private flight activities for those of noderate means.

Derrick Piggot wrote a great chapter in one of his books regarding this very struggle he and the gliding clubs were having in the UK. They were and have been loosing available soaring airspace due to this very "we need to make airspace safe" strategy by government burocrates.
  #14  
Old May 20th 16, 04:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default FAA Eases ADS-B STC Requirement

Agreed.

I'm currently researching ADS-B Out options for my Stemme. And though I
have a Trig TT22 transponder already installed, the 1090ES options seem
quite expensive. I'm starting to lean towards 978UAS as my solution
since I don't intend to fly above FL180 or anywhere near Class B
airspace. Still much digging to do and even after finding what works
for me, I'll still keep my head on a swivel (as I learned in the AF).

Dan


On 5/19/2016 9:57 PM, Ramy wrote:
Thanks Dan
I also agree with most of it, which basically says we should make our won decision what is acceptable risk. Totally agree with this part.
But after thousands of cross country hours I concluded that no matter how hard we try, we can't trust our eyes to detect a collision risk on time when cruising, especially not gliders who are practically invisible. Sure we see all kind of traffic, but not the ones on collision curse especially if not on our 12 and not maneuvering. And it's not just me, it's everyone with human eyes. There are many eye opening tests that confirm this. While see and avoid certainly works while thermaling, formation flying and in traffic pattern, it does not work when cruising. The reason why we don't have more midairs are not thanks to see and avoid but thanks to the big sky theory. I read somewhere that if we all flew blind folded, the collision rate would have not increased by much. I believe this is true. That's why we need as much help as we can get in this department, and if it is going to be mandated, I don't see a problem with that, as long as it is effordable.

Ramy


--
Dan, 5J

  #15  
Old May 20th 16, 05:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default FAA Eases ADS-B STC Requirement

I'm not sure why you deciding to have UAT Out has anything to do with flying near Class B airspace. (the big technology thing there is just having a transponder at all for TCAS compatibility, so you are set).

But choice of ADS-B Out link does have everything to do with flying in areas with other gliders and painting on their PowerFLARM. You don't want to be visible to PowerFLARM 1090ES In?

If you already have a Trig TT-22 I expect you will find more affordable GPS options in future, or if TABS regulations happen then I hope TABS options using the TT-22. A transponder and separate UAT system and maybe separate GPS you have more avionics to power.



On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 8:10:53 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Agreed.

I'm currently researching ADS-B Out options for my Stemme.Â* And
though I have a Trig TT22 transponder already installed, the
1090ES options seem quite expensive.Â* I'm starting to lean towards
978UAS as my solution since I don't intend to fly above FL180 or
anywhere near Class B airspace.Â* Still much digging to do and even
after finding what works for me, I'll still keep my head on a
swivel (as I learned in the AF).

Dan





On 5/19/2016 9:57 PM, Ramy wrote:



Thanks Dan
I also agree with most of it, which basically says we should make our won decision what is acceptable risk. Totally agree with this part.
But after thousands of cross country hours I concluded that no matter how hard we try, we can't trust our eyes to detect a collision risk on time when cruising, especially not gliders who are practically invisible. Sure we see all kind of traffic, but not the ones on collision curse especially if not on our 12 and not maneuvering. And it's not just me, it's everyone with human eyes. There are many eye opening tests that confirm this. While see and avoid certainly works while thermaling, formation flying and in traffic pattern, it does not work when cruising. The reason why we don't have more midairs are not thanks to see and avoid but thanks to the big sky theory. I read somewhere that if we all flew blind folded, the collision rate would have not increased by much. I believe this is true. That's why we need as much help as we can get in this department, and if it is going to be mandated, I don't see a problem with that, as long as it is effordable.

Ramy





--

Dan, 5J

  #16  
Old May 20th 16, 05:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default FAA Eases ADS-B STC Requirement

Just goes to show that there's too much to know unless you're employed
in the industry as you appear to be.

