Case Study Near Mid Air Glider and C421 - Benefits of PowerFlarm and Transponders

Yes, I heard them. IIRC, they informed the 421 of the presence of the
glider but gave no vector for spacing. I'm assuming the 421 was on an
IFR flight plan and therefore had to maintain his assigned heading. Of
course, he could have asked for a vector to avoid traffic. I've done
that many times. He did not, or at least I did not hear it.

On 1/21/2016 10:00 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 6:50:09 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:

Monitoring of local ARTCC or Approach frequencies for traffic, I've found is not worth the trouble.
So you did not hear ATC communicating with the C421 about the conflict? Was there any way for ATC to contact you by radio?

--
Dan, 5J

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:20:33 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
... I'm assuming the 421 was
on an IFR flight plan and therefore had to maintain his assigned
heading.* Of course, he could have asked for a vector to avoid
traffic.*

IRRC ATC is not tasked to maintain IFR to VFR separation (?) (only IFR to IFR). So according to protocol, was ATC waiting for 421 to request vector to avoid traffic?

(I really have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'd like to understand this scenario.)

Thanks, Walt.
With transponder and on ATC frequency you will hear other pilots being warned of your position relative to theirs, just as the 421 in this case. Typically "traffic, a glider, (distance, relative direction, altitude), maneuvering". Personally haven't heard detail on climb, whether rate or just "climbing".
Flying with another glider, each using discrete codes ATC has not issued maneuvering instructions in my experience. Perhaps just "do you see the other glider?"
The controller would assume an aicraft squawking VFR was on another frequency.
Even before the 1201 then 1202 VFR codes, controllers could tell a glider squawking 1200 from other aircraft. A fiberglass glider without transponder could be invisible to radar.
If something like this happens to you, it's possible to submit a NASA form which is supposed to be anonymous and used to help prevent future occurrences.
Jim

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:44:08 PM UTC+3, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
My only piston helicopter time is 3 hours in a Bell 47, amazing easy to fly bird, that can actually glide (very unusual for a helicopter). And comparing a piston copter to a glass glider is unfair, they should be compared to Ka-6, 1-26..etc. I believe the 300 and 22 both beat the older birds.

In the turbine machines, a bit more of the same era as glass gliders, cruise is 110 to 150 knots. Not many 200 - 400 nm mile flights in glider are in that speed range. Even in a lowly MD 500 at 64% power (top of green 89%) I would cruise at 120 knots, want to race?



On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:56:45 AM UTC-8, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:51:56 AM UTC+3, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Eric, I take offense to that statement, helicopters are as fast as gliders, in fact they have a high cruise speed! )

Depends which helicopter. the Hughes/Schweizer/whatever 300 cruises at 160 km/h. I believe there are plenty of 300+ km glider flights done at higher average speed.

The R22 is a little faster, 90 knots or 167 km/h. I've blasted past them a few times, climbing, with both of us in ridge lift.

I'd NEVER describe a 500D as "lowly!"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKWvsS-z9PU

When this was shot, deer hunters were writing off on average one 500D a month in NZ, and *still* making a fortune.

I had a similar near miss over Reno when a light twin passed about 500 feet below me. We were both monitoring center freq and squawking appropriate codes (1201 & VFR). After giving it some thought, I realized the controllers didn't know who we were. No flight plan and neither had asked for flight following. This was before FLARM.......keep your head on a swivel!

The closest I ever came to another ship was over Mono Lake at 16,000 when I suddenly saw a B-52 off to my left and climbing. Much too late to maneuver, I watched in disbelief as it flew right below me............how close? I could see the co-pilot was reading his check-list!
Keep your head on a swivel,
JJ

I agree, in fact I have over 2,000 hour in one particular MD 500 series aircraft. I thought it was the best, however in the helicopter community they look for bigger payloads and more people haulers. The best and most fun flying I did was in a MD 500!

