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

Nearest near-miss?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old May 16th 19, 03:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,530
Default Nearest near-miss?

Darryl,

You're right, of course.

On 5/15/2019 7:29 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
Dan

Why are you raising STCs here? We've been over this many times. It does not matter there was no glider mention in the STC.

There was not *approval* for your install. Your A&P just submitted a 337 to the FAA following a simple set of instructions.

Again, for an ADS-B Out install in a type certified glider an STC is not be needed *as an STC* for to get approval for an install, it does not matter the STC does not cover a glider. It's only used to show that a particular pairing of an ADS-B Out GPS and Transponder have been previously approved.

You don't need or want an STC giving any more details for any install in a glider. What would that achieve? And no manufacturer is going to pay to develop one.

Forget ADS-B Out, there are no stupid STCs for any transponder install in any glider. Oh my God... how can we possibly have all those transponders installed without STCs?

If your A&P every says he/she needs an STC to install any avionics in a type certified glider run the **** away.


On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 4:49:31 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
For a Standard category glider it was a big pain to install and get the
documentation correct and approved.* There's no provision for gliders in
the STC provided for the TN70.* It was also very expensive and the WAAS
GPS box is very large, nearly double the size of the TT22 remote box.
Fortunately, there's plenty of room behind the Stemme's panel for the
hardware.* I haven't had a "close encounter" since installing a
transponder about 7 years ago.* The TN70 install was in Nov 2018, IIRC.

On 5/15/2019 11:17 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
These anecdotes make me wonder. Has anyone ever installed ADS-B-out or TABS in gliders BEFORE having a near-collision? What were your reasons for taking the plunge?

I know that it is not uncommon to install transponders as a precaution before having a close call, but there seems to be more reluctance to install ADS-B-out and TABS even amongst people have ample disposable income. This is just my impression.

--
Dan, 5J


--
Dan, 5J
Ads
  #42  
Old May 16th 19, 03:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 708
Default Nearest near-miss?

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:49:42 AM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:20:19 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 7:49:31 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
For a Standard category glider it was a big pain to install and get the
documentation correct and approved.*


For me, the documentation was trivial. I made a logbook entry and got a PAPR https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/paprrequest.aspx (recommended but not required) The TT22 antenna got moved to a more optimal position further back in the fuselage, so I had got a fresh transponder compliance check (which was due anyways). My avionics tech looked over the installation that I did.


It was also very expensive


The TN72 including an interior mount antenna cost ~$400. I also bought a custom length antenna wire for the XPND for a few bucks. Craggy made the interconnect cable for me. I had a fun 5-6 hours doing the install. The transponder was installed by the previous owner.


WAAS GPS box is very large, nearly double the size of the XPND remote box.


The TN72 GPS box is smaller than the XPND remote box.*


Fortunately, there's plenty of room behind the Stemme's panel for the
hardware.*


No room left behind my panel, so I mounted a piece of plywood vertically behind my headrest on the turtle deck, and mounted the boxes to it. Provisions made to ensure air circulation. Space occupied is 2.5 inches front to back, 4" vertical, and full width of the turtle deck. Radio & vario speakers and a 'dashcam' are mounted to the same piece of plywood. I still have room on the turtledeck for a compression stuffsack of rain/cold/etc. gear, food, water for landouts.


I haven't had a "close encounter" since installing a
transponder about 7 years ago.*


As noted in my post above, one month after my install, I had one confirmed 'problem averted' with a GA airplane that could only 'see me' on their ADS-B-in screen. Better visibility to GA airplanes is the big win.


It's fantastic you both installed 1090ES out, and the point that a TN72 install is pretty easy is a great one... if anybody has a Trig transponder adding a TN72 should be easy.

But now what are you guys comparing? Dan was talking about a 2020 Compliant (aka SIL=3) ADS-B Out install in a type certificated glider, so the need for the fancier TSO-C145c TN70 GPS with it's extra space and cost (compared to a TN72 GPS).

Now that's being compared to a 2020 Compliant install in an experimental glider right? Hence the TN72, smaller size, lower cost and slightly easier process (no 337 submitted).

It's unfortunate that the ADS-B out install is different between a type certified and experimental glider, frustrating, it makes no justifiable sense and the extra cost/small hassle increase may affect adoption and overall safety. But that is how it is. We know it's more expensive, but the process to do this has some extra paperwork but should just not be daunting, and the install should not be technically challenging. Any A&P should be able to do that (should not need to be an IA)... obviously you want somebody who you trust to work on a gliders.

