Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt [Archive]

Peter Scholz[_2_]

October 11th 10, 08:22 PM

Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:
> Hi Gang
> I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders
> be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders
> turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe
> Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions
> but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
> between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of
> a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
> mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
> Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
> glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
> ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
> discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
> usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
> years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a
> business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
> guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
> Dave
>
> On Oct 11, 9:54 am, > wrote:
>> Lessons to be learned?
>>
>> http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2
>>
>> Join the discussion.
>
I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A
few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident
report.

1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
and surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
1700AGL/FL100)

2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are
aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
(heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there
are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsrück
ridge) and many XC flights go along there.

3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about
the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that
safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations
can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several
Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn
Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. Also the situatuion of
approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.

4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from
FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D
airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion
contact with FIS will normally suffice.

5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!

6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports
like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected"
airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
those glider pilots behave totally legal.

7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly
advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be
passed on the the approaching traffic.

In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and
operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using
the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the rule "see and be
seen" is to obey.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 11th 10, 08:56 PM

On 10/11/2010 11:44 AM, Derek C wrote:
> You must be a rich Yank with more money than sense! $2500 sounds like
> a small fortune to a hard up Brit. Why not get airliners to fit $300
> Flarm units?
>
Where do you get $300 FLARM units? But, that's not the problem, really -
the airliner requires certified equipment. It would be much quicker,
easier, more effective, and cheaper (for the airline company) to talk
the airline companies into putting those $2500 transponders into gliders
flying in that area. $100,000 - problem solved in one month.

The transponders could be leased to the pilots - it's not necessary for
it to be a gift. Could you afford $200/year to have a transponder in
your glider?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Darryl Ramm

October 11th 10, 09:44 PM

On Oct 11, 11:44*am, Derek C > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 7:17*pm, kd6veb > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi Gang
> > * I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders
> > be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders
> > turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe
> > Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions
> > but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
> > between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of
> > a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
> > mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
> > Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
> > glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
> > ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
> > discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
> > usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
> > years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a
> > business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
> > guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
> > Dave
>
> > On Oct 11, 9:54*am, Karen > wrote:
>
> > > Lessons to be learned?
>
> > >http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2
>
> > > Join the discussion.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You must be a rich Yank with more money than sense! $2500 sounds like
> a small fortune to a hard up Brit. Why not get airliners to fit $300
> Flarm units?
>
> Derek C

Just maybe Dave is an experience pilot who flies in an area where
there is high density of glider, airline and fast jet traffic and he
is experienced enough across gliders and power aircraft to know how
the ATC system works and how much traffic is out there where he flies.
He flies and lives in are area were we have had an actual glider-fast
jet mid-air collisions (I was flying there that day) and close calls
with airliners. In addition to encouraging transponder adoption the
local glider community, lead by PASCO, has also worked with the local
ATC operation on both awareness and developing radio and operational
procedures to help keep gliders separated from airliners and fast jet
traffic.

If glider pilots choose to fly near areas of high-density airline and
fast-jet traffic without a transponder and the decision would only
affect their safety then I'd have no problem in anybody doing whatever
they want. But introducing the dynamics of airliners full of
passengers being exposed to mid-air risk and I have a real problem
with people choosing to fly in those areas without transponders -- and
especially about glider pilots complaining about the cost of
transponders. Presumably there are other places people can fly with
less destiny.

And I'm not convinced that "its not a mandatory transponder zone"
excludes pilots from the need to equip with transponders. (switching
to the USA...) In the USA we have key areas of glider activity that do
not require transponders but just call out for transponder usage in
gliders, and we seem to have significant variance across those
locations with attitudes to and carriage of transponders. If pilots
take the attitude that they don't want to adopt transponders in those
areas then the best outcome I can see is for the FAA to require
mandatory local use. I'd much rather see that than a nation wide
removal of the transponder exemption for gliders.

The Flarm suggestion and if made to airlines or government regulatory
agencies would just show up the glider community as clueless. Any
suggestion to stick something like FLARM in a transport category
cockpit is laughable. Unlike TCAS II Flarm does not provide resolution
advisories. The TCAS II (ACAS II on your side of the pond) systems
need to provide a single situation view/command to the pilot. You
can't have FLARM triggering a warning and TCAS or the ground
controllers not being aware of it or situations where a crew decides
to manoeuvre because of a threat the ground controller cannot see of
Flarm. Even if fully integrated all the Flarm threat could likely do
is prompt the crew where to look, not much help if descending through
clouds with gliders hiding underneath etc. Only TCAS II allows/
requires a pilot to ignore a controllers direction -- no regulator is
going to be willing to allow an uncertified flarm box in a threat
aircraft issuing correct data and having an airliner TCAS+Flarm system
issue an RA. Integrating Flarm with TCAS would cost millions and would
suck a small company like Flarm dry and kill the innovation they have.
The practical answer is simply to install a transponder -- it is the
only technology compatible with TCAS and ground based SSR systems. And
in Europe many of the Mode S transponders available now give you a
path to 1090ES data-out. Not something you may ever want but maybe a
nice option in future, and it means the boxes have a long useful life
ahead of them.

Darryl

Darryl Ramm

October 11th 10, 09:55 PM

On Oct 11, 12:22*pm, Peter Scholz >
wrote:
> Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:
>
> > Hi Gang
> > * *I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders
> > be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders
> > turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe
> > Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions
> > but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
> > between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of
> > a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
> > mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
> > Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
> > glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
> > ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
> > discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
> > usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
> > years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a
> > business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
> > guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
> > Dave
>
> > On Oct 11, 9:54 am, > *wrote:
> >> Lessons to be learned?
>
> >>http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2
>
> >> Join the discussion.
>
> I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A
> few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident
> report.
>
> 1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
> and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
> and *surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
> 1700AGL/FL100)
>
> 2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are
> aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
> (heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there
> are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
> sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
> airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsrück
> ridge) and many XC flights go along there.
>
> 3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about
> the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that
> safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations
> can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several
> Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn
> Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
> with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
> are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. *Also the situatuion of
> approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.
>
> 4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from
> FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D
> airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
> Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion
> contact with FIS will normally suffice.
>
> 5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
> transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!
>
> 6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
> Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports
> like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
> glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected"
> airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
> those glider pilots behave totally legal.
>
> 7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly
> advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
> contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be
> passed on the the approaching traffic.
>
> In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and
> operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using
> the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the *rule "see and be
> seen" is to obey.
>
> --
> Peter Scholz
> ASW24 JE

Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
adopt transponders.

Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?

And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
The two just do not mix well.

Darryl

Peter Scholz[_2_]

October 11th 10, 10:19 PM

Am 11.10.2010 22:55, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, Peter >
> wrote:
>> Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Gang
>>> I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders
>>> be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders
>>> turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe
>>> Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions
>>> but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
>>> between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of
>>> a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
>>> mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
>>> Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
>>> glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
>>> ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
>>> discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
>>> usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
>>> years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a
>>> business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
>>> guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
>>> Dave
>>
>>> On Oct 11, 9:54 am, > wrote:
>>>> Lessons to be learned?
>>
>>>> http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2
>>
>>>> Join the discussion.
>>
>> I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A
>> few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident
>> report.
>>
>> 1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
>> and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
>> and surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
>> 1700AGL/FL100)
>>
>> 2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are
>> aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
>> (heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there
>> are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
>> sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
>> airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsrück
>> ridge) and many XC flights go along there.
>>
>> 3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about
>> the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that
>> safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations
>> can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several
>> Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn
>> Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
>> with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
>> are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. Also the situatuion of
>> approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.
>>
>> 4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from
>> FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D
>> airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
>> Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion
>> contact with FIS will normally suffice.
>>
>> 5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
>> transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!
>>
>> 6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
>> Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports
>> like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
>> glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected"
>> airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
>> those glider pilots behave totally legal.
>>
>> 7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly
>> advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
>> contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be
>> passed on the the approaching traffic.
>>
>> In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and
>> operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using
>> the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the rule "see and be
>> seen" is to obey.
>>
>> --
>> Peter Scholz
>> ASW24 JE
>
> Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
> point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
> to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
> adopt transponders.
>
> Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
> between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
> wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
> going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
> is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
> responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
> community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
> when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?
>
> And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
> exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
> The two just do not mix well.
>
>
> Darryl

Darryl,

in Germany, for many years because of the pure separation of commercial
traffic and gliders by the different airspace they use, there was no
need for transponders in gliders.