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 5:57:27 AM UTC-8, Bruce Hoult wrote:

I'd NEVER describe a 500D as "lowly!"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKWvsS-z9PU

When this was shot, deer hunters were writing off on average one 500D a month in NZ, and *still* making a fortune.

I had an experience I did not consider a near miss as I had a visual for several miles and more as my Sandel showed the traffic long before, but I was flying a C340 at 16,500 with flight following and a turboprop regional airliner was flying at 17,000 we crossed exactly on path only 500 ft in altitude difference at 45 degree convergence, pretty sure the airliner never saw me, but when the airline pilot called control to complain about not receiving a traffic warning I could hear in the background his traffic alert blaring. The controller, was verbally annoyed he has been called to task, only stating, "that wasn't a conflict you had altitude separation." The same controller should have also warned me.

I have had too many close, and I mean CLOSE calls to count. Have had them in the sky and just above the runway. This is why I am against stealth mode in Flarm! I want all the situational awareness I can get!

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:55:10 AM UTC-8, wrote:
I had a similar near miss over Reno when a light twin passed about 500 feet below me. We were both monitoring center freq and squawking appropriate codes (1201 & VFR). After giving it some thought, I realized the controllers didn't know who we were. No flight plan and neither had asked for flight following. This was before FLARM.......keep your head on a swivel!

The closest I ever came to another ship was over Mono Lake at 16,000 when I suddenly saw a B-52 off to my left and climbing. Much too late to maneuver, I watched in disbelief as it flew right below me............how close? I could see the co-pilot was reading his check-list!
Keep your head on a swivel,
JJ

I have one question getting back to Andy's question about FLARM GPS being fed into a transponder for ADS-B out usage (and Darryl, I apologize in advance if you already answered this).... But, "in a hypothetical world where cats and dogs sleep together, and the FAA decided to allow non-TSO'd GPSs to be used for VFR operations".... would there be anything technically missing that would prevent a FLARM GPS from being used as a GPS source for ADS-B out (e.g. protocol or some missing information in the data sentences that would result in the transponder from forwarding the GPS data?

Better change that to ..."in a hypothetical world where Hillary and Trump sleep together". I'm just trying to understand when someone says "Can't do it" whether that is based on technical or regulation reasons.

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-8, ZP wrote:
I have one question getting back to Andy's question about FLARM GPS being fed into a transponder for ADS-B out usage (and Darryl, I apologize in advance if you already answered this).... But, "in a hypothetical world where cats and dogs sleep together, and the FAA decided to allow non-TSO'd GPSs to be used for VFR operations".... would there be anything technically missing that would prevent a FLARM GPS from being used as a GPS source for ADS-B out (e.g. protocol or some missing information in the data sentences that would result in the transponder from forwarding the GPS data?

Better change that to ..."in a hypothetical world where Hillary and Trump sleep together". I'm just trying to understand when someone says "Can't do it" whether that is based on technical or regulation reasons.

Covered before already on r.a.s. in many posts. Did you try searching?

The FAA is not going to allow any old GPS source for ADS-B. That should be absolutely frigging obvious. I've been over this many times. The *only* thing on the horizon is TSO-C199/TABS Class B GPS related regulations (if they happen). And TABS is *not* about you using any random GPS source. And I've explained just in this thread why it's unreasonable to expect FLARM to pursue TABS approval of their devices.

Is stuff missing in a NEMA source like FLARM? Yes stuff is missing. I kind of mentioned that in this very thread ("you can't do it over NMEA"... technically stuff is missing, but it's not even up to anybody to worry about for a certified aircraft, there you have to follow an approved install/pairing of GPS and ADS-B Out to obtain FSDO field approval).

So for actual installation using PowerFLARM GPS to drive ADS-B out.

A certified aircraft? Can't be done. You have no choice.

An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you). You have to know what you are doing when this is configured and get it wrong and the FAA may come looking for you. And you certainly can not use this to meet 2020 Carriage mandates, say when/if gliders lose the ADS-B Out carriage exemption.

