Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt

In article
,
Derek C wrote:

Can I also point out that fitting Transponders to gliders without TCAS
does not give them any means of avoiding glider to glider type
collisions. It is onlyreally of benefit to ATC and airliners, but
glider owners are expected to pay for them!

It most certainly is of benefit to glider owners as well, unless you
think you and your glider would somehow survive a collision with an
airliner?

My transponder makes me feel much better when flying in the vicinity of
the approaches into Dulles International, and it's not just because the
idea of accidentally killing a bunch of airline passengers disturbs me.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On 10/14/2010 4:26 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 14, 1:52 am, Derek wrote:
On Oct 12, 4:14 pm, Peter
wrote:



Am 12.10.2010 16:25, Darryl Ramm wrote:

But every time a glider takes off in that area now is the glider pilot
making a decision to fly in an area of high density airline traffic? I
know this mess was not created by the glider pilots changing how they
operate--but what is reasonable to do now from a safety viewpoint? If
that traffic is there then transponders will likely provide a strong
safety-net, and lack of use might well end up costing a planeload of
passengers their lives and cost soaring greatly if there is a mid-air.
By all means go and tackle Ryanair on the safety implications of what
they are doing. They hardly have a good PR image and the public may
well be sympathetic.

---

Yes, this area has airline traffic, but not what you would call "high
density". ATC aouthorities are watching this closely, and they have the
exact traffic figures, and they also have clear rules when to implement
a Class C or Class D airspace to seperate IFR and VFR traffic. Up to
now, there was no need to do so, we will hear in a few weeks it this
will change next year. We talk to those ATC people, and they listen to
us. There are also glider pilots amongst them.

But definitely there is no cooperation to be expected from Ryan Air. A
company that wants you to pay for the use of the toilet in their planes,
and that recently started to apply for flying their planes with only one
pilot in order to save money will for sure not sponsor any security
equipment for glider pilots.

Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
USA.

The situation in Germany is different than in the USA. There is in
general a far more strict seraration between IFR and VFR traffic. E.g.
for the traffic to and from Frankfurt International there will never be
(legally) a situation like the one described in the incident report, as
all IFR fraffic is routed through Class C airspace.

Requiring mandatory transponder use for gliders in Germany would be sure
overkill, and we are fighting against a rule like that.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Can I also point out that fitting Transponders to gliders without TCAS
does not give them any means of avoiding glider to glider type
collisions. It is onlyreally of benefit to ATC and airliners, but
glider owners are expected to pay for them!

Derek C

TCAS in a glider? That's not ever going to happen. But quite a few of
the transponder equipped gliders in the USA (we have a high ratio of
those in Northern California/Nevada) also carry the Zaon MRX PCAS and
they are mostly helpful for glider-glider and glider-GA traffic
awareness--but a lot less useful than Flarm would be.

No single technology does now, and no upcoming technology will provide
very effective traffic awareness/collision avoidance needs across
glider-glider, glider-GA and glider-airliner/fast jet etc. If
airliners are a serious concern in an area then transponders in
gliders working with ATC radar and the TCAS in airliners is the
ultimate technical approach available to help avoid a collision. The
glider pilot installs a transponder to avoid the airliner running into
him, to avoid the deaths of an airliner full of passengers and to
avoid the damage to soaring that such an accident would cause. There
is absolutely no collision avoidance technology available that could
warn a glider pilot and give them more information/effective result
than allowing TCAS II in the airliner cockpit to do its thing.

Traffic awareness technology in the glider cockpit can help make
glider pilots aware of where airline etc. traffic is. PCAS can do that
a little (but is too slow/short range and non-directional to deal with
airliners and fast jets). ADS-B will help in future (but with lots of
caveats esp. around the dual-link technology in the USA). However none
of these future technologies will provide the ultimate saftey net that
transponders and TCAS do, not for decades.

The appropriate technology for glider-glider and glider-towplane
scenarios is Flarm and the glider-GA question is more complex
especially in the USA. PCAS has been the only answer we've had there
for a while. ADS-B may be the answer long-term (but it looks like it
is going to be a mess in the USA for quite a while).

Darryl

The "ultimate" technology for glider to glider or glider to towplane
collision avoidance is NOT Flarm, at least in the US. For FLARM to be
effective, everyone has to install. You may get this to happen in US
contests, but it is a pipedream that there is going to be widespread
FLARM deployment outside of that limited environment.

