Re: boulder mid-air

[None[_2_]]

The rules say that an aircraft towing or re-fueling has the right-of-
way over all other powered aircraft.

Please point out to critics of glider operations that every pilot is
taught this rule before flying solo and that this rule is on the
written test he or she must take before getting a license.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Feb 7, 11:27*am, None > wrote:
> The rules say that an aircraft towing or re-fueling has the right-of-
> way over all other powered aircraft.
>
> Please point out to critics of glider operations that every pilot is
> taught this rule before flying solo and that this rule is on the
> written test he or she must take before getting a license.

maybe they can write "He had the right of way" on the towpilots
gravestone.

[bildan]

On Feb 7, 10:27*am, None > wrote:
> The rules say that an aircraft towing or re-fueling has the right-of-
> way over all other powered aircraft.
>
> Please point out to critics of glider operations that every pilot is
> taught this rule before flying solo and that this rule is on the
> written test he or she must take before getting a license.

It's possibly worse than that.

The Boulder airspace available for tow planes is severely restricted
by noise sensitive areas meaning that departures and arrivals resemble
instrument flying SID's and STAR's. Every MHG aero tow departure
follows one of three tightly constrained routes. These routes are
published on local maps and posted where every local pilot can see
them. Instructors doing field checkouts and BFR's always make sure
pilots know about them.

From published photos and maps, the collision happened on the heavily
used "north mountain departure" route - ~90% of MHG tows use that
route with a tow every 5 or 10 minutes in busy times. That route has
a Minimum Crossing Altitude (MCA) at the foothills of 8300 feet MSL so
tow altitudes are also tightly constrained.

The Cirrus was registered to a Boulder resident but it's not yet clear
who was flying it. The pilot should have been very familiar with
heavy aero tow traffic on the north mountain departure and known
exactly where tows are likely to be encountered.

[gen]

One of the questions not answered yet is whether the Cirrus was on
flight following or not. Boulder is a few miles outside of Denver
International's airspace, but within 30 nm from it, meaning all
powered planes are required to have mode C transponders. I assume that
both the Cirrus and tow plane had ones. When I flew at Boulder with
MHG for a couple of weeks last summer, I was shocked by the amount of
traffic I saw. Especially, the traffic south of Boulder was like 6
times more crowded than the traffic I'm used to in Truckee/Minden area
(note that Reno is class C and Denver is class B). I cannot think of
flying into such an area without flight following by Denver approach.

My condolence to the towpilot's families. I hope that this isn't the
young ones who towed me or helped me rigging my glider.

Good job on the glider pilot who brought passengers back home safe.

-Gen

[None[_2_]]

On Feb 7, 1:26*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Feb 7, 10:27*am, None > wrote:
>
> > The rules say that an aircraft towing or re-fueling has the right-of-
> > way over all other powered aircraft.
>
> > Please point out to critics of glider operations that every pilot is
> > taught this rule before flying solo and that this rule is on the
> > written test he or she must take before getting a license.
>
> It's possibly worse than that.
>
> The Boulder airspace available for tow planes is severely restricted
> by noise sensitive areas meaning that departures and arrivals resemble
> instrument flying SID's and STAR's. *Every MHG aero tow departure
> follows one of three tightly constrained routes. *These routes are
> published on local maps and posted where every local pilot can see
> them. *Instructors doing field checkouts and BFR's always make sure
> pilots know about them.
>
> From published photos and maps, the collision happened on the heavily
> used "north mountain departure" route - ~90% of MHG tows use that
> route with a tow every 5 or 10 minutes in busy times. *That route has
> a Minimum Crossing Altitude (MCA) at the foothills of 8300 feet MSL so
> tow altitudes are also tightly constrained.
>
> The Cirrus was registered to a Boulder resident but it's not yet clear
> who was flying it. *The pilot should have been very familiar with
> heavy aero tow traffic on the north mountain departure and known
> exactly where tows are likely to be encountered.

My post was intended as a way to reply to nonpilots, news media, etc.
We are bound to get more and ore criticism and comments to the effect
that there should be no glider flying, or somewhat less restricted
versions
of the same argument.

From the description the Cirrus pilot was just not looking and in
effect just walked
out into the road without looking to see whether a car was coming. I
don't
want to be insensitive to the family of the Cirrus pilot, but the
fault was his
and not the fact that glider activity was present. In my experience,
many IFR pilots
just don't look out for VFR traffic and expect ATC to keep them clear
of ALL traffic.
Is that stressed enough in IFR training? ( I know this is before any
NTSB ruling
and is based on hearsay evidence only.)

[BT[_3_]]

Having the "right of way" only works if the other pilot see's you.
He can't "yield" to what he does not see.


"None" > wrote in message
...
> The rules say that an aircraft towing or re-fueling has the right-of-
> way over all other powered aircraft.
>
> Please point out to critics of glider operations that every pilot is
> taught this rule before flying solo and that this rule is on the
> written test he or she must take before getting a license.