In the last years, this has changed a bit, as more and more airports are
beeing used by commercial carriers that serve the German market on top
of the traditional "state airline" Lufthansa, and more and more
restricted airspaces appear on the maps. You see more transponders in
gliders now, and there are talks about making them mandatory.

In fact, the Netherlands have tried to do this, but have after a few
weeks asked the glider pilots to switch them off again near some major
airports, because ATC just had a black cloud on there radar screens...

But ambitioned XC pilots have more possibilities with transponders,
because it is possible to get clearances for airspace that otherwise
would not be usable by a glider, so if you have the money and the
ambition, you'll get a transponder sooner or later.

I think it will take some more years to make it common for XC flights,,
but we try to avoid to make it mandatory, as it would make the
traditional glider instruction in clubs a lot more expensive, many clubs
wouldnT survive this. It's not only € 2000 for the transpionder itself,
you have to get it installed and certified for each glider. This would
exceed the value of many gliders used in training nowadays.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Darryl Ramm

October 11th 10, 10:32 PM

On Oct 11, 2:19*pm, Peter Scholz >
wrote:
> Am 11.10.2010 22:55, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, Peter >
> > wrote:
> >> Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:
>
> >>> Hi Gang
> >>> * * I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders
> >>> be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders
> >>> turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe
> >>> Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions
> >>> but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
> >>> between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of
> >>> a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
> >>> mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
> >>> Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
> >>> glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
> >>> ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
> >>> discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
> >>> usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
> >>> years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a
> >>> business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
> >>> guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
> >>> Dave
>
> >>> On Oct 11, 9:54 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>> Lessons to be learned?
>
> >>>>http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2
>
> >>>> Join the discussion.
>
> >> I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A
> >> few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident
> >> report.
>
> >> 1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
> >> and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
> >> and *surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
> >> 1700AGL/FL100)
>
> >> 2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are
> >> aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
> >> (heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there
> >> are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
> >> sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
> >> airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsrück
> >> ridge) and many XC flights go along there.
>
> >> 3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about
> >> the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that
> >> safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations
> >> can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several
> >> Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn
> >> Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
> >> with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
> >> are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. *Also the situatuion of
> >> approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.
>
> >> 4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from
> >> FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D
> >> airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
> >> Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion
> >> contact with FIS will normally suffice.
>
> >> 5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
> >> transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!
>
> >> 6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
> >> Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports
> >> like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
> >> glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected"
> >> airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
> >> those glider pilots behave totally legal.
>
> >> 7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly
> >> advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
> >> contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be
> >> passed on the the approaching traffic.
>
> >> In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and
> >> operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using
> >> the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the *rule "see and be
> >> seen" is to obey.
>
> >> --
> >> Peter Scholz
> >> ASW24 JE
>
> > Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
> > point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
> > to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
> > adopt transponders.
>
> > Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
> > between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
> > wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
> > going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
> > is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
> > responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
> > community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
> > when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?
>
> > And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
> > exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
> > The two just do not mix well.
>
> > Darryl
>
> Darryl,
>
> in Germany, for many years because of the pure separation of commercial
> traffic and gliders by the different airspace they use, there was no
> need for transponders in gliders.
>
> In the last years, this has changed a bit, as more and more airports are
> beeing used by commercial carriers that serve the German market on top
> of the traditional "state airline" Lufthansa, and more and more
> restricted airspaces appear on the maps. You see more transponders in
> gliders now, and there are talks about making them mandatory.
>
> In fact, the Netherlands have tried to do this, but have after a few
> weeks asked the glider pilots to switch them off again near some major
> airports, because ATC just had a black cloud on there radar screens...
>
> But ambitioned XC pilots have more possibilities with transponders,
> because it is possible to get clearances for airspace that otherwise
> would not be usable by a glider, so if you have the money and the
> ambition, you'll get a transponder sooner or later.
>
> I think it will take some more years to make it common for XC flights,,
> but we try to avoid to make it mandatory, as it would make the
> traditional glider instruction in clubs a lot more expensive, many clubs
> wouldnT survive this. It's not only € 2000 for the transpionder itself,
> you have to get it installed and certified for each glider. This would
> exceed the value of many gliders used in training nowadays.
>
> --
> Peter Scholz
> ASW24 JE

Peter

I was not suggesting it be mandatory (actually the reverse - voluntary
adoption where needed to avoid blanket regulations), I was just
surprised it does not seem to be listed as something that was
encouraged locally. And I understand the extra cost of the
installations in Europe thanks to EASA bureaucracy.

BTW I think it is entirely reasonable for glider communities
especially in key locations in Europe to approach carriers like
Ryanair and try to seek some help in offsetting transponder costs.
This may be plausible where there is a noticeable change on the part
of one airline. A potentially tricky situation to handle, but
companies like Ryanair should be aware of the hazards of them not
taking action extend beyond the loss of one of their aircraft,
especially if approached by the glider community with a reasonable
proposal.

Darryl

Peter Purdie[_3_]

October 11th 10, 10:34 PM

Large areas of airspace are Class A-D reserved for IFR traffic under full
ATC control, to ensure Caommercial Air Trafic passenger safety.

Then you get low-cost carriers saving money by flying into small airports
without such airspace, and taking fuel-saving short cuts through
non-protected airspace.

The cost of installing transponders in EASAland is substantially greater
than the equipment cost due to excessive modification/certification fees.
I guess 'kd6veb' just screwed one in his Sparrowhawk and wired it up. I
could do that to my glider, risk invalidating the insurance and attracting
legal action from the airworthiness police.

I would appreciate a logical reason why I should spend a high proportion
of the cost of my glider to protect the profits of a commercial
orgnisation.

At 20:55 11 October 2010, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>On Oct 11, 12:22=A0pm, Peter Scholz
>wrote:
>> Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Gang
>> > =A0 =A0I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2
>glide=
>rs
>> > be so close to an airport approach and not have operating
transponders
>> > turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and
maybe
>> > Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider
competitions
>> > but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
>> > between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death
of
>> > a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
>> > mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
>> > Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
>> > glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
>> > ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
>> > discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
>> > usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
>> > years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between
a
>> > business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
>> > guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
>> > Dave
>>
>> > On Oct 11, 9:54 am, Karen =A0wrote:
>> >> Lessons to be learned?
>>
>> >>http://avherald.com/h?article=3D4320f1c2
>>
>> >> Join the discussion.
>>
>> I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well.
A
>> few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the
incident
>> report.
>>
>> 1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
>> and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
>> and =A0surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
>> 1700AGL/FL100)
>>
>> 2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred)
are
>> aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
>> (heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because
there
>> are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
>> sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
>> airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsr=FCck
>> ridge) and many XC flights go along there.
>>
>> 3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation)
about
>> the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so
that
>> safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider
operations
>> can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of
several
>> Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the
Frankfurt-Hahn
>> Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
>> with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
>> are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. =A0Also the situatuion
of
>> approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.
>>
>> 4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances
from
>> FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class
D
>> airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
>> Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just
radion
>> contact with FIS will normally suffice.
>>
>> 5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
>> transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!
>>
>> 6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
>> Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents
reports
>> like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
>> glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more
"protected"
>> airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
>> those glider pilots behave totally legal.
>>
>> 7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is
strongly
>> advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
>> contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can
be
>> passed on the the approaching traffic.
>>
>> In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation
and
>> operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic
using
>> the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the =A0rule "see and
be
>> seen" is to obey.
>>
>> --
>> Peter Scholz
>> ASW24 JE
>
>Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
>point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
>to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
>adopt transponders.
>
>Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
>between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
>wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
>going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
>is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
>responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
>community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
>when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?
>
>And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
>exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
>The two just do not mix well.
>
>
>Darryl
>