The "ultimate" technology in the US will be ADS-B. We can debate about
whether this will be UAT or 1090ES. FLARM is just a distraction that is
confusing the issue and doesn't really address the fundamental problem
most of us face, which is collision threats with jets and other GA
(non-glider) aircraft.

--
Mike Schumann

What about PowerFlarm...?.. It takes signals from GA transponders as well
as Flarm equiped gliders and alerts
them on Flarm-type display. Combined with Mk1 eyeball, must be the best
compromise..?

Craig Lowrie, UK

At 18:43 14 October 2010, Mike Schumann wrote:
On 10/14/2010 4:26 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 14, 1:52 am, Derek C wrote:
On Oct 12, 4:14 pm, Peter Scholz
wrote:



Am 12.10.2010 16:25, Darryl Ramm wrote:

But every time a glider takes off in that area now is the glider
pilot
making a decision to fly in an area of high density airline
traffic?
I
know this mess was not created by the glider pilots changing how
they
operate--but what is reasonable to do now from a safety viewpoint?
If
that traffic is there then transponders will likely provide a
strong
safety-net, and lack of use might well end up costing a planeload
of
passengers their lives and cost soaring greatly if there is a
mid-air.
By all means go and tackle Ryanair on the safety implications of
what
they are doing. They hardly have a good PR image and the public may
well be sympathetic.

---

Yes, this area has airline traffic, but not what you would call
"high
density". ATC aouthorities are watching this closely, and they have
the
exact traffic figures, and they also have clear rules when to
implement
a Class C or Class D airspace to seperate IFR and VFR traffic. Up to
now, there was no need to do so, we will hear in a few weeks it this
will change next year. We talk to those ATC people, and they listen
to
us. There are also glider pilots amongst them.

But definitely there is no cooperation to be expected from Ryan Air.
A
company that wants you to pay for the use of the toilet in their
planes,
and that recently started to apply for flying their planes with only
one
pilot in order to save money will for sure not sponsor any security
equipment for glider pilots.

Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions
with
light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders
and
TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can
allow
apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic
outcomes.
I
start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA
centric
information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside
the
USA.

The situation in Germany is different than in the USA. There is in
general a far more strict seraration between IFR and VFR traffic.
E.g.
for the traffic to and from Frankfurt International there will never
be
(legally) a situation like the one described in the incident report,
as
all IFR fraffic is routed through Class C airspace.

Requiring mandatory transponder use for gliders in Germany would be
sure
overkill, and we are fighting against a rule like that.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Can I also point out that fitting Transponders to gliders without
TCAS
does not give them any means of avoiding glider to glider type
collisions. It is onlyreally of benefit to ATC and airliners, but
glider owners are expected to pay for them!

Derek C

TCAS in a glider? That's not ever going to happen. But quite a few of
the transponder equipped gliders in the USA (we have a high ratio of
those in Northern California/Nevada) also carry the Zaon MRX PCAS and
they are mostly helpful for glider-glider and glider-GA traffic
awareness--but a lot less useful than Flarm would be.

No single technology does now, and no upcoming technology will provide
very effective traffic awareness/collision avoidance needs across
glider-glider, glider-GA and glider-airliner/fast jet etc. If
airliners are a serious concern in an area then transponders in
gliders working with ATC radar and the TCAS in airliners is the
ultimate technical approach available to help avoid a collision. The
glider pilot installs a transponder to avoid the airliner running into
him, to avoid the deaths of an airliner full of passengers and to
avoid the damage to soaring that such an accident would cause. There
is absolutely no collision avoidance technology available that could
warn a glider pilot and give them more information/effective result
than allowing TCAS II in the airliner cockpit to do its thing.

Traffic awareness technology in the glider cockpit can help make
glider pilots aware of where airline etc. traffic is. PCAS can do that
a little (but is too slow/short range and non-directional to deal with
airliners and fast jets). ADS-B will help in future (but with lots of
caveats esp. around the dual-link technology in the USA). However none
of these future technologies will provide the ultimate saftey net that
transponders and TCAS do, not for decades.

The appropriate technology for glider-glider and glider-towplane
scenarios is Flarm and the glider-GA question is more complex
especially in the USA. PCAS has been the only answer we've had there
for a while. ADS-B may be the answer long-term (but it looks like it
is going to be a mess in the USA for quite a while).

Darryl

The "ultimate" technology for glider to glider or glider to towplane
collision avoidance is NOT Flarm, at least in the US. For FLARM to be
effective, everyone has to install. You may get this to happen in US
contests, but it is a pipedream that there is going to be widespread
FLARM deployment outside of that limited environment.

