[map5623]

This is good work by FASVIG.
However as pilot of an annex 2 aircraft without a mode S ES box, this does nothing for us, unless the group is happy to fork out £3-4K, which at the minute makes it a non-starter.
As a pilot that flies close to several major gliding sites I am more personally concerned about the lack of visibility of FLARM and installing the above will not give any indication of FLARM.
I am sorry to say that until the authority sorts the FLARM issue out it will be a non started for may, I stand to be corrected on this.

[CloudHound]

A favourite word of mine when working for the CAA was "interoperability".

It's a word that seeks to explain why systems have to be accessible and useable across all participants. I used red traffic lights as my example; imagine different colours in different countries!

So the owners of the FLARM ip rights refusal to allow other systems to contact or be contacted flies, literally, in the face of interoperability. If anything could move things forward this would be my target.

[FASVIGcoord]

Hi again Fasvig Coord,

I get your comments regarding LAA (and BMAA) acceptance for a GPS source other than SIL=0 and the need to update their processes. However, it is not clear to me what if any, are the advantages or benefit of paying largish sums for a certified source over the non-certified source available from my PilotAware set-up for flying in European airspace?

Keep up the good work.

Hi Chris,

EASA appear to be doing little currently to support SIL/SDA=0 ADS-B (you've probably seen the CS-STAN references).

Wrt current generation CAT TCAS, they do not 'see' ADS-B broadcasts but new generation ACAS X devices (anticipated from 2020 onwards - see here https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/nm/safety/ACAS/safety-acas-II-guide.pdf) will see 'see' ADS-B (though whether they will honour SIL=0 or SDA=0 I do not know - standards are still developing).

I have been campaigning for support for non-cert GPS ADS-B because many pilots/aircraft already have equipment that can deliver SIL/SDA=0 ADS-B Out, so if we want to quickly and cost-effectively grow the ADS-B base then these are the low-hanging fruit.

Hope that helps a little.

[FASVIGcoord]

This is good work by FASVIG.
However as pilot of an annex 2 aircraft without a mode S ES box, this does nothing for us, unless the group is happy to fork out £3-4K, which at the minute makes it a non-starter.
As a pilot that flies close to several major gliding sites I am more personally concerned about the lack of visibility of FLARM and installing the above will not give any indication of FLARM.
I am sorry to say that until the authority sorts the FLARM issue out it will be a non started for may, I stand to be corrected on this.

Hi map5623,
Some thoughts on your post:

- As explained, the paper does not seek to address all issues with ADS-B but focusses on 'Quick Win' actions that can be delivered hopefully this year.

- Put yourself in the position of someone who already has a capable Mode S ES transponder and a suitable GPS - is it not sensible to try to remove obstacles preventing these people from doing ADS-B Out?

- Your pricing estimate for a Mode S ES transponder I think is too high. £1668 will currently buy one.

- I appreciate your concern re: gliders but statistics show power GA a/c vs glider collision risk being much lower than powered GA vs powered GA collision risk.

- The BGA are now seeking to explore how they can get the best out of ADS-B to support gliders.

- There is nothing stopping you installing a PowerFLARM if that is your wish.

- How about the above £1668 Mode S ES transponder plus an AirAvionics TRX-1500 (€1299)?
This combination gives you ADS-B In & Out, FLARM In & Out plus distance & relative height info for conventional Mode S traffic too. Add an AirConnect (€159) for traffic display on your tablet device plus some antenna.

[mmcp42]

A favourite word of mine when working for the CAA was "interoperability".

It's a word that seeks to explain why systems have to be accessible and useable across all participants. I used red traffic lights as my example; imagine different colours in different countries!

So the owners of the FLARM ip rights refusal to allow other systems to contact or be contacted flies, literally, in the face of interoperability. If anything could move things forward this would be my target.

the current farcical situation is more like different vehicle types using different colours in the same country!

[Cub]

I am sorry to say that until the authority sorts the FLARM issue out it will be a non started for may, I stand to be corrected on this.

Why would the Authority sort FLARM? That is a bit like saying the Authority should tell Tim how to develop SkyDemon. The Authority will 'sort' and regulate functionality operating within the aviation spectrum and delivering the best interoperability with other certified and regulated systems.

[insink]

perhaps because, until the flarm problem is solved there will be no cost effective, sensible solutions available.
It may be that legislation is required or to require that equipment is open scource though I can imagine the can of worms that would represent!

[leemoore1966]

Hi insink

perhaps because, until the flarm problem is solved there will be no cost effective, sensible solutions available.

We have been working very hard with the OGN, Glider and GA Pilots, to implement the interoperability between OGN captured data and PilotAware.
We now have ground stations appearing by the week, here is a map of coverage since the announcement last month, there are currently 25 new stations planned in the immediate term, and more in the pipeline

[url]http://flarmrange.onglide.com/?#PW%,max,all,52.20229_-0.91029,8,#00990000:#009900ff,[/url]

[map5623]

Why would the Authority sort FLARM?

Well perhaps they might like to be a bit pro-active in the user airspace, conspicuity area, rather than being the lacky of CAT.
I am sorry to say that my general views on how the CAA does things is shown in this video http://www.ftnonline.co.uk/2017/05/15/p ... anagement/ and who they seem to serve.
Do you have any suggestions on how inter-operability might work re the gliding community using FLARM and the other airspace users using the 1090 frequency, excluding CAT.

[Paul_Sengupta]

Have I understood correctly, please?

I'd be a bit wary. Is your GNS 430 the standard, or "W" (WAAS/EGNOS) variety? As I understand it, some American transponder kit only emits ADS-B when fed with a WAAS source. I may be wrong, but this may apply to transponders such as the Garmin 330ES and the Bendix King KT74. We were told previously that you had to connect a "certified GPS". But a non WAAS 430 might not do it. Would be nice to get an official line. I'd be interested in the answer.

Would also be nice to get a 330 upgrade!