Darryl Ramm

October 11th 10, 11:07 PM

On Oct 11, 2:19*pm, Peter Scholz >
wrote:
> Am 11.10.2010 22:55, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, Peter >
> > wrote:
> >> Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:
>
> >>> Hi Gang
> >>> * * I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders
> >>> be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders
> >>> turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe
> >>> Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions
> >>> but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
> >>> between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of
> >>> a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
> >>> mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
> >>> Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
> >>> glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
> >>> ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
> >>> discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
> >>> usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
> >>> years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a
> >>> business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
> >>> guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
> >>> Dave
>
> >>> On Oct 11, 9:54 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>> Lessons to be learned?
>
> >>>>http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2
>
> >>>> Join the discussion.
>
> >> I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A
> >> few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident
> >> report.
>
> >> 1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
> >> and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
> >> and *surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
> >> 1700AGL/FL100)
>
> >> 2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are
> >> aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
> >> (heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there
> >> are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
> >> sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
> >> airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsrück
> >> ridge) and many XC flights go along there.
>
> >> 3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about
> >> the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that
> >> safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations
> >> can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several
> >> Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn
> >> Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
> >> with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
> >> are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. *Also the situatuion of
> >> approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.
>
> >> 4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from
> >> FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D
> >> airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
> >> Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion
> >> contact with FIS will normally suffice.
>
> >> 5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
> >> transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!
>
> >> 6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
> >> Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports
> >> like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
> >> glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected"
> >> airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
> >> those glider pilots behave totally legal.
>
> >> 7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly
> >> advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
> >> contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be
> >> passed on the the approaching traffic.
>
> >> In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and
> >> operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using
> >> the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the *rule "see and be
> >> seen" is to obey.
>
> >> --
> >> Peter Scholz
> >> ASW24 JE
>
> > Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
> > point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
> > to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
> > adopt transponders.
>
> > Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
> > between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
> > wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
> > going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
> > is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
> > responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
> > community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
> > when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?
>
> > And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
> > exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
> > The two just do not mix well.
>
> > Darryl
>
> Darryl,
>
> in Germany, for many years because of the pure separation of commercial
> traffic and gliders by the different airspace they use, there was no
> need for transponders in gliders.
>
> In the last years, this has changed a bit, as more and more airports are
> beeing used by commercial carriers that serve the German market on top
> of the traditional "state airline" Lufthansa, and more and more
> restricted airspaces appear on the maps. You see more transponders in
> gliders now, and there are talks about making them mandatory.
>
> In fact, the Netherlands have tried to do this, but have after a few
> weeks asked the glider pilots to switch them off again near some major
> airports, because ATC just had a black cloud on there radar screens...
>
> But ambitioned XC pilots have more possibilities with transponders,
> because it is possible to get clearances for airspace that otherwise
> would not be usable by a glider, so if you have the money and the
> ambition, you'll get a transponder sooner or later.
>
> I think it will take some more years to make it common for XC flights,,
> but we try to avoid to make it mandatory, as it would make the
> traditional glider instruction in clubs a lot more expensive, many clubs
> wouldnT survive this. It's not only € 2000 for the transpionder itself,
> you have to get it installed and certified for each glider. This would
> exceed the value of many gliders used in training nowadays.
>
> --
> Peter Scholz
> ASW24 JE

I meant also to add that I am a bit worried when I see the Schiphol
TMA brought up as a reason not to utilize transponders or encourage
their adoption in gliders. Did local ATC express concerns that if
gliders locally all adopted Mode S transponders that there would be
similar problems?

The problem at Schiphol was just overload of information on the
controllers displays and really should have been caught by the Dutch
regulators before requiring mandatory transponder carriage. There are
multiple things that could be done to address this in the display
system. Some were done but they need to do more. At times there seems
to be some confusion that the problem was an inherent limitation in
(Mode S) transponders - it was not. The sad thing is that all those
Mode S transponders work great with the TCAS/ACAS systems carried in
many aircraft even if the controllers displays are overloaded.

BTW for those interested the current AIP supplement for the Schiphol
TMA is at
http://www.ivw.nl/Images/EH-eSUP-09-05-en-GB_tcm247-244610.pdf or see
http://www.eurocontrol.int/msa/public/standard_page/Schiphol_Transponder_Procedure.html
for some extra commentary.

Darryl

Darryl Ramm

October 11th 10, 11:20 PM

On Oct 11, 2:34*pm, Peter Purdie > wrote:
> Large areas of airspace are Class A-D reserved for IFR traffic under full
> ATC control, to ensure Caommercial Air Trafic passenger safety.
>
> Then you get low-cost carriers saving money by flying into small airports
> without such airspace, and taking fuel-saving short cuts through
> non-protected airspace.
>
> The cost of installing transponders in EASAland is substantially greater
> than the equipment cost due to excessive modification/certification fees.
> I guess 'kd6veb' just screwed one in his Sparrowhawk and wired it up. *I
> could do that to my glider, risk invalidating the insurance and attracting
> legal action from the airworthiness police.
>
> I would appreciate a logical reason why I should spend a high proportion
> of the cost of my glider to protect the profits of a commercial
> orgnisation.

You install one to protect yourself, protect the plane full of
innocent passengers, and protect the future of soaring in your
location. As I've said I think it is entirely reasonable to approach
carriers like Ryanair with suggestions for them offsetting your
transponder costs (or take the tricky step of taking that battle
public... does the flying public have a right to know this?). Glider
organizations really need to think through whether to take on this
issue or not, if not when there is eventually a fatal mid-air
collision they just won't have a publicly defensible position. In
areas of high density airline and fast jets and glider traffic, doing
nothing looks to me like a very poor choice.

I know from outside the USA it looks like the whole place is run by a
bunch of cowboys, but I hate to ruin it for you... there is no "just
screwing in" of transponder in the USA. A certified glider requires at
least an IA/A&P sign-off or maybe a 337 field approval, an
experimental one may be done by the pilot. But in either case requires
a RF signal and pressure altimeter check after install and ongoing
biannual RF signal tests. Approved transponder test stations are very
unlikely to just sign off an inspection if they have any concerns
about the transponder install. But.. yes things here are much better
than the silly regulations EASA loads on glider owners in Europe.

Darryl

>
> At 20:55 11 October 2010, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> >On Oct 11, 12:22=A0pm, Peter Scholz
> >wrote:
> >> Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:
>
> >> > Hi Gang
> >> > =A0 =A0I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2
> >glide=
> >rs
> >> > be so close to an airport approach and not have operating
> transponders
> >> > turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and
> maybe
> >> > Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider
> competitions
> >> > but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
> >> > between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death
> of
> >> > a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
> >> > mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
> >> > Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
> >> > glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
> >> > ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
> >> > discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
> >> > usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
> >> > years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between
> a
> >> > business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
> >> > guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
> >> > Dave
>
> >> > On Oct 11, 9:54 am, Karen =A0wrote:
> >> >> Lessons to be learned?
>
> >> >>http://avherald.com/h?article=3D4320f1c2
>
> >> >> Join the discussion.
>
> >> I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well.
> A
> >> few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the
> incident
> >> report.
>
> >> 1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
> >> and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
> >> and =A0surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
> >> 1700AGL/FL100)
>
> >> 2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred)
> are
> >> aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
> >> (heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because
> there
> >> are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
> >> sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
> >> airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsr=FCck
> >> ridge) and many XC flights go along there.
>
> >> 3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation)
> about
> >> the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so
> that
> >> safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider
> operations
> >> can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of
> several
> >> Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the
> Frankfurt-Hahn
> >> Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
> >> with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
> >> are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. =A0Also the situatuion
> of
> >> approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.
>
> >> 4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances
> from
> >> FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class
> D
> >> airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
> >> Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just
> radion
> >> contact with FIS will normally suffice.
>
> >> 5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
> >> transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!
>
> >> 6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
> >> Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents
> reports
> >> like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
> >> glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more
> "protected"
> >> airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
> >> those glider pilots behave totally legal.
>
> >> 7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is
> strongly
> >> advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
> >> contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can
> be
> >> passed on the the approaching traffic.
>
> >> In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation
> and
> >> operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic
> using
> >> the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the =A0rule "see and
> be
> >> seen" is to obey.
>
> >> --
> >> Peter Scholz
> >> ASW24 JE
>
> >Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
> >point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
> >to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
> >adopt transponders.
>
> >Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
> >between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
> >wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
> >going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
> >is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
> >responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
> >community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
> >when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?
>
> >And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
> >exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
> >The two just do not mix well.
>
> >Darryl
>
>

Russell Thorne

October 12th 10, 12:10 AM

As both an avid glider pilot and also airline pilot, I have never seen
one jet/glider from the point of view of the other, and I do look, if
I know the other is about. Transponders are essential if you want to
have any chance of seeing the other at high speed. TCAS is my main
alerter, especially in the US, where I am amazed that that VFR
aircraft have such freedoms in busy airspace, may they continue for
ever. A case in point, last night while on a night departure out of
SFO on climb to 3000ft, there was a Cessna at 3500ft directly in the
departure path doing what he had every right to be doing. According to
TCAS, we passed directly underneath him , thank you TCAS, ATC and on
behalf of the 315 sitting behind us.
Airlines, and especially Ryanair, will not finance any such fitment of
transponders in gliders, our salvation as glider pilots lies in the
low cost development of ADS-B. In the meantime, I'm off to organise my
bi-annual transponder and altimeter checks.