Since I don't often fly with other gliders, I don't much care about
PowerFlarm. I want to see and be seen by airlines and GA aircraft. I
imagine that, if the PF equipped aircraft also have a transponder, I'll
see them too, with ADS-B In. Am I wrong?


On 5/20/2016 10:44 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
I'm not sure why you deciding to have UAT Out has anything to do with flying near Class B airspace. (the big technology thing there is just having a transponder at all for TCAS compatibility, so you are set).

But choice of ADS-B Out link does have everything to do with flying in areas with other gliders and painting on their PowerFLARM. You don't want to be visible to PowerFLARM 1090ES In?

If you already have a Trig TT-22 I expect you will find more affordable GPS options in future, or if TABS regulations happen then I hope TABS options using the TT-22. A transponder and separate UAT system and maybe separate GPS you have more avionics to power.



On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 8:10:53 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Agreed.

I'm currently researching ADS-B Out options for my Stemme. And
though I have a Trig TT22 transponder already installed, the
1090ES options seem quite expensive. I'm starting to lean towards
978UAS as my solution since I don't intend to fly above FL180 or
anywhere near Class B airspace. Still much digging to do and even
after finding what works for me, I'll still keep my head on a
swivel (as I learned in the AF).

Dan





On 5/19/2016 9:57 PM, Ramy wrote:



Thanks Dan
I also agree with most of it, which basically says we should make our won decision what is acceptable risk. Totally agree with this part.
But after thousands of cross country hours I concluded that no matter how hard we try, we can't trust our eyes to detect a collision risk on time when cruising, especially not gliders who are practically invisible. Sure we see all kind of traffic, but not the ones on collision curse especially if not on our 12 and not maneuvering. And it's not just me, it's everyone with human eyes. There are many eye opening tests that confirm this. While see and avoid certainly works while thermaling, formation flying and in traffic pattern, it does not work when cruising. The reason why we don't have more midairs are not thanks to see and avoid but thanks to the big sky theory. I read somewhere that if we all flew blind folded, the collision rate would have not increased by much. I believe this is true. That's why we need as much help as we can get in this department, and if it is going to be mandated, I don't see a problem with that, as long as it is effordable.

Ramy





--

Dan, 5J


--
Dan, 5J

  #17  
Old May 20th 16, 06:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default FAA Eases ADS-B STC Requirement

What ADS-B Out and In system are you talking about? Flying where. If you are looking at a GA style ADS-B In system I would certainly be looking at a dual-link receiver for lots of reasons.

Lots of this has been discussed on r.a.s. in the past

ADS-B In does not just "see" transponders. But if you and the transponder equipped aircraft are within suitable SSR / TIS-B ground based station coverage and you have properly configured ADS-B Out and ADS-B In then your ADS-B In system should see that transponder equipped target via the ground based TIS-B service. For many glider traffic scenarios, e.g. flying in mountains, running ridges, flying out of remote gliderports/airports, TIS-B may not be nearly effective as being able to receive direct position information from another aircraft (via ADS-B direct or FLARM). And the moment you actually do get close to another glider like in a thermal, any ADS-B traffic system (besides PowerFLARM) is going to be uselessly annoying. Yes I know that scenario does not interest you.

TIS-B only provides coverage in a hockey puck around your ADS-B out equipped aircraft, it's not going to be as useful as ADS-B direct reception between gliders for say buddy flying/tracking. That may not interest you either, I know that both interest some folks and horrifies some contest traditionalists.

PowerFLARM users will get non-directional PCAS alerts from your presence as long as your transponder is being interrogated by SSR or TCAS/TCAD. That may happen even though you are not getting any warning of them when outside TIS-B coverage. If you have 1090ES Out you

If (big if) the USA gliding community, with some err help from the FAA, ends up adopting TABS technology in future, that is all 1090ES Out based technology. All directly compatible with 1090ES In capability in PowerFLARM. And may be a path to give you a lower cost 1090ES out option in your Stemme (hopefully leveraging your currently installed TT-22).