The "ultimate" technology in the US will be ADS-B. We can debate about

whether this will be UAT or 1090ES. FLARM is just a distraction that is

confusing the issue and doesn't really address the fundamental problem
most of us face, which is collision threats with jets and other GA
(non-glider) aircraft.

--
Mike Schumann

On Oct 11, 4:34*pm, Peter Purdie wrote:
....clip...

I would appreciate a logical reason why I should spend a high proportion
of the cost of my glider to protect the profits of a commercial
organisation.=

Because you are doing it to protect your own life, that's why; and the
lives of the people on the other airplane (you don't care, but most
pilots do). It has nothing whatever to do with "protecting profits."

On Oct 14, 11:43 am, Mike Schumann mike-nos...@traditions-
[snip]

The "ultimate" technology for glider to glider or glider to towplane
collision avoidance is NOT Flarm, at least in the US. For FLARM to be
effective, everyone has to install. You may get this to happen in US
contests, but it is a pipedream that there is going to be widespread
FLARM deployment outside of that limited environment.

The "ultimate" technology in the US will be ADS-B. We can debate about
whether this will be UAT or 1090ES. FLARM is just a distraction that is
confusing the issue and doesn't really address the fundamental problem
most of us face, which is collision threats with jets and other GA
(non-glider) aircraft.

--
Mike Schumann

Oh God spare us this grand standing for ADS-B and UAT technology. If
it wasn't actually important saftey issue I'd let this troll like
behavior go, but because it is I'll reply, and most of these points
are just the same I've made before. Points apparently that Mike
Schumann seems unable to comprehend or challenge in a cogent way. So
apologies to the Europeans and others for dragging this off to a non-
airline-on-glider and USA centric direction. I'll try to keep this to
the glider-glider scenario but I know I'll wander in places.

---

I'm trying to follow Mike Schumann's loopy logic here....

1. He claims ADS-B is better for glider-glider collision avoidance
than Flarm because all gliders have to install a Flarm device? -- like
WTF is he smoking? All gliders would have to install ADS-B for that to
work as well. And even if they did why would ADS-B be better at glider-
glider scenarios than the Flarm technology developed precisely for
doing that and proven in use worldwide by thousands of glider pilots
in challenging situations including busy contests.

2. He claims the fundamental problem most of us face is collision
threats with jets and other GA (non-glider) aircraft. -- That is just
obvious bull****, we all know of several collisions between gliders
and gliders and tow-planes in the USA in the last several years and
several overseas -- who here thinks collision risk with GA is more of
a blanket serious issue across the USA glider fleet? Where are all
those past collisions then? Risks scenarios will vary by location and
there will be locations where risk of a GA or airline collision may be
the main concern but it is ridiculous to claim that GA collision are
a larger risk on average for a USA glider pilot. The risk for
airliner collision is concentrated at certain locations and is a
concern mostly because the consequence x risk product is so large.

---

There is no ADS-B carriage mandate for gliders in the USA. I expect
lots (several hundreds) of gliders in the USA are going to have
PowerFLARM installed within the next year or so. Effectively none will
have ADS-B data-out. I expect the USA contest scene to rapidly get to
significant PowerFLARM adaption, helped by purchases and rental
programs that seem to be coming together. But most pre-orders and
interest in purchases that I have seen locally of PowerFLARM is from
recreational XC not contest glider pilots. And I expect to see FBOs
and clubs equipping there fleets including tow planes--at least one
local operation seems pretty committed to do that asap. It is on a
roll. But there will still be lots of people who choose not to install
Flarm products and I expect those same people would also not (because
they don't want to and/or cannot afford to) install ADS-B products,
especially ones costing significantly more.

Meanwhile ADS-B is happening so slowly it might as well be dead in the
water as far as any use in the near term is concerned for ADS-B data-
out in gliders (data-in is more doable but has serious restrictions in
the USA due to dual-link). ADS-B data-out and data-in *are*
interesting to think about on a 5-10 year scale evolution for
compatibility with GA and other traffic systems but ADS-B data-out and
data-in are *not* interesting competitively with Flarm for glider-
glider collision avoidance.