And a reminder you can use a TN72 in a type certified glider to do TABS (aka SIL=1) but not 2020 Compliance (SIL=3), that gets you everything except visibility to ATC via ADS-B (they still see you via SSR within SSR coverage) and does not get you any 2020 Airspace flight privileges (the remaining airspace that the glider/engine powered generator... exemption does not cover). You can also use the TN72 to do TABS if you have a TT21 but not TT22 in an experiential glider (2020 compliance requires a TT22).


Has anyone tried to get AOPA to do some advocacy for saner requirements for VFR only aircraft in general and standard airworthiness gliders in particular? There's no downside... even the FAA might have to admit that.

Evan Ludeman
  #43  
Old May 16th 19, 04:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,530
Default Nearest near-miss?

In the aftermath, the paperwork was the easiest part of the installation
in the Stemme.* Initially there was concern as there's no mention of the
Stemme on the Approved Model List.* Further investigation lead me to the
simple 337 route and my IA was good at accomplishing that.

The biggest difficulties were with the wiring.* The purchased interface
cable was not built to satisfy the requirements of the installation
manual.* The cable provided power to the TN70 from the TT22, whereas the
installation manual required that the TN70 be powered through a
dedicated circuit breaker.* Nor did the kit include a pneumatic
air/ground switch and the specified switch was much more expensive (of
course) than what could be had for experimental aircraft.* To get around
these hurdles I had to modify the cable by breaking the power circuit
and adding a ground wire to the air/ground switch.* In an airplane one
could use GPS ground speed to determine takeoff but, in a glider flying
wave, the glider could "land" at high altitude if its ground speed
dropped below the threshold.

My installation took me 3-4 days (in the winter) because I wanted it to
pass inspection and test, first time, with no "gotchas".* I'm glad it's
done!


On 5/15/2019 10:49 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:20:19 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 7:49:31 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
For a Standard category glider it was a big pain to install and get the
documentation correct and approved.

For me, the documentation was trivial. I made a logbook entry and got a PAPR https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/paprrequest.aspx (recommended but not required) The TT22 antenna got moved to a more optimal position further back in the fuselage, so I had got a fresh transponder compliance check (which was due anyways). My avionics tech looked over the installation that I did.


It was also very expensive

The TN72 including an interior mount antenna cost ~$400. I also bought a custom length antenna wire for the XPND for a few bucks. Craggy made the interconnect cable for me. I had a fun 5-6 hours doing the install. The transponder was installed by the previous owner.


WAAS GPS box is very large, nearly double the size of the XPND remote box.

The TN72 GPS box is smaller than the XPND remote box.


Fortunately, there's plenty of room behind the Stemme's panel for the
hardware.

No room left behind my panel, so I mounted a piece of plywood vertically behind my headrest on the turtle deck, and mounted the boxes to it. Provisions made to ensure air circulation. Space occupied is 2.5 inches front to back, 4" vertical, and full width of the turtle deck. Radio & vario speakers and a 'dashcam' are mounted to the same piece of plywood. I still have room on the turtledeck for a compression stuffsack of rain/cold/etc. gear, food, water for landouts.


I haven't had a "close encounter" since installing a
transponder about 7 years ago.

As noted in my post above, one month after my install, I had one confirmed 'problem averted' with a GA airplane that could only 'see me' on their ADS-B-in screen. Better visibility to GA airplanes is the big win.

It's fantastic you both installed 1090ES out, and the point that a TN72 install is pretty easy is a great one... if anybody has a Trig transponder adding a TN72 should be easy.

But now what are you guys comparing? Dan was talking about a 2020 Compliant (aka SIL=3) ADS-B Out install in a type certificated glider, so the need for the fancier TSO-C145c TN70 GPS with it's extra space and cost (compared to a TN72 GPS).

Now that's being compared to a 2020 Compliant install in an experimental glider right? Hence the TN72, smaller size, lower cost and slightly easier process (no 337 submitted).

It's unfortunate that the ADS-B out install is different between a type certified and experimental glider, frustrating, it makes no justifiable sense and the extra cost/small hassle increase may affect adoption and overall safety. But that is how it is. We know it's more expensive, but the process to do this has some extra paperwork but should just not be daunting, and the install should not be technically challenging. Any A&P should be able to do that (should not need to be an IA)... obviously you want somebody who you trust to work on a gliders.

And a reminder you can use a TN72 in a type certified glider to do TABS (aka SIL=1) but not 2020 Compliance (SIL=3), that gets you everything except visibility to ATC via ADS-B (they still see you via SSR within SSR coverage) and does not get you any 2020 Airspace flight privileges (the remaining airspace that the glider/engine powered generator... exemption does not cover). You can also use the TN72 to do TABS if you have a TT21 but not TT22 in an experiential glider (2020 compliance requires a TT22).








--
Dan, 5J
  #44  
Old May 16th 19, 06:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,259
Default Nearest near-miss?

