Flarm, Power Flarm, SSR/TCAS, Mode C/Mode S, Primary Radar/ATS, ADS-B, Eyeball, VHF, CB, CTAF, CTAF(R) and NOTAM's
Have you guys actually had a look at the shear amount of disparate systems you have mentioned. Now lets talk about Dodo ideas as a way to put some of these idea's in perspective, like: Australian DME Betamax Video. Perhaps, before heading down all of these routes - we could convince some organisation of the need to take a common position here, that will minimise/limit non-conforming ideas from being expanded, and later reversed at personal/operator expense - and expand on using relevant systems in a situational awareness sense - and hopefully not limited to one aviation category. I don't like Flarm, due to the fact that its different from what the Majority uses. Eventually the minority, in numbers and revenue generated from activities, will be told to get in line - at their expense - are you sure you want to back the loosing horse.... About the only sensible thing from this is the instrument that Cathy Conway mentioned, as it appears to cover all bases - expensive though. Cheers John From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alan Wilson Sent: Saturday, 21 April 2012 8:41 PM To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision. I watch this radio discussion with interest. Airspace is a big haystack out there and the needles are small. Some gliders have FLARM, but powered aircraft don't. 5, or is it 10, light aircraft pilots need to be aware that there could be 200 VFR gliders airborne in G airspace between Waikerie, Benalla and Queensland on most sunny summer days. In my history I once worked in management of avionic fits to many aircraft and the big issue is getting compatible equipment fitted to all thousands of existing flying aircraft. A task generally found to be insurmountable! Secondary Surveillance Radar even mode C is 'rudimentary' in our age of computers and data. SSR data is basically allows radar or ground stations to determine position and altitude whereas flight management systems in aircraft know where the aircraft is going and when it will be there in microseconds .. and where it is going next. SSR is poor use of valuable RF spectrum and time. But it is fitted to most powered aircraft. Radio's simplex, slow, ambiguous, voice communications will never solve the safety issue, and eyesight won't either, but they all help. But voice radio is fitted to the majority of aircraft and has capabilities seldom activated that could assist safety [and confusion]. Microair's have a scan mode, selectable in two switch flicks. The radio will then scan all frequencies in its memory and stop on any that are active. Perhaps we should select scan mode whenever outside the local circuit area and scan all local frequencies. Over. Alan Wilson Canberra Gliding Club, ex RAAF, CPL, 3 Diamonds etc. PS. In WWII they used ground controlled radar approaches to talk basic pilots with only basic gyro instruments back to the runway. Then they installed ILS and required instrument rated pilots. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lucas James Sent: Saturday, 21 April, 2012 11:02 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision. On 20/04/2012 21:37, Simon Hackett wrote: In the unlikely event you've not all seen it already, here's one way the outcome could have turned out: http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html I will say that while I appreciate its an issue that more than a few glider pilots seem passionately opposed to for their own reasons, the notion of regularly operating transponders in gliders is one that I personally believe would be of active assistance here (I certainly do so). I think that doing so could directly improve safety in this regard [noting that the link above indicates the glider concerned had one, but it wasn't powered up - like all electronics, its far less effective when its switched off] I'm not directly arguing for mandating transponders in gliders (and not specifically seeking to re-start that particular debate). Rather, I'm just indicating there are significant merits in choosing to operate a transponder in a glider, because having ATC and TCAS equipped powered aircraft able to see *you* is definitely a source of additional alerted avoidance of mid air collisions - whether or not you have something in your glider that works in the other direction. I've found that air traffic control is frequently helpful to VFR and IFR aircraft, in that they will call you up proactively and advise of the presence of transponder-equipped unidentified traffic in your vicinity on a pretty routine basis. They're as interested in avoiding mid air contacts as the rest of us are. In addition, aircraft like the powered plane I'm fortunate enough to fly also paints any aircraft with a working transponder on my moving map... with position, relative altitude, and aural and visual alerting of nearby traffic. This is becoming very much more common over time, and increasingly affordable as a retrofit as well (cf. Zaon units, and the always-nearly-available Power FLARM units). As for all of the other ways we might become aware of another aircraft in our vicinity (Mark I eyeball, use of VHF radio, FLARM, hang glider pilot screaming obscenities after a powered aircraft or glider passes too close, etc)... having one more way to avoid a collision has to be a good thing, IMHO. Anyway - we all do the best we can. And if we keep looking out for (and looking after) each other, hopefully we can continue to minimise the chances of such collisions overall. Last thought I have here is that I reckon it'd be great if CASA (via the GFA?) was asked about the notion of allocating a generic transponder code for transponder-equipped gliders to use instead of 1200. That would help ATC to be sure that what they are seeing is a glider, and hence would help them to inform other traffic more usefully about the likely tracking characteristics of a glider they may wish to alert other traffic about. Regards, Simon For all that want to read the report: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20060906X01297 <http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20060906X01297&ntsbno=L AX06FA277B&akey=2> &ntsbno=LAX06FA277B&akey=2 And the recommendations: http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2008/a08_10_13.pdf http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2008/a08_14_15.pdf regards, Lucas
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
