Nigel This might add an interesting dimension to competition tracking if each glider were fitted with an ADS-B transponder, and portable ground stations capable of relaying data to a web site for live tracking feeds could be used to give ground crew back at the launch point some idea of where everyone is at.
Of course, whether you then give each competitor a receiver to allow them to track their opposition or not is another question for competition organisers. Perhaps issues with too much time spent in the cockpit, thus reduced lookout and safety. Even if receivers were not not fitted (or permitted) in the glider, ground support crew might be able to radio details to their person in the air about rivals tactics. I agree with Stephen Kittel re: the dangers of "assumed safety" if a glider or other aircraft doesn't appear on the receiver, one might be lulled into believing they aren't there at all, when in fact their transponder might have a fault, low battery, etc. And of course, the power-thirstiness of such a beast might still be a problem for gliders with 7Ah batteries. Still, an interesting idea which might have novel uses in competitions. The idea of real-time tracking of tactics certainly makes them less boring for spectators. Cheers Jason On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 07:23:52 +1000, RF Developments wrote > Just a note for those who may not know, there is a trial of a system > ( which I am involved in as well ) using GPS and modified > transponder transmitters to broadcast ADS-B messages, which are GPS > derived. This system hopefully will replace the existing mode A/C > transponders we currently use. The plan is to roll out as many > ground stations ( which are receiving only ) as possible to cover a > fairly large area of Australia, previously not covered by the > conventional transponder interrogators. The new unit will require no > pilot intervention, as the messages are broadcasted from your > aircraft twice a second, which your call sign, heading, altitude, > integrity etc. One safety benefit is that for under a few hundred > dollars, you should be able to buy a receiver with LCD screen, that > will display all aircraft broadcasting in your area ( line of site ), > in effect, a crash avoidance and traffic alert! > > The whole ADS-B system has many other features, the Air Services > Australia website has an excellent web presence dedicated to the ADS- > B trials which are currently going ( the ADS-B receiver is at > Bundaberg ) , Honeywell have won the tender to supply 17 aircraft > and Microair ( whom I am contracted to develop this ) will supply > the low cost GA/UL/Gliding version, based on the current T2000 technology. > > Cheers, Nigel > > Nigel Andrews > Managing Director > RF Developments Pty Ltd > "A Queensland Company devoted to Research and Development in aviation > electronics" > Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Web www.rf-developments.com > Ph: (61) 7 54635670 Fax: (61) 7 54635695 > > ********************************DISCLAIMER**************************** > > The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages > (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally > privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity > to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of > disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken > or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. If you received > this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and > delete it from your computer system network. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike > Borgelt > Sent: Sunday, 31 August 2003 8:41 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [aus-soaring] RE: National Airspace System [HyperScan 1.7] > > At 11:33 AM 30/08/03 +1000, you wrote: > >At 08:27 29-08-03 +1000, Mike Borgelt wrote: > >>Did anyone else go to the briefings that have been held around > >>Australia over the last 3 weeks on the the new airspace system? > > > >The Canberra briefing - the first one - was also well-attended. It > >sounds > >like they have now got the presentation so slick that most people will > not > >recognise the lack of substance behind the slick exterior. > > > >>The good news is that there seems to be an outbreak of common sense at > > >>CASA. > > > > Obviously there are exceptions... like Wombat. > > >I'm mystified why Mike thinks that changing one set of semi-arbitrary > >airspace design (and circuit procedures) for another will be a > >world-shattering event with such incredible (the favourite word of the > >chief promoter of the system) outcomes and benefits for everybody. > > Perhaps because the proposed rules are used by at least 20 times the > traffic volume of Australia and have been shown to work well over a long > time. > > >Flying > >at least three legs of the circuit on arriving at an aerodrome is the > >standard practice worldwide - > > Yes but not always a legal requirement where you can be prosecuted if > you don't do it even where a straight in or join on base is the most > obvious and safest thing in the circumstances. > > > but Australia already has several exceptions > >(not the least being for gliders) - though I will be surprised if we > >actually do get away from a culture of wanting everything in black and > >white law - it's in our deepest roots from early European settlement. > > I'm sure it will be in black and white as a *recommended* practice > not a requirement regardless of the circumstances. We could get away > from that culture by inviting imported