[Mike Schumann]

On 2/7/2010 4:02 PM, None wrote:
> On Feb 7, 1:26 pm, > wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 10:27 am, > wrote:
>>
>>> The rules say that an aircraft towing or re-fueling has the right-of-
>>> way over all other powered aircraft.
>>
>>> Please point out to critics of glider operations that every pilot is
>>> taught this rule before flying solo and that this rule is on the
>>> written test he or she must take before getting a license.
>>
>> It's possibly worse than that.
>>
>> The Boulder airspace available for tow planes is severely restricted
>> by noise sensitive areas meaning that departures and arrivals resemble
>> instrument flying SID's and STAR's. Every MHG aero tow departure
>> follows one of three tightly constrained routes. These routes are
>> published on local maps and posted where every local pilot can see
>> them. Instructors doing field checkouts and BFR's always make sure
>> pilots know about them.
>>
>> From published photos and maps, the collision happened on the heavily
>> used "north mountain departure" route - ~90% of MHG tows use that
>> route with a tow every 5 or 10 minutes in busy times. That route has
>> a Minimum Crossing Altitude (MCA) at the foothills of 8300 feet MSL so
>> tow altitudes are also tightly constrained.
>>
>> The Cirrus was registered to a Boulder resident but it's not yet clear
>> who was flying it. The pilot should have been very familiar with
>> heavy aero tow traffic on the north mountain departure and known
>> exactly where tows are likely to be encountered.
>
> My post was intended as a way to reply to nonpilots, news media, etc.
> We are bound to get more and ore criticism and comments to the effect
> that there should be no glider flying, or somewhat less restricted
> versions
> of the same argument.
>
> From the description the Cirrus pilot was just not looking and in
> effect just walked
> out into the road without looking to see whether a car was coming. I
> don't
> want to be insensitive to the family of the Cirrus pilot, but the
> fault was his
> and not the fact that glider activity was present. In my experience,
> many IFR pilots
> just don't look out for VFR traffic and expect ATC to keep them clear
> of ALL traffic.
> Is that stressed enough in IFR training? ( I know this is before any
> NTSB ruling
> and is based on hearsay evidence only.)
The reality is that other aircraft are difficult to see, even if you
know where to look. What is very frustrating is that affordable ADS-B
technology exists that could have prevented this accident.
Unfortunately commercialization is being delayed by the FAA's obsession
with IFR ADS-B applications, while certification standards for low cost
VFR devices are on the back burner.

--
Mike Schumann

[bildan]

Mid air collisions are dramatic events what with fireballs and flaming
debris falling from the sky. Fixing the problem involves some cool
technology too. The whole thing tends to get folks excited.

However, the sad statistics say that a midair is one of the least
likely ways to die in an aircraft. The most frequent fatal glider
accident is just hitting something while you're trying to land -
fences, trees, etc.... It's the leading type of fatal glider
accident. Miss-handling a takeoff roll or a premature termination of
tow is the 2nd leading cause. Neither are as dramatic, but they're
far more lethal. The fix is just mundane stick and rudder skills -
not gee whiz technological solutions.

Folks, please be careful out there.

[cernauta]

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:20:47 -0800 (PST), bildan >
wrote:

>However, the sad statistics say that a midair is one of the least
>likely ways to die in an aircraft.

Of course it's true. But a typical mid-air tends to have multiple
fatalities.
In Europe, as far as gliders are concerned, collision are related to a
considerable part of fatalities, somewhere in the region one
third/fifth of the total death toll we pay.

Aldo Cernezzi

[[email protected]]

In this case parachutes may have helped too. Multiple eyewitnesses
report the cirrus occupants jumping from the burning wreck as it
descended under the BRS. Who knows if the tow pilot would have had a
chance or was killed by the impact.

Some years ago there was an account in Soaring Mag by a tow pilot who
always wore a surplus military chute while towing and was laughed at
by all the club members till the day his towplane caught fire at 1500
ft or so and he saved his life by jumping. As I recall, the article
ended by telling how all the other local tow pilots flew with chutes,
helmets, and nomex suits afterward. The story made a big impression
on me.

MM

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Schumann wrote:
>>
>> From the description the Cirrus pilot was just not looking and in
>> effect just walked
>> out into the road without looking to see whether a car was coming. I
>> don't
>> want to be insensitive to the family of the Cirrus pilot, but the
>> fault was his
>> and not the fact that glider activity was present. In my experience,
>> many IFR pilots
>> just don't look out for VFR traffic and expect ATC to keep them clear
>> of ALL traffic.
>> Is that stressed enough in IFR training? ( I know this is before any
>> NTSB ruling
>> and is based on hearsay evidence only.)
> The reality is that other aircraft are difficult to see, even if you
> know where to look. What is very frustrating is that affordable ADS-B
> technology exists that could have prevented this accident.
> Unfortunately commercialization is being delayed by the FAA's
> obsession with IFR ADS-B applications, while certification standards
> for low cost VFR devices are on the back burner.
And $500 PCAS units have been for sale for several years. I wonder if a
PCAS in one or more of the aircraft involved would have averted the
accident.
- -

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[John Smith]

> In this case parachutes may have helped too.

As I understand, flying gliders without a chute is quite common in the
USA. I'll never understand this.

[Surfer!]

In message >, John Smith
> writes
>> In this case parachutes may have helped too.
>
>As I understand, flying gliders without a chute is quite common in the
>USA. I'll never understand this.

