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

SSA responds to ANPRM



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 11th 15, 07:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
David Kinsell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

No one has commented yet on the SSA response? Likely to be the biggest
impact to soaring in the U.S. in many many years. On the SSA site if you
haven't seen it yet. Maybe pilots flying out of lower states just don't
worry about it.

I was very happy to see it posted a week before the deadline to give
people a chance to read it before submitting their own response. Gave
some background info on the Reno crash that I hadn't heard before, about
rerouting big iron arrivals through the wave area, and the NTSB
investigator believing that was a contributing factor.

The comments about relying on PowerFlarm are not likely to be persuasive
to the FAA, they undoubtedly are well aware of it, and probably perceive
it as being an offshoot system with only minimal compatibility with the
nextgen system they're putting in place. There's more than a grain of
truth to that, although ADS-B is so poorly done it leaves the door open
to alternatives.

-Dave
Ads
  #2  
Old August 11th 15, 07:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Ron Gleason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 482
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 12:03:08 UTC-6, David Kinsell wrote:
No one has commented yet on the SSA response? Likely to be the biggest
impact to soaring in the U.S. in many many years. On the SSA site if you
haven't seen it yet. Maybe pilots flying out of lower states just don't
worry about it.

I was very happy to see it posted a week before the deadline to give
people a chance to read it before submitting their own response. Gave
some background info on the Reno crash that I hadn't heard before, about
rerouting big iron arrivals through the wave area, and the NTSB
investigator believing that was a contributing factor.

The comments about relying on PowerFlarm are not likely to be persuasive
to the FAA, they undoubtedly are well aware of it, and probably perceive
it as being an offshoot system with only minimal compatibility with the
nextgen system they're putting in place. There's more than a grain of
truth to that, although ADS-B is so poorly done it leaves the door open
to alternatives.

-Dave


Thanks for the heads up. Interesting read and I am glad the SSA put the effort into this response. I do not agree with all the facts and opinions but since I did not send in a response to the SSA or FAA (yet) I am happy to live with the results
  #3  
Old August 12th 15, 04:28 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

I personally disagree with the SSA response. I have responded directly to the FAA.

I think all gliders should have transponders all the time. Whether we like it or not, we must coexist with the rest of the aviation traffic in the airspace we share. You read that correctly, share, we do not own the airspace we fly in. If we have another collision between a glider and a substantial powered aircraft we are going to wish all we had to deal with was a low level FAA rule making decision. Transponders are a very important part of this coexistence. They are not particularly expensive and modern implementations are power efficient.

FLARM is a very narrow minded slice of that coexistence. It warns us of other gliders and transponder equipped aircraft, but does not reciprocate by broadcasting your own location to other airplanes. It is very low power with no installation standards and thus of dubious range and certainty, especially for fast movers. There is absolutely no way FLARM will ever be approved by the FAA as a substitute for a transponder.

We have an approved traffic system in the USA and most of the rest of the world, it is called ADS-B. For all of its faults, it is interoperable between all types of aircraft in nearly every part of the world. They say that possession is 9/10ths of the law. If the sky was clouded with gliders squawking 1202 on mode S/ES ADS-B we would have a much better chance of getting the ATC's attention. Right now they barely realize we are here.
  #4  
Old August 12th 15, 04:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

I basically agree with Mark.

That said, I do t have a transponder yet. I think it's time, and certainly by 2020 it will be time.

Let's hope they get the price down and quality up as much as possible.
  #5  
Old August 12th 15, 04:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sierra Whiskey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

FWIW:

1) Transponders will give a false sense of security and teach vigilant glider pilots to trust that ATC is keeping tabs on their location for traffic deconfliction. This will result in less situational awareness for some pilots. (It is inevitable)

2) Transponders do nothing to separate gliders from VFR traffic squaking VFR and tracking in or out of an uncontrolled airfield. Not everyone is talking to ATC or getting flight following. And despite popular opinion, not everyone has an onboard collision avoidance system. (At least everything at my flight school lacks this capability)

3) If an immediate requirement for Transponders in gliders with electrical systems is imposed all gliders without a transponder will be out $2000 now, and another $2000-$5000 in 5 years when they have to upgrade to ADS-B. Why not wait till 2020? (Can't put a price on safety, but the FAA sure can harm a sport and form of flight training by imposing expensive requirements. The pilot shortage is near!!!)

4) In relation to my first point, the Flarm unit is far superior in my mind because it improves a pilots situational awareness and allows the glider pilot the chance to see and avoid. Let's not kid ourselves, glider pilots are looking out the window a hell of a lot more than a Bonanza flying VFR for that $100 hamburger. I would rather know where they are than have them run into me and my shiney new transponder.

5) If I have a battery failure in flight under a transponder requirement, do I need to land immediately in the nearest farm field? It is more likely that a glider will run out of sufficient battery power than an aircraft with an engine driven electrical system. Once the batteries run out of power the glider is now back to the same situation it was prior to the requirement. Waiting for ADS-B has some benefit here as the smaller units being developed for UAS are quite energy efficient.

I realize Flarm cannot be the solution. But I do think encouraging the use of a device that adds situational awareness is far more effective than trusting that a ground based radar and ATC operator are going to have communications with the traffic.

  #6  
Old August 12th 15, 05:51 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
JS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,384
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

Maybe you own the STC for SGS 2-33 electrical systems and you're going to make the STC available gratis?
Jim

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:28:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
I think all gliders should have transponders all the time.

  #7  
Old August 12th 15, 03:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

I fully agree transponders leave much to be desired per the arguement for upgrading to ADSB.