An investing exercise is to look at the local airports you fly out of, find out what the ADS-B ground station coverage (including down to pattern altitude) is like, and ask around about what ADS-B Out and In systems aircraft owners there are equipping with and try to answer questions like what collision avoidance help different ADS-B Out and ADS-B In technology will provide you. I have no idea what that would show for you, but it's one of the questions I'd be asking.



On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 9:49:55 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Just goes to show that there's too much to know unless you're
employed in the industry as you appear to be.

Since I don't often fly with other gliders, I don't much care
about PowerFlarm.Â* I want to see and be seen by airlines and GA
aircraft.Â* I imagine that, if the PF equipped aircraft also have a
transponder, I'll see them too, with ADS-B In.Â* Am I wrong?





On 5/20/2016 10:44 AM, Darryl Ramm
wrote:



I'm not sure why you deciding to have UAT Out has anything to do with flying near Class B airspace. (the big technology thing there is just having a transponder at all for TCAS compatibility, so you are set).

But choice of ADS-B Out link does have everything to do with flying in areas with other gliders and painting on their PowerFLARM. You don't want to be visible to PowerFLARM 1090ES In?

If you already have a Trig TT-22 I expect you will find more affordable GPS options in future, or if TABS regulations happen then I hope TABS options using the TT-22. A transponder and separate UAT system and maybe separate GPS you have more avionics to power.



On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 8:10:53 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:


Agreed.

I'm currently researching ADS-B Out options for my Stemme.Â* And
though I have a Trig TT22 transponder already installed, the
1090ES options seem quite expensive.Â* I'm starting to lean towards
978UAS as my solution since I don't intend to fly above FL180 or
anywhere near Class B airspace.Â* Still much digging to do and even
after finding what works for me, I'll still keep my head on a
swivel (as I learned in the AF).

Dan





On 5/19/2016 9:57 PM, Ramy wrote:



Thanks Dan
I also agree with most of it, which basically says we should make our won decision what is acceptable risk. Totally agree with this part.
But after thousands of cross country hours I concluded that no matter how hard we try, we can't trust our eyes to detect a collision risk on time when cruising, especially not gliders who are practically invisible. Sure we see all kind of traffic, but not the ones on collision curse especially if not on our 12 and not maneuvering. And it's not just me, it's everyone with human eyes. There are many eye opening tests that confirm this. While see and avoid certainly works while thermaling, formation flying and in traffic pattern, it does not work when cruising. The reason why we don't have more midairs are not thanks to see and avoid but thanks to the big sky theory. I read somewhere that if we all flew blind folded, the collision rate would have not increased by much. I believe this is true. That's why we need as much help as we can get in this department, and if it is going to be mandated, I don't see a problem with that, as long as it is effordable.

Ramy





--

Dan, 5J






--

Dan, 5J

  #18  
Old May 24th 16, 02:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
K m
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default FAA Eases ADS-B STC Requirement

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 7:00:44 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Ramy, let me couch my comments in a larger context.

This ideology that everyone needs to install the latest and greatest in 'safety' devices can be compared to concepts like; everyone should fly higher performance ship cause landing out is bad for the sport, you might **** off some farmer or get the county sheriff stirred up thinking theres been an airplane crash. Or another; 'dont ever thermal below 1000ft agl cause your risking spinning it in'. Or; 'why stretch a glide late in the day risking landing away from an airport'. I could go on with many more 'chicken little' examples.
Note this, a vast majority of those who hold these kind of views are the very folks that think a busy year of flying is 50 hours. These are the folks that fly birds all over 35/1 and never venture away from home beyond gliding distance or only go out on a booming day when even a tin can could make 100 miles. These are the very folks who are so distracted trying to sort out their electronics in the cockpit that they dont look outside to see whats going on around them.These are the very folks I try to stay way away from when in the air.