As I've said I think it is entirely reasonable to approach
> carriers like Ryanair with suggestions for them offsetting your
> transponder costs (or take the tricky step of taking that battle
> public... does the flying public have a right to know this?). Glider
> organizations really need to think through whether to take on this
> issue or not, if not when there is eventually a fatal mid-air
> collision they just won't have a publicly defensible position. In
> areas of high density airline and fast jets and glider traffic, doing
> nothing looks to me like a very poor choice.
>
> I know from outside the USA it looks like the whole place is run by a
> bunch of cowboys, but I hate to ruin it for you... there is no "just
> screwing in" of transponder in the USA. A certified glider requires at
> least an IA/A&P sign-off or maybe a 337 field approval, an
> experimental one may be done by the pilot. But in either case requires
> a RF signal and pressure altimeter check after install and ongoing
> biannual RF signal tests. Approved transponder test stations are very
> unlikely to just sign off an inspection if they have any concerns
> about the transponder install. But.. yes things here are much better
> than the silly regulations EASA loads on glider owners in Europe.
>
> Darryl

kd6veb

October 12th 10, 01:38 AM

Hi Gang
My putting a transponder into a US ultralight glider (uncertified
flying machine with only an empty weight restriction of 155 pounds)
might have been a first. So how did I go about it? I called everyone I
knew at the FAA and told them what I proposed doing and why (to avoid
a possible mid air collision with an airliner in the Reno Nevada
area). They all told me, although no one would put it down in writing,
that it seemed a good idea and no one could find anything in the FAA
regs that specifically prohibited putting a transponder in an
ultralight. However in using a transponder in a US registered aircraft
requires that the transponder be certified initially and then every 2
years by an approved FAA mechanic/electrician. I said I would get that
approval and I did. Finally I invited a FAA inspector to come to
Minden and check out the installation and paperwork for the
certification. The comment by the inspector was "I wish more people
would be serious about safety as you apparently are".
I learnt a lot in these discussions about the subculture of the FAA
and how they approach problems. There is an underlying premise that if
it isn't specifically forbidden in the regs and rules then it is
permitted as long as people and property are not put in jeopardy.
Dave

Darryl Ramm

October 12th 10, 01:41 AM

On Oct 11, 4:10*pm, Russell Thorne > wrote:
> As both an avid glider pilot and also airline pilot, I have never seen
> one *jet/glider from the point of view of the other, and I do look, if
> I know the other is about. *Transponders are essential if you want to
> have any chance of seeing the other at high speed. TCAS is my main
> alerter, especially in the US, where I am amazed that that VFR
> aircraft have such freedoms in busy airspace, may they continue for
> ever. A case in point, last night while on a night departure out of
> SFO on climb to 3000ft, there was a Cessna at 3500ft directly in the
> departure path doing what he had every right to be doing. According to
> TCAS, we passed directly underneath him , thank you TCAS, ATC and on
> behalf of *the 315 sitting behind us.
> Airlines, and especially Ryanair, will not finance any such fitment of
> transponders in gliders, our salvation as glider pilots lies in the
> low cost development of ADS-B. In the meantime, I'm off to organise my
> bi-annual transponder and altimeter checks.
>
> *As I've said I think it is entirely reasonable to approach
>
> > carriers like Ryanair with suggestions for them offsetting your
> > transponder costs (or take the tricky step of taking that battle
> > public... does the flying public have a right to know this?). Glider
> > organizations really need to think through whether to take on this
> > issue or not, if not when there is eventually a fatal mid-air
> > collision they just won't have a publicly defensible position. In
> > areas of high density airline and fast jets and glider traffic, doing
> > nothing looks to me like a very poor choice.
>
> > I know from outside the USA it looks like the whole place is run by a
> > bunch of cowboys, but I hate to ruin it for you... there is no "just
> > screwing in" of transponder in the USA. A certified glider requires at
> > least an IA/A&P sign-off or maybe a 337 field approval, an
> > experimental one may be done by the pilot. But in either case requires
> > a RF signal and pressure altimeter check after install and ongoing
> > biannual RF signal tests. Approved transponder test stations are very
> > unlikely to just sign off an inspection if they have any concerns
> > about the transponder install. But.. yes things here are much better
> > than the silly regulations EASA loads on glider owners in Europe.
>
> > Darryl
>
>

Russell thanks for adding your airline-pilot voice to this.

But you had me right up until the end point... I worry that waiting
for ADS-B is likely not the answer, and at worse a dangerous
distraction. ADS-B offers many interesting potential capabilities and
benefits but seeing ADS-B offered as an alternative to transponders as
a collision avoidance mechanism near airliners leaves me pretty
concerned.

And I'm awfully curious if your airliner is equipped today with TCAS
II with integrated ADS-B data-in/CDTI?

ADS-B data-out in gliders will not provide an airliner with an RA from
its TCAS II system - something many pilots are not aware of. TCAS
needs a transponder to interrogate to issue an RA. The whole topic
does not get talked about much because it is implicitly assumed that
threat aircraft have transponders or transponders *and* ADS-B data-
out. If your airline has fitted a modern TCAS II that includes ADS-B
data-in and CDTI then you will get traffic display of ADS-B data-out
equipped aircraft but no RA. And you may even have have TCAS II with
ADS-B data-in for TCAS "enhanced surveillance" but still no CDTI/ADS-B
data-in display of traffic at all.

There is no regulatory requirement for airlines or other aircraft to
equip with CDTI, and no regulation likely to happen anytime soon,
since standards are a bit liquid at the moment. Sure there are new
TCAS II systems available that provide CDTI capability, and I expect
some newer transport category aircraft to come so equipped but trying
to understand when a significant fraction of airliners or fast jets
will be so equipped has proven pretty frustrating. If you have an ADS-
B specialist in your airline who could talk about ADS-B data-in/CDTI
adoption plans I would love to talk to them.

As for low-cost, we'll have to wait and see but it may well work out
that the cheapest way to deploy ADS-B data-out is via a Mode S/1090ES
transponder, in which case you get full TCAS compatibility via the
transponder part. Costs may have more to do with market dynamics (like
European Mode S adoption requirements) and worldwide addressable
market vs. engineering a specific UAT product for a part of the USA
low-end GA market. Modern low-cost electronics, FPGAs, high speed CMOS
RF components etc. have also helped to significantly lower Mode S
transponder costs beyond what was probably expected when the FAA and
others started thinking about UAT technology vs. (then very) expensive
Mode S transponders.

Darryl

jcarlyle

October 12th 10, 02:50 AM

Darryl,

I found your fourth paragraph very confusing:

> ADS-B data-out in gliders will not provide an airliner with an RA from
> its TCAS II system - something many pilots are not aware of. TCAS
> needs a transponder to interrogate to issue an RA. The whole topic
> does not get talked about much because it is implicitly assumed that
> threat aircraft have transponders or transponders *and* ADS-B data-
> out. If your airline has fitted a modern TCAS II that includes ADS-B
> data-in and CDTI then you will get traffic display of ADS-B data-out
> equipped aircraft but no RA. And you may even have have TCAS II with
> ADS-B data-in for TCAS "enhanced surveillance" but still no CDTI/ADS-B
> data-in display of traffic at all.

Are you making an assumption here that the glider in the first
sentence is flying in the US and has a UAT setup to yield ADS-B data-
out? Because in Europe I'm almost positive that ADS-B out can only
achieved with 1090ES, which of course will indeed provide a RA from a
TCAS system.