pommy bureaucrats to return > to the old country. > > > > > > What difference does it make to say 'join on one of the legs of the > circuit > +/- 45 degrees' or 'join at 45 degrees to the circuit leg +/- 45 > degrees'? > > It is a join on downwind at 45 degrees. You get to be able to see the > whole > circuit area and runway before getting into the circuit. Seems like a > good > idea to me. Note however it is a recommended standard procedure not a > requirement. > > All of our aerodromes that are busy enough to need that to > segregate inbound and outbound traffic are controlled anyway! > > Maybe better procedures could result in some tower closures. I don't > like > paying avgas taxes for control towers that should be closed. > > >Like omitting some important information on useful radio frequencies > (area > >VHF and Flightwatch) so people have to look them up in ERSA instead... > > There won't even be Area frequencies for VFR.... just like in the > USA. No glider pilot should be worried about this as we've never routinely > monitored these anyway. Has any glider pilot ever missed having this? > Why > should you worry just because you are flying a powered aircraft? > > > > >>It wasn't all airspace changes. These led to some discussion of pilot > risk > >>management and setting priorities and a little on why we fly and how > to get > >>more people into it. > > > >But they did not acknowledge that Australia has 20 million people and > the > >US has 280 million, so has a larger customer base. > > Yes they did in Brisbane. > > Sure, the Kings do some > >slick marketing to sell a good product at a top price - > > Yes they are out there doing something productive which people will > voluntarily part with money for in a competitive environment and they > are > obviously successful and good at it. What do you do? > > but there are > >plenty of very ordinary flying schools in the US as well. > > There's a point to that? > > Very few cities > >in the US with less than 300,000 population get an air service - where > does > >that leave the likes of Hobart and Launceston - or Canberra, Alice > Springs, > >Darwin??? > > Again ????? I'm sure that is news to the inhabitants of Billings, > Montana(pop about 100,000 which had about 3 airlines with twice daily > 727/737 services to Denver, Seattle etc from my personal experience > in 1996). Have you ever been to the US and looked around at the aviation > scene? > > > > >>Also a few little humorous asides from John and Martha. In the US when > you > >>land at an airport there are likely to be people waving at you to get > you > >>to buy fuel from them not the next guy. > > > >So how many country aerodromes here have two fuel agents? How many > have > >enough business to be manned full-time, even during business hours? > Though > >the best I know is the lady who sells (or used to - I heard she had > closed > >down due to overhead costs ) fuel at Leigh Creek - always got a > friendly > >welcome there. > > After 50 + years of bureaucratic repression I'm amazed that there is > any Australian aviation and fuel agents at all. The point was the difference > between the friendly welcome in the US and what will happen here > where it is difficult to find the fuel agent or even the (unmarked) transient > aircraft parking area in too many cases. It is caused by lack of > critical > mass for which we can at least partly blame Wombat and his ilk. > > > > >>The Kings and Mike Smith are hopeful that the NAS will lead to a > cultural > >>change in Australian aviation and so result in greater participation. > > > >The biggest cultural change affecting participation in aviation here is > the > >increasing safety of the ultralight sector - which the US is following > with > >their Light Sport Aircraft / Sport Pilot rules 18 years after we did it > - > >look at the number of gliding clubs nowadays that also have ultralight > >aeroplanes. > > You conveniently forget that the US has had experimental homebuilts > since > 1954, a sensible proven airspace system and infinitely better and > simpler > rules(the FAR's are about 1/5 the size of the Oz rules). They had no > real > need for our ultralight rules and if our new Part 61(RPL) as in the NPRM > gets up along with our version of the US Light Sport Aircraft > certification > rules there won't be much point to a separate ultralight movement > here either. I know this is worrying the occupants of the cushy jobs > at the AUF because they keep bleating about it in their magazine. > Having a separate ultralight movement , separate gliding movement > etc sure splits and dilutes the private/recreational aviation lobby. > > By the way CASA or its predecessors didn't *invent* the Australian > ultralight movement. It happened because mainstream aviation was too > difficult or expensive(at least partly because of regulator imposed > rules > and costs). The people in the ultralights, by being excluded from the > mainstream went through a painful learning process measured in dead and > broken bodies. Care to take some responsibility for this? > > 20 million people cannot support the scale of aviation in the > >US - but note that Australia has the fifth largest civil aircraft > register > >(after USA - Canada - France and UK) even without including the > ultralights. > > Right , France and the UK with lousy weather and super expensive fuel > and > far less utility for private aircraft have more aircraft than we do. > Wonderful! How come Canada has more aircraft than we do? We ought to > at least have the per capita participation