A slow year for me is 500 hours of high performance taildragger time flying 15 ft above the ground carrying ridiculously high wing loadings with 3000 lbs of product in the hopper. A slow year is 200 hours in my sailplane dang near all xc with dozens of outlandings. I regularly thermal below 1000ft, I regularly land out, I regularly stretch my glides for max distance at the end of a day. I have owned and flow high performance sailplanes but I prefer to fly a little spam can which barely makes 23/1 . This in many peoples minds is ridiculous. But to me it is a challenge, and an expression of flying freedom. I chaff when that freedom is curtailed by more and more regulations and burdomsome gadgets under the umbrella of 'safety'. These ney sayers who hardly ever do squat in their high dollar birds but want to dictate the future of our sport do not, in my opinion represent what we are all about.

A few disclaimers, I am a cfi-g, I teach extreemly concervative airmanship and advocate it for all starting in the sport or those who dont have the aptitude to progress. I am a spray pilot and fly very concervatively in a 400,000 dollar machine. Be advised, concervative flying doesnot equate to not flying low or with high dollar systems, it equates to proper airmanship.
Now that ought to stir the pot a little.


Ag,
You are making a ridiculous straw man argument. To connect the dots between the cash investment of a pilot and his attitude makes you look silly. If you want to "Stir the pot", quit trolling and lets discus the merits of this FAA interpretation.
  #19  
Old May 24th 16, 05:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default FAA Eases ADS-B STC Requirement

Km the only one really stirring the pot is you. We have been having a civil, non name calling discussion here as evidenced in my and dan marotta's and others posts. That is, untill you piped in.

My argument is not straw man, I was, and am, attempting to address the bigger picture involved here, it is the elephant in the room that many including yourself dont want to recognize, namely FAA over reach and diminishing airmanship skills.

I know fully well the dynamics and intricancies of the ADSB systems having an electrical engineering son who is intimately involved in their development. Discussions along the tecnical lines is good and fine, but when all is said and done, we end up just having to pull out the cash and install the systems that the Feds mandate. You can accept the little placating crums like this one (the original point of this thread) the FAA sends your way, myself along with the EAA and others will continually fight to limit federal mandates on our flying freedoms. You can thank me later.
  #20  
Old May 25th 16, 05:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
K m
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default FAA Eases ADS-B STC Requirement

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:03:41 AM UTC-6, wrote:
Km the only one really stirring the pot is you. We have been having a civil, non name calling discussion here as evidenced in my and dan marotta's and others posts. That is, untill you piped in.

My argument is not straw man, I was, and am, attempting to address the bigger picture involved here, it is the elephant in the room that many including yourself dont want to recognize, namely FAA over reach and diminishing airmanship skills.

I know fully well the dynamics and intricancies of the ADSB systems having an electrical engineering son who is intimately involved in their development. Discussions along the tecnical lines is good and fine, but when all is said and done, we end up just having to pull out the cash and install the systems that the Feds mandate. You can accept the little placating crums like this one (the original point of this thread) the FAA sends your way, myself along with the EAA and others will continually fight to limit federal mandates on our flying freedoms. You can thank me later.


Ag,
Must we squabble in front of the children? Here is what invariably happens on the board, Someone brings up a technical question or aspect of ADS-B or PF and someone like you brings up Government Overreach, Diminishing Skills, And Blah Blah Blah. Pretty soon the thread is hijacked and we are not talking about Collision Avoidance anymore. In a totally knucklehead move you even brought land outs into the discussion.
The reality is that the Feds are making our ATC system (Which dates to the 1950s) much better and dramatically cheaper with the help of modern technology. This is just like WAAS if you need another example. Have your gifted son explain this to you. Another reality is that the FAA does not require Transponders. That said, If I am sharing airspace with corporate jets and airliners I am going to use the same equipment they do (For separation). You have to explain to me how this represents a lack of skill.
Lastly, EAA, which is not involved in soaring, recognizes the benefits of ADS-B.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
91.205 compass requirement [email protected] Soaring 24 April 23rd 16 07:22 AM
Requirement of AW 139 pilot sanjay Rotorcraft 2 August 25th 08 10:06 AM
CFI logging requirement [email protected] Owning 9 October 19th 04 07:11 PM
Mode S to become requirement? Bob Chilcoat Owning 6 July 14th 04 11:25 PM
New Castle ELT Requirement Ed Byars Soaring 16 June 19th 04 06:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.