The last thing the USA glider community needs is this continued
irresponsible harping about ADS-B in an attempt to slow adoption of
technology that can save pilots lives now, whether it is Flarm for
glider-glider risks or transponders for airline and fast jet risks
etc. I had enough of the promotion of UAT as interesting future
technology 5 years ago and saw the effect that had on some people near
busy airline traffic areas like Reno and those pilots thinking they
will defer purchasing a transponder because there is going to be a
mythical $500 box that will do everything in future (never mind that
what "do everything is" was not clear in their minds or that it has no
compatibility with the TCAS systems in those airliners).

---

Back to the completely stupid claim that ADS-B is the ultimate system
for glider-glider collision avoidance. For glider-glider and glider-
towplane collision avoidance Flarm is the undisputed technical and
market leader --

o Flarm has a large installed base of glider users worldwide. It is a
proven technology for glider-glider collision avoidance. Proven in
real world situations like major glider contests and worldwide by many
thousands of users.

o Flarm devices are relatively low cost to purchase and install.

o Flarm devices are compact and draw low power suitable for use in a
glider.

o A Flarm box includes receiver and transmitter capabilities *and*
processes and triggers audible and visual (internal or remote display)
warnings.

o Flarm collision avoidance algorithms (in the Flarm box) are designed
for glider-glider type scenarios. Especially to avoid the significant
false alarm rate that other technology would generate in gaggle type
scenarios, while on-tow, etc.

o Flarm devices include display capabilities supported by popular
soaring hardware and software vendors (to do that you need the traffic
threat processing in the box not in the external device/software - and
that is also a good for standardizing warning behavior etc.).

o Flarm supports contest/stealth behavior with log file verification
to allow use in contests. This is all debatable but the support for
the feature is at least there now. I really hate to think what
technology war would be unleashed if everybody had long range accurate
climb and position data on competitors.

---

So who is making a ADS-B based system that comes close to the above?
remembering the claim here is ADS-B will be best for glider-glider
scenarios - you cannot get close to the above list of capabilities by
taking a general purpose system and shoving it into a glider.

A UAT based systems for gliders has been talked about a lot by Mike
Schumann and others - so which manufacturer is going to deliver these
capabilities targeted specifically at the tiny USA glider community?
Maybe Mike can tell us who that will be.

There is UAT stuff designed for GA use is things like the NavWorx UAT
transceiver products we've heard Mike Schumann promoting here before.
And there is also the FreeFlight Rangr UAT transceiver series coming
to market (I've got bored making fun of the NavWorx product for use in
gliders so I'll pick on the FreeFlight one now...). The FreeFlight
Rangr is based on the Mitre prototype we've heard so much about (the
NavWorks was not based on Mitre) and it costs ~$5k for the transceiver
with no GPS and $7k for the transceiver with GPS (prices are lower for
non-TSO products for experimental aircraft and I expect given recent
FAA rulings on STC approval requirements we won't be sneaking non-TSO
ADS-B transmitters into certified gliders) and then you have to add an
external display/processor and the transceiver alone draws 0.7A @ 12V
and you still don't get collision avoidance warnings/false alarm
reduction necessary for things like thermalling with other gliders. So
yes prices will fall but where do the magic economics/market dynamics
come from that has somebody building this ADS-B UAT based system to
have the features needed for use in gliders?

Same for 1090ES based collision avoidance systems. Who is going to
build a system for the needs of the glider community? At least with
1090ES there is more of a worldwide market (even if there is still USA
specific issues with 1090ES). Oh wait there is a 1090ES receiver
coming to the USA market soon... and its PowerFLARM. But wait, any
glider pilot who wants to avoid other gliders and towplanes just
installs the PowerFLARM and it all just works. No adding ADS-B
anything, no additional $5k+ worth of hardware, no dealing with FAA
STC approval. And all the other gliders are much more likely to have
Flarm installed than ADS-B, and it all works properly for a glider
environment. So purely for glider-glider and glider-towplane collision
avoidance I don't see a reason for a USA glider pilot to install more
than PowerFLARM (and it has PCAS that works out of the box with not
extra hardware and gives compatibility with those of us who have
transponders in our gliders today and 1090ES data-in for visibility of
1090ES data-out equipped traffic as they equip).