Me neither, but this time the folks in the glider weren't the ones that
needed a personal parachute. I feel naked in a GA plane without one...

--
Surfer!

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:05:46 +0000, Surfer! wrote:

> In message >, John Smith
> > writes
>>> In this case parachutes may have helped too.
>>
>>As I understand, flying gliders without a chute is quite common in the
>>USA. I'll never understand this.
>
> Me neither, but this time the folks in the glider weren't the ones that
> needed a personal parachute. I feel naked in a GA plane without one...
>
I don't quite know why. It would be near impossible to get out of many GA
aircraft when they are flying.

Think about exiting from the rear seats in almost any Cessna, the rear
seat in a Piper Cub or, for that matter, the right front seat of a Piper
Dakota. The door opens forwards and the one time I flew in one I don't
recall seeing any emergency jettison for the hinge pins.

IMO in any of these situations a parachute is irrelevant unless you're
got quite a few thousand feet between you and the ground.


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

[danlj]

On Feb 7, 3:02*pm, None > wrote:

> From the description the Cirrus pilot was just not looking ....

Probably wrong:
I have done a geometric analysis of cockpit visibility.
- First, sharp vision -- the fovea -- is only about 1% of the sphere
surrounding us. Our brain integrates peripheral vision and
interpolates detail gathered from the scanning that the eyes do
unconsciously.
- Second, consider all the space eclipsed by stuff:
- the bill of your cap
- the whole of the aircraft beneath you (the Cirrus was descending,
one account says)
- the panel and the sun visor
- the TCAS unit standing on top of the panel
- everything behind you in all directions
- Third, the fact that the aircraft you're about to collide with, even
if it's in your field of view (only about 25% of the sphere) is a
speck on the windscreen that isn't moving -- it's just growing. Our
vision is very sensitive to movement, but insensitive to growth. It's
the movement that directs our gaze, to cause foveal vision to capture
a clear impression of the moving object.
- So: by what miracle of chance do you expect the Cirrus pilot to have
seen through his airplane, to have glimpsed the Pawnee?

>*I don't want to be insensitive to the family of the Cirrus pilot, but the
> fault was his...In my experience, many IFR pilots
> just don't look out for VFR traffic and expect ATC to keep them clear of ALL traffic.

How often have you been the IFR pilot flying with the aid of ATC in
VMC, in a busy airspace? Other traffic is VERY difficult to see even
when one knows altitude and azimuth; much traffic, even collision
traffic, cannot be seen because both aircraft are eclipsed from the
pilot by their own aircraft.
In addition, VFR aircraft often do not check in with ATC to verify
their altitude, or have non-encoding transponders, so that's a
mystery. And then there's the fact that some of us are essentially
invisible to ATC even with a transponder: when we thermal, we're
relatively stationary to radar, which then puts us in "coast" mode,
and removes our blip from the display.
The only way to mitigate this risk effectively is to mandate that
all aircraft, regardless of class, carry operating anticollision
devices.
Unfortunately, the rule-making process is so slow that by the time
any new thing gets through, it's at least decade-old technology and
therefore the target of flames from people who know about the new
technology (ADS-B v. FLARM, for example)
In this regard, at the SSA convention 2 weeks ago, one of the
European attendees said that now that FLARM is established, too many
glider pilots are flying with their eyes in the cockpit and depending
too much on FLARM. Complacency affects every one of us.

Some news articles that contain additional information:

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_14352511
The most complete photos, videos, and summary.

From http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/22492900/detail.html
"The Boulder County Coroner has identified the third victim, the pilot
of the Piper Pawnee, as Alexander Howard Gilmer, 25, of Evergreen. His
family asked for their privacy.
On his MySpace page, he described himself as a base jumper, sky diver,
pilot and marine."

"The glider narrowly avoided disaster after pilot Reuben Bakker cut
his craft loose from the ill-fated Piper seconds before the collision,
landing safely 3 miles away and saving his life and those of his
passenger and her 11-year-old son. Their names were not available.

"The glider narrowly avoided disaster after pilot Reuben Bakker cut
his craft loose from the ill-fated Piper seconds before the collision,
landing safely 3 miles away and saving his life and those of his
passenger and her 11-year-old son. Their names were not available.

The glider narrowly avoided disaster after pilot Reuben Bakker cut his
craft loose from the ill-fated Piper seconds before the collision,
landing safely 3 miles away and saving his life and those of his
passenger and her 11-year-old son. Their names were not available.

From http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_14355506
The glider pilot was Reuben Bakker...

From http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14350203
<Sue Patton, 53, and her 8-year-old daughter, Sarah Weller, ran
outside just in time to see two people plunge out of the plane. Patton
said it appeared to her that they jumped.
"The plane was burning really strong," she said. "They really didn't
have a choice."">

[John Smith]

>> As I understand, flying gliders without a chute is quite common in the
>> USA. I'll never understand this.

> Me neither, but this time the folks in the glider weren't the ones that
> needed a personal parachute.

I know, but it was close.

BTW, some may argue that passengers wouldn't jump anyway. This has been
proven wrong. One ore two years ago, there was a successfull bail out by
a passenger after a mid-air in Switzerland. The passenger was 80 years
old and it was his first flight...

