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

ANPRM - removal of transponder exception for gliders



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 16th 15, 07:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
son_of_flubber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,550
Default ANPRM - removal of transponder exception for gliders

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 1:44:47 PM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 12:19:19 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

Is it reasonable to argue that a Trig TT21 (130 watt) should be acceptable for glider use due to my lower speed, rather than just the TT22 (250 watt)? Is there any chance that the FAA would grandfather in TT21s in any new regulations?


Son, your transponder (TT21) is already acceptable. No need to "grandfather" it.


My limited understanding... Due to the 130 watt output, the TT21 is not 2020 compliant, so even if I invested in a TSO'd GPS source, I could not use the TT21's ADS-B out capability. The 250 watt 2020 requirement is based on the closing speed of two aircraft and since a glider is slow (or stationary in wave) I'd conjecture that it was not needed. ADS-B out at 130 watts is much better than no ADS-B out.

From Trig website:

What are the differences between the TT21 and TT22?
Both models have the same physical dimensions and advantages of size and ease of installation. The TT21 is a 130 watt Class 2 transponder; this makes it ideal for light sports and regular GA use. The TT22 is a 250 watt Class 1 transponder, ideally suited to higher performance and/or high altitude performance types.
In the U.S. the FAA has stated that Class 1 transponders must be used to be '2020 complaint' For U.S. customers Trig recommends the TT22 unit for this reason.
  #12  
Old June 16th 15, 07:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default ANPRM - removal of transponder exception for gliders

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 10:44:47 AM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 11:32:16 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:

Many who have fitted Mode-S transponders already have the equipment and electrical load to transmit position and velocity data to the collision avoidance system. If Flarm would just certify their GPS as TSO-C199 compliant, then many of us would already have the equipment required.


Nope, Jfitch. You would not. TABS will transmit your position for a TCAS enabled plane to see. Flarm does not do that. Only way to do that now is with a transponder. Maybe in a couple of years (the TSO for TABS was just released in October of 2014), there will be a complete, TABS system available. But, it will have to cost a whole bunch less than a transponder to draw any real interest in adoption.

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 12:19:19 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

Is it reasonable to argue that a Trig TT21 (130 watt) should be acceptable for glider use due to my lower speed, rather than just the TT22 (250 watt)? Is there any chance that the FAA would grandfather in TT21s in any new regulations?


Son, your transponder (TT21) is already acceptable. No need to "grandfather" it.

Does PowerFlarm alert to TABS equipped aircraft?


No. PowerFlarm will not alert TABS equipped aircraft. PowerFlarm only "alerts" other Flarm devices as to your presence. TABS will be a "dumb" system, as it only talks. It does not listen. It will tell the heavies "Look out! Something is out here!" But it will not tell you "Look out! Something is trying to run over you!"

My read on this based on my current understandings.

Steve Leonard


I was not suggesting that the Flarm alone would alert TABS equipped aircraft, but the GPS already installed in the Flarm could be used as a GPS source for your already installed Mode S transponder, all that is then required is a cable.

The best solution for both gliders and light power is exactly this - using the installed Mode S capability as a transmitter and cheap GPS for not as capable - but still perfectly adequate for collision avoidance - substitute for ADS-B out.
  #13  
Old June 16th 15, 07:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default ANPRM - removal of transponder exception for gliders

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 11:04:56 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 1:44:47 PM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 12:19:19 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

Is it reasonable to argue that a Trig TT21 (130 watt) should be acceptable for glider use due to my lower speed, rather than just the TT22 (250 watt)? Is there any chance that the FAA would grandfather in TT21s in any new regulations?


Son, your transponder (TT21) is already acceptable. No need to "grandfather" it.


My limited understanding... Due to the 130 watt output, the TT21 is not 2020 compliant, so even if I invested in a TSO'd GPS source, I could not use the TT21's ADS-B out capability. The 250 watt 2020 requirement is based on the closing speed of two aircraft and since a glider is slow (or stationary in wave) I'd conjecture that it was not needed. ADS-B out at 130 watts is much better than no ADS-B out.