One thing that irritates me a bit is the idea that FAA (and associated political talking heads) are currently trying their best to force me to put N numbers on my "toy" quadcopter's and outfit them with ADSB. Utterly ridiculous idea, right ;-) ? Hmmmm? Be careful what you ask for folks.

With that, I don't feel much like complaining about being asked to outfit my modern sailplane with ANY or some 2 way traffic avoidance equipment. In my glider (rural Michigan), I do regularly fly along the edge of two class C airspace (Lansing and Grand Rapids) and one B airspace (Detroit). I truly enjoy watching the commercial traffic flying all around me on FLARM during these moments. It is something fun to do since most pilots in MI wont buy a FLARM (either).

Perhaps I did not read the article very well. I thought the discussion was regarding a "potential" ADSB requirement for 2020, NOT a mandatory transponders now, then ADSB in 2020. Ill go back and re-read. I agree that would be a bit more harsh, agreed. Most of the glider community would $hi# a chicken, agreed. No surprise there.

On the other hand (see hobby drone regulations), I don't think the FAA is in the mood to mess around any longer. They want a complete air traffic control system and far less risk. They are covering their collective butts and of course...that costs us money. Remember, the government has no money. In fact they have -19 trillion and counting.

I would blame CNN and NPR to be honest. This is a favorite theme of theirs.. They have 1-3 stories per week about how drones almost "brought down" an airliner. Unfortunately they are not fabrications. Gliders (and the rest) are just getting scooped up in that reform blizzard. Its way to late to separate gliders from the movement.

Just last week onCNN (Aug 5, 2015) - http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/01/us/drone-airliner-jfk/

Good times, good times!

Sean
7T

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:57:05 PM UTC-4, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
FWIW:

1) Transponders will give a false sense of security and teach vigilant glider pilots to trust that ATC is keeping tabs on their location for traffic deconfliction. This will result in less situational awareness for some pilots. (It is inevitable)

2) Transponders do nothing to separate gliders from VFR traffic squaking VFR and tracking in or out of an uncontrolled airfield. Not everyone is talking to ATC or getting flight following. And despite popular opinion, not everyone has an onboard collision avoidance system. (At least everything at my flight school lacks this capability)

3) If an immediate requirement for Transponders in gliders with electrical systems is imposed all gliders without a transponder will be out $2000 now, and another $2000-$5000 in 5 years when they have to upgrade to ADS-B. Why not wait till 2020? (Can't put a price on safety, but the FAA sure can harm a sport and form of flight training by imposing expensive requirements. The pilot shortage is near!!!)

4) In relation to my first point, the Flarm unit is far superior in my mind because it improves a pilots situational awareness and allows the glider pilot the chance to see and avoid. Let's not kid ourselves, glider pilots are looking out the window a hell of a lot more than a Bonanza flying VFR for that $100 hamburger. I would rather know where they are than have them run into me and my shiney new transponder.

5) If I have a battery failure in flight under a transponder requirement, do I need to land immediately in the nearest farm field? It is more likely that a glider will run out of sufficient battery power than an aircraft with an engine driven electrical system. Once the batteries run out of power the glider is now back to the same situation it was prior to the requirement. Waiting for ADS-B has some benefit here as the smaller units being developed for UAS are quite energy efficient.

I realize Flarm cannot be the solution. But I do think encouraging the use of a device that adds situational awareness is far more effective than trusting that a ground based radar and ATC operator are going to have communications with the traffic.

  #8  
Old August 12th 15, 05:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

I am in the "we should all have transponder" group.
We share the airspace and need to participate fully.
All the arguments about power consumption and battery capability are null.
Gliders should have transponders first and FLARM in addition if wanted.
No system is perfect.
Change is always being promised.
But transponders are the here and now.
I have both. When I fly around Reno it is comforting to hear approach control and the commercial aircraft reporting that they "see" me on their systems.
The largest flaw I see and experience with FLARM is the inconsistency of installation and performance. It is far from a comfortingly stable and predictable safety system. All the chat streams on this forum verify this point.

  #9  
Old August 12th 15, 05:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 957
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:28:57 PM UTC-4, wrote:
I personally disagree with the SSA response. I have responded directly to the FAA.

I think all gliders should have transponders all the time.


We look forward to your five figure donation to our club to equip about 20 gliders (and our tow plane) with transponders that might be interrogated (optimistically) 10% of their flight time.

Yours is a crappy broad brush solution to a problem some do not have at this particular point in time.

Evan Ludeman, Post Mills Soaring Club, Post Mills, VT
  #10  
Old August 12th 15, 06:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Soartech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default SSA responds to ANPRM

I am in the "no transponder needed" group.
Reasons why:
1. I don't trust my safety to a sleep-deprived AT controller.
2. I take responsibility for my safety via a PCAS device which does not take any system power as it has it's own battery.
3. Gliders have been flying for over 100 years, mostly without them.
4. Glider pilots look out the window much more than power pilots.
5. Hang gliders and paragliders are not considered in this ruling and they often fly XC every chance they get, staying as high as we do and traveling far.
6. Most glider flying takes place over rural areas with minimal traffic.
7. Add your contribution here! I didn't think of them all.
 




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
SSA's planned response to ANPRM Transponders, etc [email protected] Soaring 0 July 11th 15 05:01 AM
ANPRM - removal of transponder exception for gliders [email protected] Soaring 29 June 17th 15 11:00 PM
Sheriff Responds to AOPA Jp Stewart Soaring 27 January 29th 13 04:49 PM
USS Liberty Survivor Phil Tourney responds to Cindy McCain NOMOREWARS_FORISRAEL Naval Aviation 0 September 24th 11 11:22 AM
AS responds to the latest Ventus 2cxa KevinFinke Soaring 3 March 18th 09 03:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.