-John

Darryl Ramm

October 12th 10, 03:09 AM

On Oct 11, 6:50*pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Darryl,
>
> I found your fourth paragraph very confusing:
>
> > ADS-B data-out in gliders will not provide an airliner with an RA from
> > its TCAS II system - something many *pilots are not aware of. TCAS
> > needs a transponder to interrogate to issue an RA. The whole topic
> > does not get talked about much because it is implicitly assumed that
> > threat aircraft have transponders or transponders *and* ADS-B data-
> > out. If your airline has fitted a modern TCAS II that includes ADS-B
> > data-in and CDTI then you will get traffic display of ADS-B data-out
> > equipped aircraft but no RA. And you may even have have TCAS II with
> > ADS-B data-in for TCAS "enhanced surveillance" but still no CDTI/ADS-B
> > data-in display of traffic at all.
>
> Are you making an assumption here that the glider in the first
> sentence is flying in the US and has a UAT setup to yield ADS-B data-
> out? Because in Europe I'm almost positive that ADS-B out can only
> achieved with 1090ES, which of course will indeed provide a RA from a
> TCAS system.
>
> -John

John thanks sorry if I confused things. Yes I was taking about the
USA, this thread flopped geographies several times, I had assumed that
Russell was also talking about the USA where ADS-B over UAT is a link
layer option, I'm not sure how else to understand Russell's comment
"our salvation as glider pilots lies in the low cost development of
ADS-B" [presumably as opposed to transponders which was the topic up
tot that point]. I also point out later in my post that Mode S with
1090ES data-out will indeed interoperate fully with TCAS II. But to be
really clear...

In Europe and most other places ADS-B will be over 1090ES only
(thankfully the European based work on VDL never ended up being
supported as a link layer for ADS-B). And as John points out since
those ADS-B data-out systems are also Mode S transponders they will be
fully compatible with TCAS II. And technically its possible to build a
1090ES data-out transmitter that does not implement transponder
functions, but nobody is doing that or announced any plans to do so,
but once you go to all that effort to do 1090ES data-out it might as
well be a full Mode S transponder.

Darryl

Mike the Strike

October 12th 10, 04:41 AM

No-one seems to have commented on the report that the gliders in the
near miss were possibly near cloudbase. We all know that in
sailplanes height is everything and just about every soaring pilot
regularly ignores the regulations requiring minimum clearances from
cloud.

Maybe flying in Britain and South Africa desensitized me to this issue
- flying in clouds seemed quite normal in both places and even I had
one gyro instrument back in those days. However, I don't see any real
difference here in the USA - pilots routinely climb under clouds until
visibility gets fuzzy. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised if
commercial aircraft get a shock to find gliders where they aren't
supposed to be, especially as they descend through cloud.

It's also my view that anyone flying a glider in an area of high
commercial traffic without a transponder is plain nuts. Mine was out
for repair for a few weeks and I got to count an awful lot of rivets
on airliners on approach to Tucson International - they pass right
over our gliderport. I even got to see passengers faces on one and I
don't think they were delighted to see me so close up!

I'll take all the electronic countermeasures I can get!

Mike

Derek C

October 12th 10, 06:19 AM

On Oct 11, 8:56*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 10/11/2010 11:44 AM, Derek C wrote:> You must be a rich Yank with more money than sense! $2500 sounds like
> > a small fortune to a hard up Brit. Why not get airliners to fit $300
> > Flarm units?
>
> Where do you get $300 FLARM units? But, that's not the problem, really -
> the airliner requires certified equipment. It would be much quicker,
> easier, more effective, and cheaper (for the airline company) to talk
> the airline companies into putting those $2500 transponders into gliders
> flying in that area. $100,000 - problem solved in one month.
>
> The transponders could be leased to the pilots - it's not necessary for
> it to be a gift. Could you afford $200/year to have a transponder in
> your glider?
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Ryanair is a low cost carrier that cuts its costs down to the last
penny and treats its customers like cattle. I can't somehow see them
purchasing several thousand transponder units to give to European
glider pilots!

Derek C

John Smith

October 12th 10, 10:08 AM

Darryl Ramm wrote:
> If glider pilots choose to fly near areas of high-density airline and
> fast-jet traffic without a transponder and the decision would only

I hate that "who has been there first" argument nearly as much as I hate
Usenet posters who don't care to reasonably trim quotations. Anyway, in
Germany, nearly everywhere gliders have been first.

That area has been densly populated by gliders for a long time, without
any conflict whatsoever. There's a perfect international airport nearby,
Frankfurt-Main (EDDF), which coexists with the gliders without any
problem. Now Ryanair appears and chooses not to use Frankfurt-Main, but
rather fly to Frankfurt-Hahn (EDFH) instead, because it's cheaper (in
fact, ist's even subsidized...). And then Ryanair asks that gliders
should go and spend thousands of Euros for transponders, so Ryanair can
spare a few bucks in landing fees by using a subsidized airport.

Darryl Ramm

October 12th 10, 03:25 PM

On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith > wrote:
> Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > If glider pilots choose to fly near areas of high-density airline and
> > fast-jet traffic *without a transponder and the decision would only
>
> I hate that "who has been there first" argument nearly as much as I hate
> Usenet posters who don't care to reasonably trim quotations. Anyway, in
> Germany, nearly everywhere gliders have been first.
>
> That area has been densly populated by gliders for a long time, without
> any conflict whatsoever. There's a perfect international airport nearby,
> Frankfurt-Main (EDDF), which coexists with the gliders without any
> problem. Now Ryanair appears and chooses not to use Frankfurt-Main, but
> rather fly to Frankfurt-Hahn (EDFH) instead, because it's cheaper (in
> fact, ist's even subsidized...). And then Ryanair asks that gliders
> should go and spend thousands of Euros for transponders, so Ryanair can
> spare a few bucks in landing fees by using a subsidized airport.

But every time a glider takes off in that area now is the glider pilot
making a decision to fly in an area of high density airline traffic? I
know this mess was not created by the glider pilots changing how they
operate--but what is reasonable to do now from a safety viewpoint? If
that traffic is there then transponders will likely provide a strong
safety-net, and lack of use might well end up costing a planeload of
passengers their lives and cost soaring greatly if there is a mid-air.
By all means go and tackle Ryanair on the safety implications of what
they are doing. They hardly have a good PR image and the public may
well be sympathetic.

---

Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
USA.

Allegheny 853
MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed

Pacific Southwest 182
Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed

Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
carriage requirements in the USA)
MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured

NetJets N879QS
Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)

Darryl

Peter Scholz[_2_]

October 12th 10, 04:14 PM

Am 12.10.2010 16:25, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> But every time a glider takes off in that area now is the glider pilot
> making a decision to fly in an area of high density airline traffic? I
> know this mess was not created by the glider pilots changing how they
> operate--but what is reasonable to do now from a safety viewpoint? If
> that traffic is there then transponders will likely provide a strong
> safety-net, and lack of use might well end up costing a planeload of
> passengers their lives and cost soaring greatly if there is a mid-air.
> By all means go and tackle Ryanair on the safety implications of what
> they are doing. They hardly have a good PR image and the public may
> well be sympathetic.
>
> ---

Yes, this area has airline traffic, but not what you would call "high
density". ATC aouthorities are watching this closely, and they have the
exact traffic figures, and they also have clear rules when to implement
a Class C or Class D airspace to seperate IFR and VFR traffic. Up to
now, there was no need to do so, we will hear in a few weeks it this
will change next year. We talk to those ATC people, and they listen to
us. There are also glider pilots amongst them.

But definitely there is no cooperation to be expected from Ryan Air. A
company that wants you to pay for the use of the toilet in their planes,
and that recently started to apply for flying their planes with only one
pilot in order to save money will for sure not sponsor any security
equipment for glider pilots.

>
> Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
> several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
> light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
> TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
> jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
> evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
> apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
> those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
> register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
> start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
> information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
> USA.
>

The situation in Germany is different than in the USA. There is in
general a far more strict seraration between IFR and VFR traffic. E.g.
for the traffic to and from Frankfurt International there will never be
(legally) a situation like the one described in the incident report, as
all IFR fraffic is routed through Class C airspace.

Requiring mandatory transponder use for gliders in Germany would be sure
overkill, and we are fighting against a rule like that.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

India November

October 12th 10, 08:00 PM

On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Darryl Ramm wrote:

>
> ---
>
> Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
> several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
> light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
> TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
> jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
> evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
> apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
> those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
> register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
> start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
> information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
> USA.
>
> Allegheny 853
> MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed
>
> Pacific Southwest 182
> Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
> San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed
>
> Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
> carriage requirements in the USA)
> MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured
>
> NetJets N879QS
> Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
> Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)
>
> Darryl

Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators
and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near
Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of
reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number
since the 1980s.

http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/portal/PORTAL.wwa_app_module.show?p_header=true&p_sessionid=30289

Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC
database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the
terms "glider" and "US air carrier".