From Trig website:

What are the differences between the TT21 and TT22?
Both models have the same physical dimensions and advantages of size and ease of installation. The TT21 is a 130 watt Class 2 transponder; this makes it ideal for light sports and regular GA use. The TT22 is a 250 watt Class 1 transponder, ideally suited to higher performance and/or high altitude performance types.
In the U.S. the FAA has stated that Class 1 transponders must be used to be '2020 complaint' For U.S. customers Trig recommends the TT22 unit for this reason.


A very cursory reading of TSO-C199 suggests that a TT21 would work for this, probably needing a firmware update. The transmit power required appears to be 70 watts.

If the proposed rule making and TS0-C199 equipment could be so aligned that existing ADB compliant installations (in gliders there are only 2 or 3 brands), preferably with cheap or existing GPS receivers can be made to work (and I can see no reason why it would be technically difficult) then for many private gliders the cost would be low. For gliders with no current Mode S transponder, the costs would be approximately what a transponder install costs today ($3K maybe?).
  #14  
Old June 16th 15, 08:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Leonard[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default ANPRM - removal of transponder exception for gliders

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 1:32:53 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

If the proposed rule making and TS0-C199 equipment could be so aligned that existing ADB compliant installations (in gliders there are only 2 or 3 brands), preferably with cheap or existing GPS receivers can be made to work (and I can see no reason why it would be technically difficult) then for many private gliders the cost would be low. For gliders with no current Mode S transponder, the costs would be approximately what a transponder install costs today ($3K maybe?).


I think you mixed a couple of terms. If you have an ADS-B compliant installation, you don't need the cheap/existing GPS source. If you have Mode S, then if the regs align and you can get a cheap/existing GPS approved, then the cost would be low.

But, this is "supposed" to be an option for a system that is to be much lower cost than a transponder. Not as something to put with you existing transponder. Think "handheld radio price-point". The exemption exists primarily because the cost was too great. The lack of an electrical system was chosen as a dividing line.

In the mean time, we wait as Darryl Ramm reads TSO-C199 to see how the government has once again written a spec to assure high prices...

Steve Leonard


  #15  
Old June 16th 15, 08:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default ANPRM - removal of transponder exception for gliders

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 2:32:53 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 11:04:56 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 1:44:47 PM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 12:19:19 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

Is it reasonable to argue that a Trig TT21 (130 watt) should be acceptable for glider use due to my lower speed, rather than just the TT22 (250 watt)? Is there any chance that the FAA would grandfather in TT21s in any new regulations?


Son, your transponder (TT21) is already acceptable. No need to "grandfather" it.


My limited understanding... Due to the 130 watt output, the TT21 is not 2020 compliant, so even if I invested in a TSO'd GPS source, I could not use the TT21's ADS-B out capability. The 250 watt 2020 requirement is based on the closing speed of two aircraft and since a glider is slow (or stationary in wave) I'd conjecture that it was not needed. ADS-B out at 130 watts is much better than no ADS-B out.

From Trig website:

What are the differences between the TT21 and TT22?
Both models have the same physical dimensions and advantages of size and ease of installation. The TT21 is a 130 watt Class 2 transponder; this makes it ideal for light sports and regular GA use. The TT22 is a 250 watt Class 1 transponder, ideally suited to higher performance and/or high altitude performance types.
In the U.S. the FAA has stated that Class 1 transponders must be used to be '2020 complaint' For U.S. customers Trig recommends the TT22 unit for this reason.


A very cursory reading of TSO-C199 suggests that a TT21 would work for this, probably needing a firmware update. The transmit power required appears to be 70 watts.

If the proposed rule making and TS0-C199 equipment could be so aligned that existing ADB compliant installations (in gliders there are only 2 or 3 brands), preferably with cheap or existing GPS receivers can be made to work (and I can see no reason why it would be technically difficult) then for many private gliders the cost would be low. For gliders with no current Mode S transponder, the costs would be approximately what a transponder install costs today ($3K maybe?).