[glidergeek]

On Feb 7, 10:14*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>
> >> *From the description the Cirrus pilot was just not looking and in
> >> effect just walked
> >> out into the road without looking to see whether a car was coming. *I
> >> don't
> >> want to be insensitive to the family of the Cirrus pilot, but the
> >> fault was his
> >> and not the fact that glider activity was present. *In my experience,
> >> many IFR pilots
> >> just don't look out for VFR traffic and expect ATC to keep them clear
> >> of ALL traffic.
> >> Is that stressed enough in IFR training? ( I know this is before any
> >> NTSB ruling
> >> and is based on hearsay evidence only.)
> > The reality is that other aircraft are difficult to see, even if you
> > know where to look. *What is very frustrating is that affordable ADS-B
> > technology exists that could have prevented this accident.
> > Unfortunately commercialization is being delayed by the FAA's
> > obsession with IFR ADS-B applications, while certification standards
> > for low cost VFR devices are on the back burner.
>
> And $500 PCAS units have been for sale for several years. I wonder if a
> PCAS in one or more of the aircraft involved would have averted the
> accident.
> - -
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org

Maybe Eric, BUT I've got one that I use in my Cessna 180 (Zoan) and
I've watched several planes fly by relatively close with no indication
on the unit. I don't trust it.

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:48:32 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie
> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:05:46 +0000, Surfer! wrote:
>
>> In message >, John Smith
>> > writes
>>>> In this case parachutes may have helped too.
>>>
>>>As I understand, flying gliders without a chute is quite common in the
>>>USA. I'll never understand this.
>>
>> Me neither, but this time the folks in the glider weren't the ones that
>> needed a personal parachute. I feel naked in a GA plane without one...
>>
>I don't quite know why. It would be near impossible to get out of many GA
>aircraft when they are flying.
>
>Think about exiting from the rear seats in almost any Cessna, the rear
>seat in a Piper Cub or, for that matter, the right front seat of a Piper
>Dakota. The door opens forwards and the one time I flew in one I don't
>recall seeing any emergency jettison for the hinge pins.
>
Those are available. Very few light airplanes have them installed
because the GA industry, in its finite wisdom, doesn't want passengers
thinking about scary things.

That's why your Cessna didn't have a fire extinguisher, too.

rj

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 8, 8:43*am, glidergeek > wrote:
> Maybe Eric, BUT I've got one that I use in my Cessna 180 (Zoan) and
> I've watched several planes fly by relatively close with no indication
> on the unit. I don't trust it.-

If by "trust it" you expect it to alert you to all threat traffic then
that lack of trust is very healthy. I don't trust mine to alert me to
all traffic either. It certainly cannot alert for an aircraft with no
transponder, or an aircraft with the transponder off, or standby, and
probably not mode A. Mine does alert me traffic I may not otherwise
have spotted and I find it a very useful augmentation to the "see" of
see and avoid.

Last weekend I found myself surprised by a head on same altitude
threat while flying my PA-28. I didn't see the other aircraft until
we were about 10 seconds from collison and he showed no sign of ever
seeing me. PCAS did not alert me and I don't know why. I still don't
plan on flying without it.

Andy

[Brian Whatcott]

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:05:46 +0000, Surfer! wrote:
>
>> In message >, John Smith
>> > writes
>>>> In this case parachutes may have helped too.
>>> As I understand, flying gliders without a chute is quite common in the
>>> USA. I'll never understand this.
>> Me neither, but this time the folks in the glider weren't the ones that
>> needed a personal parachute. I feel naked in a GA plane without one...
>>
> I don't quite know why. It would be near impossible to get out of many GA
> aircraft when they are flying.
>
> Think about exiting from the rear seats in almost any Cessna, the rear
> seat in a Piper Cub or, for that matter, the right front seat of a Piper
> Dakota. The door opens forwards and the one time I flew in one I don't
> recall seeing any emergency jettison for the hinge pins.
>
> IMO in any of these situations a parachute is irrelevant unless you're
> got quite a few thousand feet between you and the ground.
>
>

It was in the 80's. I had landed at a North Texas fielkd used by
jumpers, and an instructor hurried to me and said a jumper had missed
the plane, and could I give him a ride to 5 thousand? I expressed
doubt that a C-150 was capable, but he said it was possible if the ride
slowed well for the jump, and after departure, broke left. Which I did.
Yep, I was surprised that the jumper could exit without a struggle
too....

Brian W

[Ramy]

This is precisely the problem! The majority of the public, including
many pilots and apparently the FAA, believe in "See and Avoid" since
they can often see other aircrafts either from the ground or when
flying. They do not grasp the simple fact that they only see aircrafts
which are not in a collision course with them! This, combined with
multiple blind spots and the various distractions which are part of
the job of piloting an aircraft, makes it a pure luck when someone
actually manage to see and avoid.
If See and Avoid can be relied on, why do we bother with traffic
lights and multiple lanes on the roads? Yet it is much easier to see
and avoid on the road due to significantly slower speed and knowing
where to look.
It is ironic to hear and read about the money and effort which goes
into investigating the cause of those accidents, while the answer is
simply biological limit of our eyes, and the design of our airplanes.
The only reason that aircrafts do not collide with each other all the
time is the big sky theory. Unfortunately the sky is not big enough,
and we loose many good pilots and passengers to GA midairs every
year.
The responsibility lies with the FAA bureaucrats and the rule making
process, which is so slow that we are still using 50 years old
technologies! Imagine if the FAA was run by, say... Apple.
We would all be carrying a small $99 (ok maybe $999) gizmo in all our
aircrafts, which capable of providing real time warnings for any
threat (such as flarm or ADS-B).
And for those who claims that this will create complacency or heads
down - even if you blind fold all the pilots you will get far less
midairs due to the occasional misuse of malfunction of this
technology, verses relying on See and Avoid!
For a good reading on the subject of see and avoid check
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/bca0107c.xml