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:58:33 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:49:42 AM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:20:19 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 7:49:31 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
For a Standard category glider it was a big pain to install and get the
documentation correct and approved.*

For me, the documentation was trivial. I made a logbook entry and got a PAPR https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/paprrequest.aspx (recommended but not required) The TT22 antenna got moved to a more optimal position further back in the fuselage, so I had got a fresh transponder compliance check (which was due anyways). My avionics tech looked over the installation that I did.


It was also very expensive

The TN72 including an interior mount antenna cost ~$400. I also bought a custom length antenna wire for the XPND for a few bucks. Craggy made the interconnect cable for me. I had a fun 5-6 hours doing the install. The transponder was installed by the previous owner.


WAAS GPS box is very large, nearly double the size of the XPND remote box.

The TN72 GPS box is smaller than the XPND remote box.*


Fortunately, there's plenty of room behind the Stemme's panel for the
hardware.*

No room left behind my panel, so I mounted a piece of plywood vertically behind my headrest on the turtle deck, and mounted the boxes to it. Provisions made to ensure air circulation. Space occupied is 2.5 inches front to back, 4" vertical, and full width of the turtle deck. Radio & vario speakers and a 'dashcam' are mounted to the same piece of plywood. I still have room on the turtledeck for a compression stuffsack of rain/cold/etc. gear, food, water for landouts.


I haven't had a "close encounter" since installing a
transponder about 7 years ago.*

As noted in my post above, one month after my install, I had one confirmed 'problem averted' with a GA airplane that could only 'see me' on their ADS-B-in screen. Better visibility to GA airplanes is the big win.


It's fantastic you both installed 1090ES out, and the point that a TN72 install is pretty easy is a great one... if anybody has a Trig transponder adding a TN72 should be easy.

But now what are you guys comparing? Dan was talking about a 2020 Compliant (aka SIL=3) ADS-B Out install in a type certificated glider, so the need for the fancier TSO-C145c TN70 GPS with it's extra space and cost (compared to a TN72 GPS).

Now that's being compared to a 2020 Compliant install in an experimental glider right? Hence the TN72, smaller size, lower cost and slightly easier process (no 337 submitted).

It's unfortunate that the ADS-B out install is different between a type certified and experimental glider, frustrating, it makes no justifiable sense and the extra cost/small hassle increase may affect adoption and overall safety. But that is how it is. We know it's more expensive, but the process to do this has some extra paperwork but should just not be daunting, and the install should not be technically challenging. Any A&P should be able to do that (should not need to be an IA)... obviously you want somebody who you trust to work on a gliders.

And a reminder you can use a TN72 in a type certified glider to do TABS (aka SIL=1) but not 2020 Compliance (SIL=3), that gets you everything except visibility to ATC via ADS-B (they still see you via SSR within SSR coverage) and does not get you any 2020 Airspace flight privileges (the remaining airspace that the glider/engine powered generator... exemption does not cover). You can also use the TN72 to do TABS if you have a TT21 but not TT22 in an experiential glider (2020 compliance requires a TT22).


Has anyone tried to get AOPA to do some advocacy for saner requirements for VFR only aircraft in general and standard airworthiness gliders in particular? There's no downside... even the FAA might have to admit that.

Evan Ludeman


The fat lady may have left the barn already, with 2020 being so close.

I had hoped that some organizations might look at this with an STC approach similar to the STC that use non-TSO instruments flight instruments in type certified aircraft. Both AOPA and EAA have been involved in those efforts..

e.g. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...ilities-abound

https://www.flyingmag.com/non-certif...fied-airplanes (asks does not answer the ADS-B Question)

Larger avionics manufactures who manufacture existing TSO-C145c GPS sources may have a financially disincentive to not help here. It is 2020 regulations driving ADS-B Out demand, not a free market. Avionics manufacturers in the flight instruments and autopilot upgrade market are more incented to jump onto the non-TSO STCs and compete to win panel upgrade business in a more competitive open market environment. The glider community is pretty lucky that Trig has been focused where they are, and been just nice folks like helping the FAA develop the TABS TSO-C199 standard on one hand, working with Peregrine to get the TN70 STC available to glider A&Ps etc. Maybe being an OEM customer (not OEM) of GPS technology and a desire to sell more of their transponders provided some financial alignment for them.

In the parallel universe of UAT even uAvionix has gone the TSO route for their devices for install in type certified aircraft, and that's with having to develop STCs for actual installs anyhow. (they brag about how many aircraft are on their AML STC list for devices... actually being on the AML list becomes more of an issue once you get to more complex GA installs and IFR aircraft panels, and may be in part to placate GA repair shop concerns about say replacing a wing-tip or tail-light with a non-OEM device). I suspect it was quicker for uAvionix to just comply, develop the TSO and install STC than to try to develop a whole new STC approach for a non-TSO-C145c GPS source.