What do people see for transponder install costs? There seems to be quite
a few already installed out there, but I haven't heard what it takes
beyond what the units cost.

Matt
  #16  
Old June 16th 15, 09:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
son_of_flubber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,550
Default ANPRM - removal of transponder exception for gliders


What do people see for transponder install costs? There seems to be quite
a few already installed out there, but I haven't heard what it takes
beyond what the units cost.

Matt


Having just spent a good soaring day driving to the airport, trailering the glider to the avionics shop appointment, then back to the home airport, then driving back home from the home airport, I'd note that Avionic's technician's availability, capacity, and willingness to work on gliders is a hidden cost. The fee quoted for biennial transponder certification by two shops was $50 and $125.

The previous owner who installed my Trig trailered four hours one way to a tech who was willing to install it.
  #17  
Old June 16th 15, 11:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
George Haeh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 167
Default ANPRM - removal of transponder exception for gliders

In a glass glider, you can mount a
transponder internal antenna in the nose
cone, and trailer it to a power A&P who
can certify it for $90 or so.

Carbon requires either an external
antenna and ground plane (maybe upper
and lower) or routing coax to the fin while
making very sure it won't in any way
interfere with the elevator pushrod.

Maintaining power is a big problem as
you can't just slap a solar panel on a
turtledeck without treating the underlying
area to maintain structural integrity with
the higher temperatures.

Many gliders now run Flarm which does a
really good job of spotting ADS-B traffic
from way far away without eating up
power. Flarm gives pilots the information
to get out of the way of any ADS-B emitter
and should be acceptable as a minimal
means of compliance.

If the authorities allow us to use Flarm as
a position source to a Trig, we would be
visible to ATC and ADS-B receivers.

  #18  
Old June 17th 15, 12:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bill T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 275
Default ANPRM - removal of transponder exception for gliders

We just paid on average, $150 per aircraft for an avionics tech to come to use with his portable equipment and complete the two year check on 4 gliders and a tow plane. $125/aircraft plus shared travel expenses.

From what I can find on TABS, it can be about the size on a Nano GPS reciever, self contained battery operated, but no details about transmitter antenna requirements. TABS is designed for gliders, free balloons, hang gliders and parachute, para gliders. So it could be about the size of a SPOT and carried by the pilot, not the aircraft.

At a reasonable cost, it's a lot better than being grounded. How much did you pay for your SPOT and Nano?
BillT
  #19  
Old June 17th 15, 02:31 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default ANPRM - removal of transponder exception for gliders

I installed my TT-22 myself so cost was limited to coaxial cable a TNC
for the transponder and a BNC for the antenna plus the cost of the
antenna. Then I paid an avionics shop to test the installation. I
don't recall what that cost. BTW, my LAK-17a is EXPERIMENTAL.

On 6/16/2015 1:05 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 2:32:53 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 11:04:56 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 1:44:47 PM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 12:19:19 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

Is it reasonable to argue that a Trig TT21 (130 watt) should be acceptable for glider use due to my lower speed, rather than just the TT22 (250 watt)? Is there any chance that the FAA would grandfather in TT21s in any new regulations?

Son, your transponder (TT21) is already acceptable. No need to "grandfather" it.

My limited understanding... Due to the 130 watt output, the TT21 is not 2020 compliant, so even if I invested in a TSO'd GPS source, I could not use the TT21's ADS-B out capability. The 250 watt 2020 requirement is based on the closing speed of two aircraft and since a glider is slow (or stationary in wave) I'd conjecture that it was not needed. ADS-B out at 130 watts is much better than no ADS-B out.

From Trig website:

What are the differences between the TT21 and TT22?
Both models have the same physical dimensions and advantages of size and ease of installation. The TT21 is a 130 watt Class 2 transponder; this makes it ideal for light sports and regular GA use. The TT22 is a 250 watt Class 1 transponder, ideally suited to higher performance and/or high altitude performance types.
In the U.S. the FAA has stated that Class 1 transponders must be used to be '2020 complaint' For U.S. customers Trig recommends the TT22 unit for this reason.