Ramy

[gen]

I think that discussing midair is important in general, so please
continue on.

However, I think it is also important for everyone including your
friends and families to understand that this is basically a collision
between two powerplanes, and one of them just happened to be towing a
glider. This accident has nothing to do with the safety of this
sports. It didn't happen because of the flying characteristics of
glider, the visibility of glider in the air, or having or not having
transponder or similar equipments.

I was wondering why so many initial reports emphasized that the Cirrus
ran into the tow rope. Apparently, there is a perception among non
pilots that the tow rope is miles-long, thus making it an invisible
trap in the air, and the poor Cirrus tripped on it because they
couldn't see it. That is very wrong. The tow rope is only a couple
hundreds of feet long, and you shouldn't get that close to other
aircrafts in the sky anyway.

I even see a headline like this.

Three killed in glider accident
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/07/2812483.htm?section=world

-Gen

[gen]

I think that discussing midair is important in general, so please
continue on.

However, I think it is also important for everyone including your
friends and families to understand that this is basically a collision
between two powerplanes, and one of them just happened to be towing a
glider. This accident has nothing to do with the safety of this
sports. It didn't happen because of the flying characteristics of
glider, the visibility of glider in the air, or having or not having
transponder or similar equipments.

I was wondering why so many initial reports emphasized that the Cirrus
ran into the tow rope. Apparently, there is a perception among non
pilots that the tow rope is miles-long, thus making it an invisible
trap in the air, and the poor Cirrus tripped on it because they
couldn't see it. That is very wrong. The tow rope is only a couple
hundreds of feet long, and you shouldn't get that close to other
aircrafts in the sky anyway.

I even see a headline like this.

Three killed in glider accident
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/07/2812483.htm?section=world

-Gen

[Mike Schumann]

On 2/8/2010 1:14 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>>>
>>> From the description the Cirrus pilot was just not looking and in
>>> effect just walked
>>> out into the road without looking to see whether a car was coming. I
>>> don't
>>> want to be insensitive to the family of the Cirrus pilot, but the
>>> fault was his
>>> and not the fact that glider activity was present. In my experience,
>>> many IFR pilots
>>> just don't look out for VFR traffic and expect ATC to keep them clear
>>> of ALL traffic.
>>> Is that stressed enough in IFR training? ( I know this is before any
>>> NTSB ruling
>>> and is based on hearsay evidence only.)
>> The reality is that other aircraft are difficult to see, even if you
>> know where to look. What is very frustrating is that affordable ADS-B
>> technology exists that could have prevented this accident.
>> Unfortunately commercialization is being delayed by the FAA's
>> obsession with IFR ADS-B applications, while certification standards
>> for low cost VFR devices are on the back burner.
> And $500 PCAS units have been for sale for several years. I wonder if a
> PCAS in one or more of the aircraft involved would have averted the
> accident.
> - -
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to
> email me directly
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org
The $500 PCAS units don't give you the same situational awareness that
you get with ADS-B. It helps, but it doesn't give you any directional
data on where the threat is, just range and altitude. The more
expensive unit is better, telling you what quadrant the threat is in.
An ADS-B unit will tell you within 100 ft where the other planes are.

Mike Schumann

--
Mike Schumann

[Cats]

On Feb 8, 1:54*pm, John Smith > wrote:
<snip>
>
> BTW, some may argue that passengers wouldn't jump anyway. This has been
> proven wrong. One ore two years ago, there was a successfull bail out by
> a passenger after a mid-air in Switzerland. The passenger was 80 years
> old and it was his first flight...

There was also the chap on a air experience flight in a K21 near
Dunstable in the UK when the glider was hit by lighting. Both were
wearing chutes, both survived. Wish I could find the AAIB report - it
has some photos of the recovered wreckage. I gather the p1 & P2 flew
togeather again 10 years later, to raise money for charity. I saw the
P2's website page which included his description of the accident but
it's vanished in the mists of time.

[Brian[_1_]]

It will be interesting to see what the NTSB comes up with on this one,
Since unlike most mid-airs this one had a pilot witness and two non-
pilot witnesses in the front row seat (glider) to observe what
happened.

