FLARM Statistics

That sounds just like Flarm, which is available from two manufacturers in
Europe and one in Australia, and has sold about 5,000 units so far.

Are you suggesting that the USA re-invent the wheel?

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"bumper" wrote in message
...

snip

Sounds just like a poor man's ADS-B, but with less range, doesn't it?
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quiet Vent kit & MKII Yaw String

At a fact finding meeting, held by the NTSB at Minden following the recent
mid-air, I suggested that the FAA might consider streamlining the optional
installation of transponders in gliders. This might be similar to what they
did for the installation of shoulder harnesses in classic light aircraft a
decade ago. i.e. dispense with the engineering hassle for adding a battery
box/tray and eliminate the requirement for 337 approval. Require only a log
book entry and VFR xponder check. This was received as a "good suggestion".

We'll see, but I don't expect anything to happen soon - - if at all. I'd
also be surprised if certification standards for avionics used in LSA are
lowered beyond that required for other GA aircraft.

bumper

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
ink.net...
They are already doing that with Light Sport Aircraft. Do those rules
apply to avionics? I would suspect that the FAA would be very receptive
to a proposal that would drastically increase the visibility of gliders
and other airborne vehicles that are currently flying around without
transponders.

Mike Schumann

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
...
Mike Schumann wrote:
It would make a lot more sense if someone would engineer a low cost ADSB
compliant transceiver that would interface with a PDA. Then eveyone
could go nuts developing software that would be able to identify not
only gliders but also power aircraft. Once the FAA starts installing
the necessary ground equipment, we'll even be able to see Mode C
transponder equiped aircraft using the ADSB version of TIS.

The ground equipment is already in place along the east coast from New
York down to Florida, Alaska, Oregon, and a few other scattered places.
It's much cheaper than upgrading radar equipment, but suffers from the
classic chicken and egg problem.

In principle, a simple low power ADS-B transceiver (to be precise a UAT)
need be no more complicated or expensive to manufacture than a FLARM
unit. In practice, however, the certification costs alone are something
over a million dollars for a device which currently has a tiny market. If
the FAA really wants to kick start use of ADS-B in this country, they
need to take a serious look at simplifying or subsidizing the
certification process.

Marc

No, not intentionally, anyway. I was under the impression, though I have no
experience with FLARM, that it was not suitable for high speed GA aircraft,
jets and the like.

At present, FLARM cannot be used in the USA due to apparent liability
concerns. Even if it could be used, and all gliders were so equipped, it
would only address part of the problem. For the US, we need a system that
will work for both power and glider. If that's FLARM, fine. If not, then
hopefully someone will reinvent the wheel - - soon.

I'm aware of two mid-airs in the Minden / Truckee / Tahoe area in the past
15 or so years. Both where power vs. glider. Fortunately, and rather
amazingly, neither involved fatalities. There was another further south on
the Sierra that involved a glider and jet fighter - - again both survived. I
have no statistics, but in this neck-of-the-woods, it would seem the threat
of a glider mid-air is mostly between us and the guys with engines.
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quit Vent kit and MKII yaw string

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." wrote in message
...
That sounds just like Flarm, which is available from two manufacturers in
Europe and one in Australia, and has sold about 5,000 units so far.

Are you suggesting that the USA re-invent the wheel?

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"bumper" wrote in message
...

snip

Sounds just like a poor man's ADS-B, but with less range, doesn't it?
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quiet Vent kit & MKII Yaw String

bumper wrote:

I'm aware of two mid-airs in the Minden / Truckee / Tahoe area in the past
15 or so years. Both where power vs. glider. Fortunately, and rather
amazingly, neither involved fatalities. There was another further south on
the Sierra that involved a glider and jet fighter - - again both survived. I
have no statistics, but in this neck-of-the-woods, it would seem the threat
of a glider mid-air is mostly between us and the guys with engines.
--

There was also a glider to glider midair years ago over Bridgeport with
one fatality.

Ramy

All this talk about FLARM and other alternatives to
a transponder in the USA is just so much wasted energy.
The fact is that transponders are the established
aircraft identification system in the USA and all anti-collision
systems in the USA work off of this system. The USA
is a very different environment than flying in the
Alps. I have flown in the Alps and there you have
several hundred gliders slope soaring and flying around
cliffs, valleys, buttes, and mountains in very low
ceilings. You will be flying the face of Pic de Burre
and round a corner to have three gliders flying formation
at your altitude coming straight at you. Power traffic
is a non issue. Here in the USA it is probably more
likely to have conflict with power traffic.
Transponders are relatively affordable, use relatively
little power, fit easily in a panel, and work. For
most glider pilots in the USA who never fly above 10,000
feet and are in the country this is a fantasy situation.
But for those of us in California, the Denver area,
most of Florida, Dallas and Chicago, we share the air
with heavies and I think we should step up to the bar
and be full participants in the air traffic system.
Guy

At least one ACAS system in Europe (Filser TM100) is
already being prepared that takes simultaneous input
both from a Mode S transponder and a Flarm unit. The
transponder for longer range/higher speed traffic and
the Flarm for short range/gliders/low speed GA.