The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these
other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between
transponder-equipped powered aircraft.

In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air
collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and
warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders
form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial
passengers are exposed to.

Ian Grant IN

Darryl Ramm

October 12th 10, 08:58 PM

On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November > wrote:
> On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith > wrote:
>
> > > Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > ---
>
> > Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
> > several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
> > light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
> > TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
> > jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
> > evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
> > apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
> > those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
> > register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
> > start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
> > information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
> > USA.
>
> > Allegheny 853
> > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed
>
> > Pacific Southwest 182
> > Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
> > San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed
>
> > Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
> > carriage requirements in the USA)
> > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured
>
> > NetJets N879QS
> > Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
> > Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)
>
> > Darryl
>
> Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators
> and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near
> Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of
> reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number
> since the 1980s.
>
> http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/portal/PORTAL.wwa_app_module.show...
>
> Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC
> database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the
> terms "glider" and "US air carrier".
>
> The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these
> other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between
> transponder-equipped powered aircraft.
>
> In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air
> collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and
> warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders
> form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial
> passengers are exposed to.
>
> Ian Grant IN

Ian

I am not sure the NMAC statistics you quote are really too meaningful
either way. They may be self selecting as gliders may just not get
detected either by the flight crew (or passengers), TCAS or ground SSR
or primary radar. And there are a significant amount of "unknown"
aircraft being reported - including near some glider sites. Some
researchers claim that NMAC may only capture a few percent of the
actual incidents so I'm awfully nervous about using it for much. And
if many of those other incidents involved transponder equipped
aircraft then the TCAS II saftey net in an airliner would have applied
which may make an apparent low percentage of close encounters a much
higher mid-air collision risk. Again my concern is not universal,
there are sites in the USA where this risk is much higher than others--
and pilots in those locations need to focus on transponder adoption,
working with local ATC, etc. For some of those sites like Reno -- NMAC
does flag the issue pretty well, for others I suspect less so.

---

To get off seeming to bash this incident in Europe it really seems
that Peter Scholtz and others are working on this are trying to deal
with that situation well.

Thanks

Darryl

Chris Nicholas[_2_]

October 13th 10, 12:08 AM

Where commercial air transport (CAT) and gliders are to be found in
the same airspace, I have long been of the opinion that "see and be
seen" is too imperfect to rely upon safely, and either procedure or
technology is needed to remove some of the element of luck in
minimising collision risks.

I think it is unrealistic to expect CAT to take up Flarm.

It is also unrealistic to expect all gliders in Europe to be able to
fit transponders. I can give detailed reasons why, if necessary, but
they have been repeated many times by many people. Those who don't
believe it are either completely ignorant of the circumstances in
Europe, or can speak authoritatively because they are part of EASA and/
or a national aviation authority. If the latter, why have you not made
clear to the UK CAA (Civil Aviation Authority), to the British Gliding
Association, and to the maintenance operations that I have used in the
UK, that the difficulties I'm told about which are insuperable in many
cases, are a fiction. If you are not in EASA, and not in a national
aviation authority, and believe these problems are easily and legally
overcome in Europe, you are simply wrong.

There are places where procedural separation can be use, by both
gliders and CAT being in touch with air traffic control.

Where none of the above apply, and/or for some reason the glider
pilots cannot or will not talk to air traffic control, there is one
other safeguard which could be adopted: PCAS or similar in the glider.

I have written a long report for the British Gliding Association where
this issue, amongst others, is discussed. My points included:

---------------

Where possible, I also believe that units such as PCAS (a transponder-
detection device) should be fitted, for reducing conflicts with
transponder-equipped powered aircraft not part of gliding operations,
particularly in areas where other General Aviation (GA) aircraft are
frequently encountered, and also when “see and avoid” could not be
effective such as cloud flying..

Although glider-unrelated power collision in cloud is unknown, it
seems to me a small price to pay to reduce that tiny risk. So I think
a personal policy of using PCAS for cloud climbing, and as far as
possible for other flying – particularly IMC (closer then 1000 feet
vertically etc.) and wherever gliders fly in areas or height bands
known to have a lot of transiting GA, plus launch points where
transits are a known issue, is worthwhile. It may also help the
glider pilot to detect the much larger number of threats which result
in airprox reports.

There is undoubtedly a disadvantage of using PCAS in a glider. It
gives far more alerts than real collision threats. Personally, I take
these as being a reminder as to how poor are even my best attempts at
Lookout. Some pilots might regard this as a distraction. I would
rather have many distractions and one real worthwhile alert, than miss
the one really important one. Pilots engaged in competition or other
high workload situations may take a different view.

Crude cost benefit analysis

For Individual gliders to fit PCAS, 100% fitment in 2300 UK gliders
would cost about £1,000,000. If history is anything to go by, that
would address 2 collisions causing 3 fatalities over a 40 year period.

--------------------

I have also studied UK airprox reports, and drew some conclusions from
those.

This is already a long post, and I do not propose to include any more
quotations from my report. If anybody wants a copy of the whole thing,
however, feel free to e-mail me, and I will send a copy by e-mail as a
Word document.

I would be interested to see if anybody else in other countries, USA
or Europe, have done similar analyses of collisions and Airproxes.

Chris N

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 13th 10, 05:36 AM

On 10/12/2010 12:00 PM, India November wrote:
> Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators
> and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near
> Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of
> reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number
> since the 1980s.
>
> http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/portal/PORTAL.wwa_app_module.show?p_header=true&p_sessionid=30289
>
> Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC
> database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the
> terms "glider" and "US air carrier".
>
> The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these
> other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between
> transponder-equipped powered aircraft.
>
> In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air
> collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and
> warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders
> form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial
> passengers are exposed to.
>
>

Like Darryl, I am very skeptical of these statistics, based on my
personal experiences. In 2002, I flew several days at Minden, where I
had three "too close for comfort" airliner fly-bys, so the idea that
there were really only 9 events in all those years is just nuts in my
opinion. Minden alone must produce that many in a year, and it'd be even
more, except a lot of gliders there do carry and use transponders.

I vowed I'd never fly at Minden again without a transponder, and
installed one when I got home. Even when I was flying at home (a low
traffic area), over many years, I've had a few fighters, C-17s, and
airliners come close. Since I put the transponder in, no fast or heavy
traffic has come close at all at home, at Minden, or anywhere. I turn it
on and it works.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Derek C

October 14th 10, 09:52 AM

On Oct 12, 4:14*pm, Peter Scholz >
wrote:
> Am 12.10.2010 16:25, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > But every time a glider takes off in that area now is the glider pilot
> > making a decision to fly in an area of high density airline traffic? I
> > know this mess was not created by the glider pilots changing how they
> > operate--but what is reasonable to do now from a safety viewpoint? If
> > that traffic is there then transponders will likely provide a strong
> > safety-net, and lack of use might well end up costing a planeload of
> > passengers their lives and cost soaring greatly if there is a mid-air.
> > By all means go and tackle Ryanair on the safety implications of what
> > they are doing. They hardly have a good PR image and the public may
> > well be sympathetic.
>
> > ---
>
> Yes, this area has airline traffic, but not what you would call "high
> density". ATC aouthorities are watching this closely, and they have the
> exact traffic figures, and they also have clear rules when to implement
> a Class C or Class D airspace to seperate IFR and VFR traffic. Up to
> now, there was no need to do so, we will hear in a few weeks it this
> will change next year. We talk to those ATC people, and they listen to
> us. There are also glider pilots amongst them.
>
> But definitely there is no cooperation to be expected from Ryan Air. A
> company that wants you to pay for the use of the toilet in their planes,
> and that recently started to apply for flying their planes with only one
> pilot in order to save money will for sure not sponsor any security
> equipment for glider pilots.
>
>
>
> > Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
> > several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
> > light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
> > TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
> > jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
> > evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
> > apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
> > those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
> > register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
> > start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
> > information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
> > USA.
>
> The situation in Germany is different than in the USA. There is in
> general a far more strict seraration between IFR and VFR traffic. E.g.
> for the traffic to and from Frankfurt International there will never be
> (legally) a situation like the one described in the incident report, as
> all IFR fraffic is routed through Class C airspace.
>
> Requiring mandatory transponder use for gliders in Germany would be sure
> overkill, and we are fighting against a rule like that.
>
> --
> Peter Scholz
> ASW24 JE

Can I also point out that fitting Transponders to gliders without TCAS
does not give them any means of avoiding glider to glider type
collisions. It is onlyreally of benefit to ATC and airliners, but
glider owners are expected to pay for them!