[Eric Greenwell]

danlj wrote:
> And then there's the fact that some of us are essentially
> invisible to ATC even with a transponder: when we thermal, we're
> relatively stationary to radar, which then puts us in "coast" mode,
> and removes our blip from the display.
>
In the USA, the radar will not remove your transponder blip from the
screen because you are circling; if the blip is from primary mode radar
(no transponder), it may be removed. Radar does know the difference
between clutter and a transponder!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Eric Greenwell]

glidergeek wrote:
> On Feb 7, 10:14 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>> Mike Schumann wrote
>>
>>> The reality is that other aircraft are difficult to see, even if you
>>> know where to look. What is very frustrating is that affordable ADS-B
>>> technology exists that could have prevented this accident.
>>> Unfortunately commercialization is being delayed by the FAA's
>>> obsession with IFR ADS-B applications, while certification standards
>>> for low cost VFR devices are on the back burner.
>>>
>> And $500 PCAS units have been for sale for several years. I wonder if a
>> PCAS in one or more of the aircraft involved would have averted the
>> accident.
>>
>>
>
> Maybe Eric, BUT I've got one that I use in my Cessna 180 (Zoan) and
> I've watched several planes fly by relatively close with no indication
> on the unit. I don't trust it.
>
Mine alerts me to some aircraft I don't see. I don't expect it to
discover everything, so I do look around, and I carry a transponder,
MRX, and a radio. It's a pretty good system for $3000 (eyeballs free).
I've been using the eyeballs and a radio for 30 years, the transponder
for 8, the MRX for 2. I'm glad I don't have to depend on eyes alone anymore.

And I'm still wondering if a PCAS in any or all of the aircraft could
have averted the disaster. $500 each would be cheap it would work in
that situation.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Schumann wrote:
>> And $500 PCAS units have been for sale for several years. I wonder if a
>> PCAS in one or more of the aircraft involved would have averted the
>> accident.
>> - -
> The $500 PCAS units don't give you the same situational awareness that
> you get with ADS-B. It helps, but it doesn't give you any directional
> data on where the threat is, just range and altitude. The more
> expensive unit is better, telling you what quadrant the threat is in.
> An ADS-B unit will tell you within 100 ft where the other planes are.
I agree in principle, but the situation is the PCAS units are here, the
ADS-B units aren't. I'm looking forward to ADS-B, but in the meantime,
there are PCAS units available that will help now. My MRX helps me spot
traffic, so I think I'm getting my $450 worth out of it.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Jim Logajan]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> And I'm still wondering if a PCAS in any or all of the aircraft could
> have averted the disaster. $500 each would be cheap it would work in
> that situation.

Just FYI, here's an article discussing the Traffic Avoidance Systems
commonly installed on many Cirrus aircraft:
http://www.theflightacademy.com/press/Cirrus_Pilot_Nov_06.pdf

It is possible that the model involved had a TIS - which may not have been
helpful in this case.

[Gilbert Smith[_2_]]

"BT" > wrote:

>Having the "right of way" only works if the other pilot see's you.
>He can't "yield" to what he does not see.
>
>
>"None" > wrote in message
...
>> The rules say that an aircraft towing or re-fueling has the right-of-
>> way over all other powered aircraft.
>>
>> Please point out to critics of glider operations that every pilot is
>> taught this rule before flying solo and that this rule is on the
>> written test he or she must take before getting a license.

Classing this tragedy as a simple collision between two powered
aircraft ignores the flight profile of the glider tug, which would
have been climbing on full power.

I can tell you from my experience of touring in a low wing single, and
from towing thousands of gliders into the air, that the Cirrus pilot
would have been unaware of the Pawnee until it suddenly rose to fill
his windshield. He may have been maintaining a good look-out, but down
and to one side is easily missed, especially with the terrain as a
background.

Do you include this possibility in your scan of the horizon ?

[Alex Potter]

Cats wrote on Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:10:00 -0800:

> Wish I could find the AAIB report - it has some photos of the recovered
> wreckage.

Here's the report. No pictures.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_500699.pdf

--
Regards
Alex

How the Internet is supposed to work: http://www.rfc-editor.org/

[Gary Evans[_2_]]

On Feb 9, 6:02*am, Gilbert Smith > wrote:
> "BT" > wrote:
> >Having the "right of way" only works if the other pilot see's you.
> >He can't "yield" to what he does not see.
>
> >"None" > wrote in message
> ....
> >> The rules say that an aircraft towing or re-fueling has the right-of-
> >> way over all other powered aircraft.
>
> >> Please point out to critics of glider operations that every pilot is
> >> taught this rule before flying solo and that this rule is on the
> >> written test he or she must take before getting a license.
>
> Classing this tragedy as a simple collision between two powered
> aircraft ignores the flight profile of the glider tug, which would
> have been climbing on full power.
>
> I can tell you from my experience of touring in a low wing single, and
> from towing thousands of gliders into the air, that the Cirrus pilot
> would have been unaware of the Pawnee until it suddenly rose to fill
> his windshield. He may have been maintaining a good look-out, but down
> and to one side is easily missed, especially with the terrain as a
> background.
>
> Do you include this possibility in your scan of the horizon ?


This is real good insight and makes you realize just how difficult see
and avoid can be. It is too easy to just pass it off as the pilot
wasn't looking.