of the US and arguably > more as the US has a well developed transport infrastructure. > > > >The biggest cultural change we need is to stop the press telling us the > sky > >is falling in every time an aeroplane crashes - public confidence in > >aviation is what is needed more than any glossy change in how we run > our > >airspace. > > Happens in the US too. Of course here the CASA and predecessors > bureaucracy > have used the publicity to increase their power and control. Can you > guys > please stop doing that? What hypocrisy! > > We can never have the US system in full without the US amount of > >radar coverage, and our population just will not support that. > > Ah, the old red herring! That was brought up on the night. As Mike Smith > pointed out there isn't all that much primary radar in the US (that's > why > they are going to have transponders in airliners that cannot be > turned off after squawking 7700 in the aftermath of 911)and their > secondary radar coverage is not universal. It does have coverage > where the traffic density warrants it JUST LIKE IN AUSTRALIA. > > By the way the US system has about 7000 aircraft in the IFR system in > the > continental US at any time peaking at 9000. We have somewhat fewer than > 200 > at any time. > > > >Can anyone tell me how lowering the base of Class A airspace (IFR only > >permitted) to 18,000 ft within radar coverage is going to help glider > >pilots - I'd better go and get my Diamond height soon while I am still > >allowed to get up there! > > Sheer drivel and alarmist hype and you know it. You will have a > negotiated > wave window just like you do now and the guys at Minden, Cal City etc > get. > The difference when I was at Minden was that the airliners (737s) going > in > to Reno, Nevada(pop about 100,000)were routed below 18000 feet when the > window was active and we all had to look out on climb to and descent > from > the window. The other difference is that the western US has terrain > at 4000 to 8000 feet with mountains to 14000 and they somehow manage > to live with the base of Class A at 18000. > > Or what value Class E airspace has below (enroute > >or terminal) Lowest Safe Altitude? > > I guess when you have filed IFR and are climbing out of your > departure aerodrome and are still below the enroute and terminal > LSA? Departure minimums are usually well below approach minimums. > Something which prudent pilots take careful note of in case of a > post takeoff emergency. > > Note we used to have subterranean controlled airspace in Australia at > one > time. > > > > >>My only reservation is about the military's commitment to reducing > >>Restricted airspace and replacing it with US style MOA's. Allegedly > Angus > >>Houston(RAAF boss) is on board this. Time will tell. A little > political > >>pressure wouldn't go astray. > > > > > >But part of the NAS involves replacing Danger and Restricted areas with > > >Warning and Alert areas. And usually it's no trouble to get a > clearance > >through a Restricted area - you just have to ask! > > You need to get out more. It isn't always that easy - try Richmond. The > alternative involves flying over some very nasty country. At Oakey > you won't get a clearance to soar through it routinely which means > it is effectively denied to gliding. > > The trouble is, most > >Australian pilots have been taught that it can't be done, rather than > >taught how to do it. > > Do you fly power cross country at all? The attitude is the result of > bitter > experience of being stuffed around when trying to get a clearance > through > military restricted areas. If the clearance is readily available one > has to ask why the area is restricted. Ask around, this is a hot > topic amongst those who fly cross country in powered aircraft. The > reasonable fear is that the restricted areas will be reviewed and > remain with little or no change. > > > > >And did you notice that they made very little (if any) mention of the > claim > >that the NAS will save $70 million a year on the cost of administering > our > >airspace. The figures were always very rubbery but it now looks like > the > >potential saving may even turn out to cost us more!! Don't say nobody > told > >you. > > > >Wombat > > Obviously Wombat is part of the entrenched dinosaur faction in CASA. > The infighting must be fierce. It is nice to see public funds are being > spent > this way. Thank god we don't get all the government we pay for. > > Interestingly the decisions on the shape of our airspace reform have > already been made. I've no doubt that rear guard actions will be fought. > It > would seem reasonable to require the resignations or firing of those > public > officials who continue to oppose or hinder an agreed on policy. > > Mike > Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments > phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 > fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 > cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 > Int'l + 61 429 355784 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > website: www.borgeltinstruments.com > > -- > * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. > * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message > * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information. > > -- > * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. > * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message > * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information. -- * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information.