Wanting to use PowerFLARM GPS to power ADS-B Out is the *wrong* thing to want. A complete waste of your and everybody else's and FLARMs time. What if anything changes moving forward is going to depend on TABS/TSO-C199C GPS devices. TSO-C199 *was* the FAA's response to folks wanting to use low-cost GPS sources--and it certainly does not just let you connect any GPS source up to ADS-B out, never was going to and nobody should have ever expected it to.

So yet again, just wait until we see what effect TABS carriage and installation regulations have in this area. If you have something specific now that makes any sense to worry about, like a specific transponder in a specific certified/experiential glider, a pressing need to get 1090ES Out and maybe willingness to spend some money. Cough up the actual details and question and you'll get help.

And get along to the SSA convention and listen to Dave Nadler's talk, he's much nicer than me.

Hi Darryl,

You say:

An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you).

That is half correct. The FAA has decided to grant "target status" to uncertified NPE ADSB-out emitters, but is changing or has changed the rules to disallow "client status" for them.

I've posted this befo

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/...3-15-webV2.pdf

I copied to here also, as when I checked the above link the FAA site was down. Must be the snow.

https://www.dropbox.com/l/s/Zr0Ik3xoA0xzvK1mKcbMgs

--Sarah Anderson


On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 3:39:28 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-8, ZP wrote:
I have one question getting back to Andy's question about FLARM GPS being fed into a transponder for ADS-B out usage (and Darryl, I apologize in advance if you already answered this).... But, "in a hypothetical world where cats and dogs sleep together, and the FAA decided to allow non-TSO'd GPSs to be used for VFR operations".... would there be anything technically missing that would prevent a FLARM GPS from being used as a GPS source for ADS-B out (e.g. protocol or some missing information in the data sentences that would result in the transponder from forwarding the GPS data?

Better change that to ..."in a hypothetical world where Hillary and Trump sleep together". I'm just trying to understand when someone says "Can't do it" whether that is based on technical or regulation reasons.

Covered before already on r.a.s. in many posts. Did you try searching?

The FAA is not going to allow any old GPS source for ADS-B. That should be absolutely frigging obvious. I've been over this many times. The *only* thing on the horizon is TSO-C199/TABS Class B GPS related regulations (if they happen). And TABS is *not* about you using any random GPS source. And I've explained just in this thread why it's unreasonable to expect FLARM to pursue TABS approval of their devices.

Is stuff missing in a NEMA source like FLARM? Yes stuff is missing. I kind of mentioned that in this very thread ("you can't do it over NMEA"... technically stuff is missing, but it's not even up to anybody to worry about for a certified aircraft, there you have to follow an approved install/pairing of GPS and ADS-B Out to obtain FSDO field approval).

So for actual installation using PowerFLARM GPS to drive ADS-B out.

A certified aircraft? Can't be done. You have no choice.

An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you). You have to know what you are doing when this is configured and get it wrong and the FAA may come looking for you. And you certainly can not use this to meet 2020 Carriage mandates, say when/if gliders lose the ADS-B Out carriage exemption.

Wanting to use PowerFLARM GPS to power ADS-B Out is the *wrong* thing to want. A complete waste of your and everybody else's and FLARMs time. What if anything changes moving forward is going to depend on TABS/TSO-C199C GPS devices. TSO-C199 *was* the FAA's response to folks wanting to use low-cost GPS sources--and it certainly does not just let you connect any GPS source up to ADS-B out, never was going to and nobody should have ever expected it to.

So yet again, just wait until we see what effect TABS carriage and installation regulations have in this area. If you have something specific now that makes any sense to worry about, like a specific transponder in a specific certified/experiential glider, a pressing need to get 1090ES Out and maybe willingness to spend some money. Cough up the actual details and question and you'll get help.

And get along to the SSA convention and listen to Dave Nadler's talk, he's much nicer than me.