A very cursory reading of TSO-C199 suggests that a TT21 would work for this, probably needing a firmware update. The transmit power required appears to be 70 watts.

If the proposed rule making and TS0-C199 equipment could be so aligned that existing ADB compliant installations (in gliders there are only 2 or 3 brands), preferably with cheap or existing GPS receivers can be made to work (and I can see no reason why it would be technically difficult) then for many private gliders the cost would be low. For gliders with no current Mode S transponder, the costs would be approximately what a transponder install costs today ($3K maybe?).

What do people see for transponder install costs? There seems to be quite
a few already installed out there, but I haven't heard what it takes
beyond what the units cost.

Matt


--
Dan Marotta

  #20  
Old June 17th 15, 03:55 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 463
Default ANPRM - removal of transponder exception for gliders

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 8:31:58 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
I installed my TT-22 myself so cost was limited to coaxial cable a
TNC for the transponder and a BNC for the antenna plus the cost of
the antenna.* Then I paid an avionics shop to test the
installation.* I don't recall what that cost.* BTW, my LAK-17a is
EXPERIMENTAL.




On 6/16/2015 1:05 PM,
wrote:



On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 2:32:53 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:


On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 11:04:56 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:


On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 1:44:47 PM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:



On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 12:19:19 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:



Is it reasonable to argue that a Trig TT21 (130 watt) should be acceptable for glider use due to my lower speed, rather than just the TT22 (250 watt)? Is there any chance that the FAA would grandfather in TT21s in any new regulations?



Son, your transponder (TT21) is already acceptable. No need to "grandfather" it.



My limited understanding... Due to the 130 watt output, the TT21 is not 2020 compliant, so even if I invested in a TSO'd GPS source, I could not use the TT21's ADS-B out capability. The 250 watt 2020 requirement is based on the closing speed of two aircraft and since a glider is slow (or stationary in wave) I'd conjecture that it was not needed. ADS-B out at 130 watts is much better than no ADS-B out.

From Trig website:

What are the differences between the TT21 and TT22?
Both models have the same physical dimensions and advantages of size and ease of installation. The TT21 is a 130 watt Class 2 transponder; this makes it ideal for light sports and regular GA use. The TT22 is a 250 watt Class 1 transponder, ideally suited to higher performance and/or high altitude performance types.
In the U.S. the FAA has stated that Class 1 transponders must be used to be '2020 complaint' For U.S. customers Trig recommends the TT22 unit for this reason.


A very cursory reading of TSO-C199 suggests that a TT21 would work for this, probably needing a firmware update. The transmit power required appears to be 70 watts.

If the proposed rule making and TS0-C199 equipment could be so aligned that existing ADB compliant installations (in gliders there are only 2 or 3 brands), preferably with cheap or existing GPS receivers can be made to work (and I can see no reason why it would be technically difficult) then for many private gliders the cost would be low. For gliders with no current Mode S transponder, the costs would be approximately what a transponder install costs today ($3K maybe?).


What do people see for transponder install costs? There seems to be quite
a few already installed out there, but I haven't heard what it takes
beyond what the units cost.

Matt





--

Dan Marotta


Same as Dan, installed the Microair many years ago myself in my Experimental glider. VFR only transponder check runs $100 in our Chicago area club, an avionics shop does all club gliders and tow ships as well as on average 10 private gliders, no fuss.
 




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
New Transponder Code (1202) for Gliders (Effective Feb 9, 2012) CLewis95 Soaring 14 May 25th 11 11:09 PM
New Transponder Code (1202) for Gliders (Effective Feb 9, 2012) 5Z Soaring 2 May 25th 11 11:02 PM
Non-discrete transponder codes for gliders zulu Soaring 2 January 3rd 10 05:10 AM
(USA) NTSB issues recommendations to the FAA and the SSA regarding transponder use in gliders BT Soaring 78 July 25th 08 06:26 PM
(USA) NTSB issues recommendations to the FAA and the SSAregarding transponder use in gliders Andy[_1_] Soaring 4 May 22nd 08 05:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.