Derek C

Darryl Ramm

October 14th 10, 10:26 AM

On Oct 14, 1:52*am, Derek C > wrote:
> On Oct 12, 4:14*pm, Peter Scholz >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Am 12.10.2010 16:25, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > > But every time a glider takes off in that area now is the glider pilot
> > > making a decision to fly in an area of high density airline traffic? I
> > > know this mess was not created by the glider pilots changing how they
> > > operate--but what is reasonable to do now from a safety viewpoint? If
> > > that traffic is there then transponders will likely provide a strong
> > > safety-net, and lack of use might well end up costing a planeload of
> > > passengers their lives and cost soaring greatly if there is a mid-air..
> > > By all means go and tackle Ryanair on the safety implications of what
> > > they are doing. They hardly have a good PR image and the public may
> > > well be sympathetic.
>
> > > ---
>
> > Yes, this area has airline traffic, but not what you would call "high
> > density". ATC aouthorities are watching this closely, and they have the
> > exact traffic figures, and they also have clear rules when to implement
> > a Class C or Class D airspace to seperate IFR and VFR traffic. Up to
> > now, there was no need to do so, we will hear in a few weeks it this
> > will change next year. We talk to those ATC people, and they listen to
> > us. There are also glider pilots amongst them.
>
> > But definitely there is no cooperation to be expected from Ryan Air. A
> > company that wants you to pay for the use of the toilet in their planes,
> > and that recently started to apply for flying their planes with only one
> > pilot in order to save money will for sure not sponsor any security
> > equipment for glider pilots.
>
> > > Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
> > > several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
> > > light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
> > > TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
> > > jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
> > > evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
> > > apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
> > > those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
> > > register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
> > > start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
> > > information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
> > > USA.
>
> > The situation in Germany is different than in the USA. There is in
> > general a far more strict seraration between IFR and VFR traffic. E.g.
> > for the traffic to and from Frankfurt International there will never be
> > (legally) a situation like the one described in the incident report, as
> > all IFR fraffic is routed through Class C airspace.
>
> > Requiring mandatory transponder use for gliders in Germany would be sure
> > overkill, and we are fighting against a rule like that.
>
> > --
> > Peter Scholz
> > ASW24 JE
>
> Can I also point out that fitting Transponders to gliders without TCAS
> does not give them any means of avoiding glider to glider type
> collisions. It is onlyreally of benefit to ATC and airliners, but
> glider owners are expected to pay for them!
>
> Derek C

TCAS in a glider? That's not ever going to happen. But quite a few of
the transponder equipped gliders in the USA (we have a high ratio of
those in Northern California/Nevada) also carry the Zaon MRX PCAS and
they are mostly helpful for glider-glider and glider-GA traffic
awareness--but a lot less useful than Flarm would be.

No single technology does now, and no upcoming technology will provide
very effective traffic awareness/collision avoidance needs across
glider-glider, glider-GA and glider-airliner/fast jet etc. If
airliners are a serious concern in an area then transponders in
gliders working with ATC radar and the TCAS in airliners is the
ultimate technical approach available to help avoid a collision. The
glider pilot installs a transponder to avoid the airliner running into
him, to avoid the deaths of an airliner full of passengers and to
avoid the damage to soaring that such an accident would cause. There
is absolutely no collision avoidance technology available that could
warn a glider pilot and give them more information/effective result
than allowing TCAS II in the airliner cockpit to do its thing.

Traffic awareness technology in the glider cockpit can help make
glider pilots aware of where airline etc. traffic is. PCAS can do that
a little (but is too slow/short range and non-directional to deal with
airliners and fast jets). ADS-B will help in future (but with lots of
caveats esp. around the dual-link technology in the USA). However none
of these future technologies will provide the ultimate saftey net that
transponders and TCAS do, not for decades.

The appropriate technology for glider-glider and glider-towplane
scenarios is Flarm and the glider-GA question is more complex
especially in the USA. PCAS has been the only answer we've had there
for a while. ADS-B may be the answer long-term (but it looks like it
is going to be a mess in the USA for quite a while).

Darryl

Mike Ash

October 14th 10, 04:12 PM

In article
>,
Derek C > wrote:

> Can I also point out that fitting Transponders to gliders without TCAS
> does not give them any means of avoiding glider to glider type
> collisions. It is onlyreally of benefit to ATC and airliners, but
> glider owners are expected to pay for them!

It most certainly is of benefit to glider owners as well, unless you
think you and your glider would somehow survive a collision with an
airliner?

My transponder makes me feel much better when flying in the vicinity of
the approaches into Dulles International, and it's not just because the
idea of accidentally killing a bunch of airline passengers disturbs me.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mike Schumann

October 14th 10, 07:43 PM

On 10/14/2010 4:26 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Oct 14, 1:52 am, Derek > wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 4:14 pm, Peter >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Am 12.10.2010 16:25, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>>> But every time a glider takes off in that area now is the glider pilot
>>>> making a decision to fly in an area of high density airline traffic? I
>>>> know this mess was not created by the glider pilots changing how they
>>>> operate--but what is reasonable to do now from a safety viewpoint? If
>>>> that traffic is there then transponders will likely provide a strong
>>>> safety-net, and lack of use might well end up costing a planeload of
>>>> passengers their lives and cost soaring greatly if there is a mid-air.
>>>> By all means go and tackle Ryanair on the safety implications of what
>>>> they are doing. They hardly have a good PR image and the public may
>>>> well be sympathetic.
>>
>>>> ---
>>
>>> Yes, this area has airline traffic, but not what you would call "high
>>> density". ATC aouthorities are watching this closely, and they have the
>>> exact traffic figures, and they also have clear rules when to implement
>>> a Class C or Class D airspace to seperate IFR and VFR traffic. Up to
>>> now, there was no need to do so, we will hear in a few weeks it this
>>> will change next year. We talk to those ATC people, and they listen to
>>> us. There are also glider pilots amongst them.
>>
>>> But definitely there is no cooperation to be expected from Ryan Air. A
>>> company that wants you to pay for the use of the toilet in their planes,
>>> and that recently started to apply for flying their planes with only one
>>> pilot in order to save money will for sure not sponsor any security
>>> equipment for glider pilots.
>>
>>>> Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
>>>> several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
>>>> light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
>>>> TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
>>>> jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
>>>> evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
>>>> apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
>>>> those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
>>>> register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
>>>> start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
>>>> information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
>>>> USA.
>>
>>> The situation in Germany is different than in the USA. There is in
>>> general a far more strict seraration between IFR and VFR traffic. E.g.
>>> for the traffic to and from Frankfurt International there will never be
>>> (legally) a situation like the one described in the incident report, as
>>> all IFR fraffic is routed through Class C airspace.
>>
>>> Requiring mandatory transponder use for gliders in Germany would be sure
>>> overkill, and we are fighting against a rule like that.
>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Scholz
>>> ASW24 JE
>>
>> Can I also point out that fitting Transponders to gliders without TCAS
>> does not give them any means of avoiding glider to glider type
>> collisions. It is onlyreally of benefit to ATC and airliners, but
>> glider owners are expected to pay for them!
>>
>> Derek C
>
> TCAS in a glider? That's not ever going to happen. But quite a few of
> the transponder equipped gliders in the USA (we have a high ratio of
> those in Northern California/Nevada) also carry the Zaon MRX PCAS and
> they are mostly helpful for glider-glider and glider-GA traffic
> awareness--but a lot less useful than Flarm would be.
>
> No single technology does now, and no upcoming technology will provide
> very effective traffic awareness/collision avoidance needs across
> glider-glider, glider-GA and glider-airliner/fast jet etc. If
> airliners are a serious concern in an area then transponders in
> gliders working with ATC radar and the TCAS in airliners is the
> ultimate technical approach available to help avoid a collision. The
> glider pilot installs a transponder to avoid the airliner running into
> him, to avoid the deaths of an airliner full of passengers and to
> avoid the damage to soaring that such an accident would cause. There
> is absolutely no collision avoidance technology available that could
> warn a glider pilot and give them more information/effective result
> than allowing TCAS II in the airliner cockpit to do its thing.
>
> Traffic awareness technology in the glider cockpit can help make
> glider pilots aware of where airline etc. traffic is. PCAS can do that
> a little (but is too slow/short range and non-directional to deal with
> airliners and fast jets). ADS-B will help in future (but with lots of
> caveats esp. around the dual-link technology in the USA). However none
> of these future technologies will provide the ultimate saftey net that
> transponders and TCAS do, not for decades.
>
> The appropriate technology for glider-glider and glider-towplane
> scenarios is Flarm and the glider-GA question is more complex
> especially in the USA. PCAS has been the only answer we've had there
> for a while. ADS-B may be the answer long-term (but it looks like it
> is going to be a mess in the USA for quite a while).
>
> Darryl
>
The "ultimate" technology for glider to glider or glider to towplane
collision avoidance is NOT Flarm, at least in the US. For FLARM to be
effective, everyone has to install. You may get this to happen in US
contests, but it is a pipedream that there is going to be widespread
FLARM deployment outside of that limited environment.