John Galloway

At 04:36 13 October 2006, Guy Acheson wrote:
All this talk about FLARM and other alternatives to
a transponder in the USA is just so much wasted energy.
The fact is that transponders are the established
aircraft identification system in the USA and all anti-collision
systems in the USA work off of this system. The USA
is a very different environment than flying in the
Alps. I have flown in the Alps and there you have
several hundred gliders slope soaring and flying around
cliffs, valleys, buttes, and mountains in very low
ceilings. You will be flying the face of Pic de Burre
and round a corner to have three gliders flying formation
at your altitude coming straight at you. Power traffic
is a non issue. Here in the USA it is probably more
likely to have conflict with power traffic.
Transponders are relatively affordable, use relatively
little power, fit easily in a panel, and work. For
most glider pilots in the USA who never fly above 10,000
feet and are in the country this is a fantasy situation.
But for those of us in California, the Denver area,
most of Florida, Dallas and Chicago, we share the air
with heavies and I think we should step up to the bar
and be full participants in the air traffic system.
Guy

Everything which Guy says makes sense to me.

I have never flown in the U.S.A. but if I were flying from Minden I would
like to have a transponder.
See what Gordon Boettger said in an article dated 13th July
http://www.mindensoaringclub.com/int...=87&Itemi d=1
written of course before the mid-air of 28th August.

In the UK I want Flarm provided enough other gliders have fitted it.

This is for now.

In the future there is ADS-B which is where the U.S.A. is going, but it will
take many years. There are already developments to make ADS-B and Flarm
inter-operable, but they are not with us yet.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Guy Acheson"
wrote in message ...

All this talk about FLARM and other alternatives to
a transponder in the USA is just so much wasted energy.
The fact is that transponders are the established
aircraft identification system in the USA and all anti-collision
systems in the USA work off of this system.

The USA is a very different environment than flying in the
Alps. I have flown in the Alps and there you have
several hundred gliders slope soaring and flying around
cliffs, valleys, buttes, and mountains in very low
ceilings. You will be flying the face of Pic de Burre
and round a corner to have three gliders flying formation
at your altitude coming straight at you. Power traffic
is a non issue.

Here in the USA it is probably more likely to have conflict with power
traffic. Transponders are relatively affordable, use relatively
little power, fit easily in a panel, and work. For
most glider pilots in the USA who never fly above 10,000
feet and are in the country this is a fantasy situation.
But for those of us in California, the Denver area,
most of Florida, Dallas and Chicago, we share the air
with heavies and I think we should step up to the bar
and be full participants in the air traffic system.

Guy

"Guy Acheson" wrote in message
...
All this talk about FLARM and other alternatives to
a transponder in the USA is just so much wasted energy.
The fact is that transponders are the established
aircraft identification system in the USA and all anti-collision
systems in the USA work off of this system.


Guy,

What you're saying is correct, as far as it goes. I fly at Minden with both
a transponder and TPAS in my glider because I value my butt and think it's
the responsible thing to do. However, transponders leave big gaps in
coverage, as in areas with no ATC interrogation and only rare TCAS
interrogation. This xponder shortcoming is even larger as not all aircraft
have transponders. Thus transponders will continue to represent only a
partial and interim solution. As ATC decommissions their radar systems,
assuming they do in favor of ADS-B, then transponders will become about as
useful as the NDB receiver in my Mooney.

Okay, it's a given that transponders and maybe TPAS is the best option we
have right now. But as the prior discussion covers (which I don't think is
"so much wasted energy") there can and probably will be better solutions in
the future. In the US, this will likely be based on ADS-B or some version of
that. I just hope they pay attention to the needs of gliders and
non-electrical system classic aircraft when that, slow in coming, time
comes.

--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quiet Vent kit & MKII yaw string

Good to hear from you, Bumper.
The main problem I observe with these discussions about
alternatives to transponders and that 'something better
is out there' is that it is used as an excuse by so
many people for not installing a transponder now.
'Why buy something that will be obsolete very soon?'

We live, fly, and die in the here and now. Virtually
every argument about the uselessness of transponders
has not panned out in my experience. Even the argument
that TCAS will not be effective in the hinterland because
my transponder is not being 'pinged' by ATC radar has
not been true. No matter where I fly in the great
basin, the Whites to Ely, my transponder is blinking,
blinking, blinking.
I really think the soaring community and the SSA have
been dodging their responsibility to the greater aviation
community by not getting on board with transponders.
Soaring has changed significantly over the last twenty
years. We are flying farther, higher, and faster than
every before. We cover more ground and use higher
altitudes than I ever did flying a Cessna. We make
this big issue about requiring ELTs in planes for competition.
In my opinion that money and energy would have been
much better spent on transponders.
As long as I am pontificating, my other big issue is
that I think every glider and towplane should have
a radio. What other single action or piece of equipment
would improve safety during the two critical phases
of glider flight, launch and landing? So many of the
incidents and accidents associated with open spoilers
or unlatched canopies probably would have had better
outcomes if we could talk to each other. What a concept
that the tow pilot could simply tell the glider that
his spoilers are open. Perhaps some of the open canopy
accidents would have had better outcomes if someone
seeing the incident could have talked to the pilot
with the open canopy and remind them to fly the plane.
People on the ground could remind a glider on final
with his gear up that he/she may want to consider lowering
their gear.
Radios and transponders should be required. In the
world of 1-26s , tube radios, and dry cell batteries
the status quo was reasonable. In today's aviation
environment it is simply wrong.
There...I'm done. I feel better now.
Guy

Guy Acheson schrieb:

People on the ground could remind a glider on final
with his gear up that he/she may want to consider lowering
their gear.

We have radios in all gliders in our club but also the rule that a
glider with gear up is not informed on final. If the gilder is past base
with gear up, the pilot is not informed. The reason for this this,
that some gilder pilots have not the capability to bring the gear down
and to fly the aircraft while on final.

I fully support the policy to have a radio in every gilder and tow plane.

A audio variometer is also a very important piece of equipment to allow
see and avoid to work.