  #45  
Old May 16th 19, 07:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Nearest near-miss?

"Further investigation lead me to the
simple 337 route and my IA was good at accomplishing that."

So I'm curious. Unless a 337 is used for a field approval, it is just a documentation of work and inspection form for major repair and/or alteration. It still needs the documentation of the approval to perform said work.

Can you share what was on your 337?
What approved documents or was it a field approval, aproved by your local FSDO?

  #46  
Old May 16th 19, 07:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,259
Default Nearest near-miss?

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:44:36 AM UTC-7, Jj wrote:
"Further investigation lead me to the
simple 337 route and my IA was good at accomplishing that."

So I'm curious. Unless a 337 is used for a field approval, it is just a documentation of work and inspection form for major repair and/or alteration. It still needs the documentation of the approval to perform said work.

Can you share what was on your 337?
What approved documents or was it a field approval, aproved by your local FSDO?


Why does an ADS-B Out install need a field approval? It should be a minor alteration. This has been covered on r.a.s so many times, you can search the previous posts here.

The FAA describes very clearly exactly what is needed for an ADS-B Out install, including use of the 337: https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipads...r(9-25-17).pdf. Read it and follow the steps.

  #47  
Old May 16th 19, 08:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Nearest near-miss?

I agree completely, thats why I dont understand the use of a 337.
  #48  
Old May 16th 19, 08:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Nearest near-miss?

"Dan Marotta
In the aftermath, the paperwork was the easiest part of the installation
in the Stemme. Initially there was concern as there's no mention of the
Stemme on the Approved Model List. Further investigation lead me to the
simple 337 route and my IA was good at accomplishing that. "

This is what I am curious about. Why the use of a 337?
It does nothing but document work. The use of a 337 is not an reference or approval to accomplish the work.
  #49  
Old May 16th 19, 09:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,259
Default Nearest near-miss?

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:11:07 PM UTC-7, Jj wrote:
I agree completely, thats why I dont understand the use of a 337.


I gave you the FAA document that directs A&P on what to do, **you need to read it**. It tell you exactly what you are asking, and even includes instruction on how to complete the 337. Dan's A&P did exactly that after I pointed them at this policy.

The practical use of the 337 here where it's not a major alteration is so the FAA can track ADS-B Out installations. The ADS-B Out hardware does not transmit information about what it is, or what GPS is attached to it, and I expect the FAA wants to know.. especially to look for what hardware installs have problems or what A&P installers are creating problems.

The FAA has evolved ADS-B out installs significantly, initially they all required approval in type certified aircraft, now it's just a 337 notice to record the install unless it otherwise requires approval. The other thing that was found/obvious was the tight dependency between GPS source, ADS-B Out hardware and the ability to only pair some devices, and the need to follow precise instructions for that pairing. That is why the FAA requires use of STC to justify that pairing (and provide the installer with relevant setup instructions). That STC is not otherwise required.. which is how it can be used here if the aircraft is not in the AML.

With an experimental install there is no need to follow this policy, so don't provide the 337 to the FAA. And the "meets blah blah..." wording in 14 CFR 91.227 allows use of a lower cost TN72 instead of an actual TSO-C145c TN70. But I hope the FAA is able to capture lots of similar information about installed hardware in the public ADS-B performance report request form.

  #50  
Old May 16th 19, 09:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,530
Default Nearest near-miss?

It documented the work.* The 337 was sent to the FAA by the IA and he
provided me with a sticker to place in the glider's logbook.

On 5/16/2019 1:56 PM, Jj wrote:
"Dan Marotta
In the aftermath, the paperwork was the easiest part of the installation
in the Stemme. Initially there was concern as there's no mention of the
Stemme on the Approved Model List. Further investigation lead me to the
simple 337 route and my IA was good at accomplishing that. "

This is what I am curious about. Why the use of a 337?
It does nothing but document work. The use of a 337 is not an reference or approval to accomplish the work.


--
Dan, 5J
 




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
Kyler's nearest airport locator Don P Piloting 10 September 26th 10 10:51 PM
Why Screeners Miss Guns and Knives (and why pilots miss planes and airports) cjcampbell Piloting 2 January 3rd 06 04:24 AM
GPS Nearest Airport feature Chris W Piloting 25 March 7th 05 12:41 AM
Finding nearest airport Matt Whiting Instrument Flight Rules 22 July 2nd 04 03:21 PM
Finding nearest airport Matt Whiting Instrument Flight Rules 3 June 30th 04 11:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.