[Bruce]

Gary Evans wrote:
> On Feb 9, 6:02 am, Gilbert Smith > wrote:
>> "BT" > wrote:
>>> Having the "right of way" only works if the other pilot see's you.
>>> He can't "yield" to what he does not see.
>>> "None" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> The rules say that an aircraft towing or re-fueling has the right-of-
>>>> way over all other powered aircraft.
>>>> Please point out to critics of glider operations that every pilot is
>>>> taught this rule before flying solo and that this rule is on the
>>>> written test he or she must take before getting a license.
>> Classing this tragedy as a simple collision between two powered
>> aircraft ignores the flight profile of the glider tug, which would
>> have been climbing on full power.
>>
>> I can tell you from my experience of touring in a low wing single, and
>> from towing thousands of gliders into the air, that the Cirrus pilot
>> would have been unaware of the Pawnee until it suddenly rose to fill
>> his windshield. He may have been maintaining a good look-out, but down
>> and to one side is easily missed, especially with the terrain as a
>> background.
>>
>> Do you include this possibility in your scan of the horizon ?
>
>
> This is real good insight and makes you realize just how difficult see
> and avoid can be. It is too easy to just pass it off as the pilot
> wasn't looking.

My non-professional opinion. See and avoid is a lot less reliable than
we fondly imagine.

Cognition is a strange thing - camouflage relies on presenting something
in ways we do not recognise. And then it can hide in plain sight. I
would expect that there is a significant fraction of the power flying
fraternity who have no experience or frame to assess what an aerotow /
or gliding operation works like.

So - Cirrus pilot may have been aware of the gliding operation, but have
had no idea of the flight profiles involved. Many power pilots I have
spoken to automatically think of gliders as "things that will descend" -
therefore the risk if any will come from above. When I ask them how they
expect the glider to get above them in the first place you often see
some basic assumptions moving. We rely on framing to simplify our
environment and make all that input understandable. If something does
not fit, we tend to miss it (camouflage) or mis-represent it.

Even if the Cirrus pilot saw the combination, there are a couple of
things against him recognising the danger it represented:
1] His flying experience would probably not lead him to expect it to be
climbing rapidly. Or to continue away from the airfield. Again his
picture of glide ratio is probably framed by what a high wing loading ,
high drag SEL plane does when the fan quits.
2] Humans are notoriously bad at "oscillating disparity" (motion in
depth). Helicopter and Glider pilots get good at working out how fast
other aircraft / birds / stuff is climbing. Other folk have less incentive.
3] COntrast ratio - Another visual limitation may be that the contrast
ratio between the snow on the mountains and the flat terrain the Cirrus
pilot would have to scan to see the tug combination would probably be
very high. Most people have difficulty accommodating the high variance
in brightness. (Think how long it takes to get your night vision back
after an oncoming car leaves their high beams on too long)

My opinion is that see and be seen has a lot of limitations. While it
must logically remain the primary situational awareness tool, we should
recognise the limitations - you can't rely on the Mk1 eyeball and brain
to always recognise danger when it sees "something" that it may not
recognise, or have time to attend to.

Bruce


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[150flivver]

On Feb 10, 1:22*am, Bruce > wrote:
> Gary Evans wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 6:02 am, Gilbert Smith > wrote:
> >> "BT" > wrote:
> >>> Having the "right of way" only works if the other pilot see's you.
> >>> He can't "yield" to what he does not see.
> >>> "None" > wrote in message
> ....
> >>>> The rules say that an aircraft towing or re-fueling has the right-of-
> >>>> way over all other powered aircraft.
> >>>> Please point out to critics of glider operations that every pilot is
> >>>> taught this rule before flying solo and that this rule is on the
> >>>> written test he or she must take before getting a license.
> >> Classing this tragedy as a simple collision between two powered
> >> aircraft ignores the flight profile of the glider tug, which would
> >> have been climbing on full power.
>
> >> I can tell you from my experience of touring in a low wing single, and
> >> from towing thousands of gliders into the air, that the Cirrus pilot
> >> would have been unaware of the Pawnee until it suddenly rose to fill
> >> his windshield. He may have been maintaining a good look-out, but down
> >> and to one side is easily missed, especially with the terrain as a
> >> background.
>
> >> Do you include this possibility in your scan of the horizon ?
>
> > This is real good insight and makes you realize just how difficult see
> > and avoid can be. It is too easy to just pass it off as the pilot
> > wasn't looking.
>
> My non-professional opinion. See and avoid is a lot less reliable than
> we fondly imagine.
>
> Cognition is a strange thing - camouflage relies on presenting something
> in ways we do not recognise. And then it can hide in plain sight. I
> would expect that there is a significant fraction of the power flying
> fraternity who have no experience or frame to assess what an aerotow /
> or gliding operation works like.
>
> So - Cirrus pilot may have been aware of the gliding operation, but have
> had no idea of the flight profiles involved. Many power pilots I have
> spoken to automatically think of gliders as "things that will descend" -
> therefore the risk if any will come from above. When I ask them how they
> expect the glider to get above them in the first place you often see
> some basic assumptions moving. We rely on framing to simplify our
> environment and make all that input understandable. If something does
> not fit, we tend to miss it (camouflage) or mis-represent it.
>
> Even if the Cirrus pilot saw the combination, there are a couple of
> things against him recognising the danger it represented:
> 1] His flying experience would probably not lead him to expect it to be
> climbing rapidly. Or to continue away from the airfield. Again his
> picture of glide ratio is probably framed by what a high wing loading ,
> high drag SEL plane does when the fan quits.
> 2] Humans are notoriously bad at "oscillating disparity" (motion in
> depth). Helicopter and Glider pilots get good at working out how fast
> other aircraft / birds / stuff is climbing. Other folk have less incentive.
> 3] COntrast ratio - Another visual limitation may be that the contrast
> ratio between the snow on the mountains and the flat terrain the Cirrus
> pilot would have to scan to see the tug combination would probably be
> very high. Most people have difficulty accommodating the high variance
> in brightness. (Think how long it takes to get your night vision back
> after an oncoming car leaves their high beams on too long)
>
> My opinion is that see and be seen has a lot of limitations. While it
> must logically remain the primary situational awareness tool, we should
> recognise the limitations - you can't rely on the Mk1 eyeball and brain
> to always recognise danger when it sees "something" that it may not
> recognise, or have time to attend to.
>
> Bruce
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