---

In the USA ADS-B dual-link pretty much guarantees that a single link
layer ADS-B receiver will not work reliably as a collision avoidance
tool at low altitudes and other areas outside of GBT (ADS-B ground
station coverage). AOPA is starting to realize this in GA land and was
trying to get more GBT stations located near GA airports so ADS-B
could be a useful traffic collision avoidance tool near those airports
etc. But that is not going to happen widely. So unless there is wide
spread adoption of dual-link (1090ES+UAT) receivers (with a single-
channel transmitter) ADS-B itself as a collision avoidance technology
in the GA market has some serious issues. It looks like there are
areas of the USA where the GBT (ground station) coverage will be
horrible, and those areas just happen to be around significant gliding
locations like Southern Utah/Parowan and the White Mountains/Inyokern
Valley and other bits along the Sierras and lots of other places in
the middle of the USA. Low level coverage on ridges out east may also
be poor. For ADS-B as collision avoidance technology to work well
outside GBT coverage you either need to force adoption of one-link
layer across the US glider community or wait for dual-link receivers/
transceivers (with single link transmitters) to be developed (at more
cost).

So mmmmm what do we do as pilots at risk of mid-air collisions
today....keep waiting for maybe some future dual-link devices that
also has to meet those "designed for use in gliders" requirements I
list above? How many more pilots do we need to put at risk? Meanwhile
we can standardize on Flarm as the collision avoidance protocol to use
*now* and know it will work glider-glider without requiring ADS-B GBT
ground station coverage, or worrying about any of all the other crap
associated with ADS-B.

And the FAA just seriously jammed up the works by requiring STCs for
every ADS-B data-out installation. Anybody aware of a manufacturer
working on an STC approval for ADS-B data-out for their glider type?
It is not any impact on ADS-B data-out adoption in gliders that is the
real issue here, more importantly this is going to significantly slow
ADS-B data-out adoption in the GA market (if you want to "see" those
aircraft they need ADS-B data-out, and there has been no incentive for
them to equip and now there is a stronger disincentive to even try).
And this recent FAA ruling may also have smaller ADS-B vendors
businesses at risk. It just likely set back ADS-B deployment in the
USA by years (or however long it will take the FAA to undo this
"temporary" requirement and the industry to recover from the damage).

---

No single traffic collision avoidance technology well addresses major
scenarios like glider-glider, glider-GA, glider-airliner etc. And this
will not change for the foreseeable future. So if the pilot of that
PowerFLARM equipped glider also flies in areas of high density airline
and fast jet traffic or near lots of GA traffic they can consider
adding a Mode S or Mode C transponder. In the longer term they could
also add ADS-B data-out, either with a UAT or 1090ES. If they want a
transponder and ADS-B data-out then the logical choice is likely a
Mode S transponder like a Trig TT-21 with 1090ES data-out. But for
glider-glider scenarios there is absolutely no reason to look beyond
Flarm (PowerFLARM in the USA) --it is the ultimate technology designed
specifically for that application and it does it well.

Oh well, sorry, I know I should just ignore the trolls.

Darryl

On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November wrote:
On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:





On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith wrote:

Darryl Ramm wrote:

---

Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
USA.

Allegheny 853
MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed

Pacific Southwest 182
Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed

Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
carriage requirements in the USA)
MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured

NetJets N879QS
Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)

Darryl

Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators
and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near
Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of
reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number
since the 1980s.

http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/...pp_module.show...

Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC
database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the
terms "glider" and "US air carrier".

The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these
other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between
transponder-equipped powered aircraft.

In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air
collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and
warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders
form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial
passengers are exposed to.

Ian Grant IN

There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. It would
be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider
flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for
gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the
ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:34:09 +0000, Peter Purdie wrote:

Large areas of airspace are Class A-D reserved for IFR traffic under
full ATC control, to ensure Caommercial Air Trafic passenger safety.

Then you get low-cost carriers saving money by flying into small
airports without such airspace, and taking fuel-saving short cuts
through non-protected airspace.

It strikes me that if a low-cost carrier's airliner deliberately
transited uncontrolled airspace which is known to be regularly used by
gliders or GA aircraft that don't carry transponders and there was a
collision then the brown storm is more likely to envelop the ATC pilot,
who would be seen to have deliberately put his passengers at risk, than
the glider pilot.

If it further turned out that doing this was encouraged by the airline's
fuel saving policies then the storm would spread to encompass the airline
too on the basis that they had put profit before passenger safety.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Martin Gregorie wrote:
It strikes me that if a low-cost carrier's airliner deliberately
transited uncontrolled airspace

It strikes me that a pilot doesn't know that class E is controlled
airspace. Hence it was the controller who cleared the airliner to fly
that route.

Besides, as far as I know, Frankfurt-Hahn just can't be approached
without transiting class E airspace. So the only safe solution would be
to install more class D or C or a transponder mandating zone. I doubt
this would please the the glider pilots.

On 10/16/2010 2:47 AM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
On Oct 12, 12:00 pm, India wrote:
On Oct 12, 6:25 pm, Darryl wrote:





On Oct 12, 2:08 am, John wrote:

Darryl Ramm wrote:

---

Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
USA.

Allegheny 853
MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed

Pacific Southwest 182
Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed

Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
carriage requirements in the USA)
MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured

NetJets N879QS
Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)

Darryl

Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators
and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near
Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of
reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number
since the 1980s.

http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/...pp_module.show...

Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC
database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the
terms "glider" and "US air carrier".

The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these
other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between
transponder-equipped powered aircraft.

In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air
collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and
warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders
form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial
passengers are exposed to.

Ian Grant IN

There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. It would
be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider
flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for
gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the
ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...
However, probably 80% of the GA aircraft in the US are transponder
equipped, while this is probably on the case for 10% of gliders.

--
Mike Schumann

Did I strike a nerve????

If you want to talk about BS, then lets look at your claim that FLARM is
the world wide leader in collision avoidance for glider - glider
threats. No one denies that this is the case in Europe and elsewhere in
the world. In the US, FLARM currently does not exist, so it is
currently not a factor.

You make a very good case about how screwed up the FAA is and how the
ADS-B scene has been complicated by the dual link architecture, etc.....
No one disagrees with this assessment. The obvious question is how do
we improve this situation by introducing a 3rd incompatible option?????

Conversely to your insulting posting, I am not blindly advocating UAT
over all other alternatives. What I am suggesting is that we need a low
cost ADS-B solution so that it will be widely deployed, quickly. Given
that UAT has apparently stalled out, and that there seems to be
increasingly competitive 1090ES solutions coming on the market, maybe
that should be the technical solution we should get on board with,
particularly so we can get TCAS visibility.

What is very frustrating for me to witness is the lack of any strategic
focus on getting the FAA and glider specific avionics manufacturers to
come up with a unified ADS-B strategy so that we have equipment that
will take advantage of the national ground station system that will be
fully deployed by the end of 2012.

Instead, we have everyone drinking the FLARM koolaid, and disparaging
any other alternative viewpoints. This isn't going to help get anyone
to install FLARM or transponders.

There are some pockets where people are moving ahead (contests, Minden,
etc.). But there are a LOT of gliders flying very close to or under
Class B airspaces in the US that are not transponder equipped. It's not
that people categorically won't make the investment, but that they
aren't going to spend the money until they see a clear roadmap, so that
their investments are just throwing money down a rat hole.

Mike Schumann



On 10/16/2010 1:24 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 14, 11:43 am, Mike Schumannmike-nos...@traditions-
[snip]

The "ultimate" technology for glider to glider or glider to towplane
collision avoidance is NOT Flarm, at least in the US. For FLARM to be
effective, everyone has to install. You may get this to happen in US
contests, but it is a pipedream that there is going to be widespread
FLARM deployment outside of that limited environment.

The "ultimate" technology in the US will be ADS-B. We can debate about
whether this will be UAT or 1090ES. FLARM is just a distraction that is
confusing the issue and doesn't really address the fundamental problem
most of us face, which is collision threats with jets and other GA
(non-glider) aircraft.

--
Mike Schumann

Oh God spare us this grand standing for ADS-B and UAT technology. If
it wasn't actually important saftey issue I'd let this troll like
behavior go, but because it is I'll reply, and most of these points
are just the same I've made before. Points apparently that Mike
Schumann seems unable to comprehend or challenge in a cogent way. So
apologies to the Europeans and others for dragging this off to a non-
airline-on-glider and USA centric direction. I'll try to keep this to
the glider-glider scenario but I know I'll wander in places.

---

I'm trying to follow Mike Schumann's loopy logic here....

1. He claims ADS-B is better for glider-glider collision avoidance
than Flarm because all gliders have to install a Flarm device? -- like
WTF is he smoking? All gliders would have to install ADS-B for that to
work as well. And even if they did why would ADS-B be better at glider-
glider scenarios than the Flarm technology developed precisely for
doing that and proven in use worldwide by thousands of glider pilots
in challenging situations including busy contests.