You make it sound like a towplane and glider is some strange and
unusual sight to behold. It looks exactly like two small aircraft,
one several aircraft lengths behind the other, slowly climbing--
nothing else.

[bildan]

On Feb 10, 12:22*am, Bruce > wrote:
> Gary Evans wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 6:02 am, Gilbert Smith > wrote:
> >> "BT" > wrote:
> >>> Having the "right of way" only works if the other pilot see's you.
> >>> He can't "yield" to what he does not see.
> >>> "None" > wrote in message
> ....
> >>>> The rules say that an aircraft towing or re-fueling has the right-of-
> >>>> way over all other powered aircraft.
> >>>> Please point out to critics of glider operations that every pilot is
> >>>> taught this rule before flying solo and that this rule is on the
> >>>> written test he or she must take before getting a license.
> >> Classing this tragedy as a simple collision between two powered
> >> aircraft ignores the flight profile of the glider tug, which would
> >> have been climbing on full power.
>
> >> I can tell you from my experience of touring in a low wing single, and
> >> from towing thousands of gliders into the air, that the Cirrus pilot
> >> would have been unaware of the Pawnee until it suddenly rose to fill
> >> his windshield. He may have been maintaining a good look-out, but down
> >> and to one side is easily missed, especially with the terrain as a
> >> background.
>
> >> Do you include this possibility in your scan of the horizon ?
>
> > This is real good insight and makes you realize just how difficult see
> > and avoid can be. It is too easy to just pass it off as the pilot
> > wasn't looking.
>
> My non-professional opinion. See and avoid is a lot less reliable than
> we fondly imagine.
>
> Cognition is a strange thing - camouflage relies on presenting something
> in ways we do not recognise. And then it can hide in plain sight. I
> would expect that there is a significant fraction of the power flying
> fraternity who have no experience or frame to assess what an aerotow /
> or gliding operation works like.
>
> So - Cirrus pilot may have been aware of the gliding operation, but have
> had no idea of the flight profiles involved. Many power pilots I have
> spoken to automatically think of gliders as "things that will descend" -
> therefore the risk if any will come from above. When I ask them how they
> expect the glider to get above them in the first place you often see
> some basic assumptions moving. We rely on framing to simplify our
> environment and make all that input understandable. If something does
> not fit, we tend to miss it (camouflage) or mis-represent it.
>
> Even if the Cirrus pilot saw the combination, there are a couple of
> things against him recognising the danger it represented:
> 1] His flying experience would probably not lead him to expect it to be
> climbing rapidly. Or to continue away from the airfield. Again his
> picture of glide ratio is probably framed by what a high wing loading ,
> high drag SEL plane does when the fan quits.
> 2] Humans are notoriously bad at "oscillating disparity" (motion in
> depth). Helicopter and Glider pilots get good at working out how fast
> other aircraft / birds / stuff is climbing. Other folk have less incentive.
> 3] COntrast ratio - Another visual limitation may be that the contrast
> ratio between the snow on the mountains and the flat terrain the Cirrus
> pilot would have to scan to see the tug combination would probably be
> very high. Most people have difficulty accommodating the high variance
> in brightness. (Think how long it takes to get your night vision back
> after an oncoming car leaves their high beams on too long)
>
> My opinion is that see and be seen has a lot of limitations. While it
> must logically remain the primary situational awareness tool, we should
> recognise the limitations - you can't rely on the Mk1 eyeball and brain
> to always recognise danger when it sees "something" that it may not
> recognise, or have time to attend to.
>
> Bruce
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Your basic point that "see-and-be-seen" is inadequate is valid.
Compounding the situation in this case is that neither the tug or
glider sported particularly high visibility paint jobs. IIRC 18L was
tan with brown striping and the 2-32 is dull bare metal with sparse
orange and yellow trim. The 2-32 while not stealthy, can be difficult
to see against terrain.

However, in the Boulder case, the rate of climb would have been low
due to the altitude and the very heavy glider - perhaps less than 400
FPM. Further, the Cirrus was flown by a local pilot who should have
been familiar with the aero tow route and the altitudes to expect tow
traffic.

A possible lesson is that if other traffic is required to yield right
of way, tugs should sport high visibility paint.