2. He claims the fundamental problem most of us face is collision
threats with jets and other GA (non-glider) aircraft. -- That is just
obvious bull****, we all know of several collisions between gliders
and gliders and tow-planes in the USA in the last several years and
several overseas -- who here thinks collision risk with GA is more of
a blanket serious issue across the USA glider fleet? Where are all
those past collisions then? Risks scenarios will vary by location and
there will be locations where risk of a GA or airline collision may be
the main concern but it is ridiculous to claim that GA collision are
a larger risk on average for a USA glider pilot. The risk for
airliner collision is concentrated at certain locations and is a
concern mostly because the consequence x risk product is so large.

---

There is no ADS-B carriage mandate for gliders in the USA. I expect
lots (several hundreds) of gliders in the USA are going to have
PowerFLARM installed within the next year or so. Effectively none will
have ADS-B data-out. I expect the USA contest scene to rapidly get to
significant PowerFLARM adaption, helped by purchases and rental
programs that seem to be coming together. But most pre-orders and
interest in purchases that I have seen locally of PowerFLARM is from
recreational XC not contest glider pilots. And I expect to see FBOs
and clubs equipping there fleets including tow planes--at least one
local operation seems pretty committed to do that asap. It is on a
roll. But there will still be lots of people who choose not to install
Flarm products and I expect those same people would also not (because
they don't want to and/or cannot afford to) install ADS-B products,
especially ones costing significantly more.

Meanwhile ADS-B is happening so slowly it might as well be dead in the
water as far as any use in the near term is concerned for ADS-B data-
out in gliders (data-in is more doable but has serious restrictions in
the USA due to dual-link). ADS-B data-out and data-in *are*
interesting to think about on a 5-10 year scale evolution for
compatibility with GA and other traffic systems but ADS-B data-out and
data-in are *not* interesting competitively with Flarm for glider-
glider collision avoidance.

The last thing the USA glider community needs is this continued
irresponsible harping about ADS-B in an attempt to slow adoption of
technology that can save pilots lives now, whether it is Flarm for
glider-glider risks or transponders for airline and fast jet risks
etc. I had enough of the promotion of UAT as interesting future
technology 5 years ago and saw the effect that had on some people near
busy airline traffic areas like Reno and those pilots thinking they
will defer purchasing a transponder because there is going to be a
mythical $500 box that will do everything in future (never mind that
what "do everything is" was not clear in their minds or that it has no
compatibility with the TCAS systems in those airliners).

---

Back to the completely stupid claim that ADS-B is the ultimate system
for glider-glider collision avoidance. For glider-glider and glider-
towplane collision avoidance Flarm is the undisputed technical and
market leader --

o Flarm has a large installed base of glider users worldwide. It is a
proven technology for glider-glider collision avoidance. Proven in
real world situations like major glider contests and worldwide by many
thousands of users.

o Flarm devices are relatively low cost to purchase and install.

o Flarm devices are compact and draw low power suitable for use in a
glider.

o A Flarm box includes receiver and transmitter capabilities *and*
processes and triggers audible and visual (internal or remote display)
warnings.

o Flarm collision avoidance algorithms (in the Flarm box) are designed
for glider-glider type scenarios. Especially to avoid the significant
false alarm rate that other technology would generate in gaggle type
scenarios, while on-tow, etc.

o Flarm devices include display capabilities supported by popular
soaring hardware and software vendors (to do that you need the traffic
threat processing in the box not in the external device/software - and
that is also a good for standardizing warning behavior etc.).

o Flarm supports contest/stealth behavior with log file verification
to allow use in contests. This is all debatable but the support for
the feature is at least there now. I really hate to think what
technology war would be unleashed if everybody had long range accurate
climb and position data on competitors.

---

So who is making a ADS-B based system that comes close to the above?
remembering the claim here is ADS-B will be best for glider-glider
scenarios - you cannot get close to the above list of capabilities by
taking a general purpose system and shoving it into a glider.

A UAT based systems for gliders has been talked about a lot by Mike
Schumann and others - so which manufacturer is going to deliver these
capabilities targeted specifically at the tiny USA glider community?
Maybe Mike can tell us who that will be.

There is UAT stuff designed for GA use is things like the NavWorx UAT
transceiver products we've heard Mike Schumann promoting here before.
And there is also the FreeFlight Rangr UAT transceiver series coming
to market (I've got bored making fun of the NavWorx product for use in
gliders so I'll pick on the FreeFlight one now...). The FreeFlight
Rangr is based on the Mitre prototype we've heard so much about (the
NavWorks was not based on Mitre) and it costs ~$5k for the transceiver
with no GPS and $7k for the transceiver with GPS (prices are lower for
non-TSO products for experimental aircraft and I expect given recent
FAA rulings on STC approval requirements we won't be sneaking non-TSO
ADS-B transmitters into certified gliders) and then you have to add an
external display/processor and the transceiver alone draws 0.7A @ 12V
and you still don't get collision avoidance warnings/false alarm
reduction necessary for things like thermalling with other gliders. So
yes prices will fall but where do the magic economics/market dynamics
come from that has somebody building this ADS-B UAT based system to
have the features needed for use in gliders?

Same for 1090ES based collision avoidance systems. Who is going to
build a system for the needs of the glider community? At least with
1090ES there is more of a worldwide market (even if there is still USA
specific issues with 1090ES). Oh wait there is a 1090ES receiver
coming to the USA market soon... and its PowerFLARM. But wait, any
glider pilot who wants to avoid other gliders and towplanes just
installs the PowerFLARM and it all just works. No adding ADS-B
anything, no additional $5k+ worth of hardware, no dealing with FAA
STC approval. And all the other gliders are much more likely to have
Flarm installed than ADS-B, and it all works properly for a glider
environment. So purely for glider-glider and glider-towplane collision
avoidance I don't see a reason for a USA glider pilot to install more
than PowerFLARM (and it has PCAS that works out of the box with not
extra hardware and gives compatibility with those of us who have
transponders in our gliders today and 1090ES data-in for visibility of
1090ES data-out equipped traffic as they equip).

---

In the USA ADS-B dual-link pretty much guarantees that a single link
layer ADS-B receiver will not work reliably as a collision avoidance
tool at low altitudes and other areas outside of GBT (ADS-B ground
station coverage). AOPA is starting to realize this in GA land and was
trying to get more GBT stations located near GA airports so ADS-B
could be a useful traffic collision avoidance tool near those airports
etc. But that is not going to happen widely. So unless there is wide
spread adoption of dual-link (1090ES+UAT) receivers (with a single-
channel transmitter) ADS-B itself as a collision avoidance technology
in the GA market has some serious issues. It looks like there are
areas of the USA where the GBT (ground station) coverage will be
horrible, and those areas just happen to be around significant gliding
locations like Southern Utah/Parowan and the White Mountains/Inyokern
Valley and other bits along the Sierras and lots of other places in
the middle of the USA. Low level coverage on ridges out east may also
be poor. For ADS-B as collision avoidance technology to work well
outside GBT coverage you either need to force adoption of one-link
layer across the US glider community or wait for dual-link receivers/
transceivers (with single link transmitters) to be developed (at more
cost).

So mmmmm what do we do as pilots at risk of mid-air collisions
today....keep waiting for maybe some future dual-link devices that
also has to meet those "designed for use in gliders" requirements I
list above? How many more pilots do we need to put at risk? Meanwhile
we can standardize on Flarm as the collision avoidance protocol to use
*now* and know it will work glider-glider without requiring ADS-B GBT
ground station coverage, or worrying about any of all the other crap
associated with ADS-B.

And the FAA just seriously jammed up the works by requiring STCs for
every ADS-B data-out installation. Anybody aware of a manufacturer
working on an STC approval for ADS-B data-out for their glider type?
It is not any impact on ADS-B data-out adoption in gliders that is the
real issue here, more importantly this is going to significantly slow
ADS-B data-out adoption in the GA market (if you want to "see" those
aircraft they need ADS-B data-out, and there has been no incentive for
them to equip and now there is a stronger disincentive to even try).
And this recent FAA ruling may also have smaller ADS-B vendors
businesses at risk. It just likely set back ADS-B deployment in the
USA by years (or however long it will take the FAA to undo this
"temporary" requirement and the industry to recover from the damage).

---

No single traffic collision avoidance technology well addresses major
scenarios like glider-glider, glider-GA, glider-airliner etc. And this
will not change for the foreseeable future. So if the pilot of that
PowerFLARM equipped glider also flies in areas of high density airline
and fast jet traffic or near lots of GA traffic they can consider
adding a Mode S or Mode C transponder. In the longer term they could
also add ADS-B data-out, either with a UAT or 1090ES. If they want a
transponder and ADS-B data-out then the logical choice is likely a
Mode S transponder like a Trig TT-21 with 1090ES data-out. But for
glider-glider scenarios there is absolutely no reason to look beyond
Flarm (PowerFLARM in the USA) --it is the ultimate technology designed
specifically for that application and it does it well.

Oh well, sorry, I know I should just ignore the trolls.

Darryl