The "ultimate" technology in the US will be ADS-B. We can debate about
whether this will be UAT or 1090ES. FLARM is just a distraction that is
confusing the issue and doesn't really address the fundamental problem
most of us face, which is collision threats with jets and other GA
(non-glider) aircraft.

--
Mike Schumann

Craig Lowrie

October 15th 10, 06:23 AM

What about PowerFlarm...?.. It takes signals from GA transponders as well
as Flarm equiped gliders and alerts
them on Flarm-type display. Combined with Mk1 eyeball, must be the best
compromise..?

Craig Lowrie, UK

At 18:43 14 October 2010, Mike Schumann wrote:
>On 10/14/2010 4:26 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 1:52 am, Derek C wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 4:14 pm, Peter Scholz
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Am 12.10.2010 16:25, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But every time a glider takes off in that area now is the glider
>pilot
>>>>> making a decision to fly in an area of high density airline
traffic?
>I
>>>>> know this mess was not created by the glider pilots changing how
they
>>>>> operate--but what is reasonable to do now from a safety viewpoint?
If
>>>>> that traffic is there then transponders will likely provide a
strong
>>>>> safety-net, and lack of use might well end up costing a planeload
of
>>>>> passengers their lives and cost soaring greatly if there is a
>mid-air.
>>>>> By all means go and tackle Ryanair on the safety implications of
what
>>>>> they are doing. They hardly have a good PR image and the public may
>>>>> well be sympathetic.
>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>
>>>> Yes, this area has airline traffic, but not what you would call
"high
>>>> density". ATC aouthorities are watching this closely, and they have
>the
>>>> exact traffic figures, and they also have clear rules when to
>implement
>>>> a Class C or Class D airspace to seperate IFR and VFR traffic. Up to
>>>> now, there was no need to do so, we will hear in a few weeks it this
>>>> will change next year. We talk to those ATC people, and they listen
to
>>>> us. There are also glider pilots amongst them.
>>>
>>>> But definitely there is no cooperation to be expected from Ryan Air.
A
>>>> company that wants you to pay for the use of the toilet in their
>planes,
>>>> and that recently started to apply for flying their planes with only
>one
>>>> pilot in order to save money will for sure not sponsor any security
>>>> equipment for glider pilots.
>>>
>>>>> Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
>>>>> several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions
with
>>>>> light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders
and
>>>>> TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
>>>>> jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
>>>>> evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can
>allow
>>>>> apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
>>>>> those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
>>>>> register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic
outcomes.
>I
>>>>> start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA
centric
>>>>> information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside
the
>>>>> USA.
>>>
>>>> The situation in Germany is different than in the USA. There is in
>>>> general a far more strict seraration between IFR and VFR traffic.
E.g.
>>>> for the traffic to and from Frankfurt International there will never
>be
>>>> (legally) a situation like the one described in the incident report,
>as
>>>> all IFR fraffic is routed through Class C airspace.
>>>
>>>> Requiring mandatory transponder use for gliders in Germany would be
>sure
>>>> overkill, and we are fighting against a rule like that.
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter Scholz
>>>> ASW24 JE
>>>
>>> Can I also point out that fitting Transponders to gliders without
TCAS
>>> does not give them any means of avoiding glider to glider type
>>> collisions. It is onlyreally of benefit to ATC and airliners, but
>>> glider owners are expected to pay for them!
>>>
>>> Derek C
>>
>> TCAS in a glider? That's not ever going to happen. But quite a few of
>> the transponder equipped gliders in the USA (we have a high ratio of
>> those in Northern California/Nevada) also carry the Zaon MRX PCAS and
>> they are mostly helpful for glider-glider and glider-GA traffic
>> awareness--but a lot less useful than Flarm would be.
>>
>> No single technology does now, and no upcoming technology will provide
>> very effective traffic awareness/collision avoidance needs across
>> glider-glider, glider-GA and glider-airliner/fast jet etc. If
>> airliners are a serious concern in an area then transponders in
>> gliders working with ATC radar and the TCAS in airliners is the
>> ultimate technical approach available to help avoid a collision. The
>> glider pilot installs a transponder to avoid the airliner running into
>> him, to avoid the deaths of an airliner full of passengers and to
>> avoid the damage to soaring that such an accident would cause. There
>> is absolutely no collision avoidance technology available that could
>> warn a glider pilot and give them more information/effective result
>> than allowing TCAS II in the airliner cockpit to do its thing.
>>
>> Traffic awareness technology in the glider cockpit can help make
>> glider pilots aware of where airline etc. traffic is. PCAS can do that
>> a little (but is too slow/short range and non-directional to deal with
>> airliners and fast jets). ADS-B will help in future (but with lots of
>> caveats esp. around the dual-link technology in the USA). However none
>> of these future technologies will provide the ultimate saftey net that
>> transponders and TCAS do, not for decades.
>>
>> The appropriate technology for glider-glider and glider-towplane
>> scenarios is Flarm and the glider-GA question is more complex
>> especially in the USA. PCAS has been the only answer we've had there
>> for a while. ADS-B may be the answer long-term (but it looks like it
>> is going to be a mess in the USA for quite a while).
>>
>> Darryl
>>
>The "ultimate" technology for glider to glider or glider to towplane
>collision avoidance is NOT Flarm, at least in the US. For FLARM to be
>effective, everyone has to install. You may get this to happen in US
>contests, but it is a pipedream that there is going to be widespread
>FLARM deployment outside of that limited environment.
>
>The "ultimate" technology in the US will be ADS-B. We can debate about

>whether this will be UAT or 1090ES. FLARM is just a distraction that is

>confusing the issue and doesn't really address the fundamental problem
>most of us face, which is collision threats with jets and other GA
>(non-glider) aircraft.
>
>--
>Mike Schumann
>

danlj

October 16th 10, 05:09 AM

On Oct 11, 4:34*pm, Peter Purdie > wrote:
....clip...
>
> I would appreciate a logical reason why I should spend a high proportion
> of the cost of my glider to protect the profits of a commercial
> organisation.=

Because you are doing it to protect your own life, that's why; and the
lives of the people on the other airplane (you don't care, but most
pilots do). It has nothing whatever to do with "protecting profits."

Darryl Ramm

October 16th 10, 07:24 AM

On Oct 14, 11:43 am, Mike Schumann <mike-nos...@traditions-
[snip]
>
> The "ultimate" technology for glider to glider or glider to towplane
> collision avoidance is NOT Flarm, at least in the US. For FLARM to be
> effective, everyone has to install. You may get this to happen in US
> contests, but it is a pipedream that there is going to be widespread
> FLARM deployment outside of that limited environment.
>
> The "ultimate" technology in the US will be ADS-B. We can debate about
> whether this will be UAT or 1090ES. FLARM is just a distraction that is
> confusing the issue and doesn't really address the fundamental problem
> most of us face, which is collision threats with jets and other GA
> (non-glider) aircraft.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Oh God spare us this grand standing for ADS-B and UAT technology. If
it wasn't actually important saftey issue I'd let this troll like
behavior go, but because it is I'll reply, and most of these points
are just the same I've made before. Points apparently that Mike
Schumann seems unable to comprehend or challenge in a cogent way. So
apologies to the Europeans and others for dragging this off to a non-
airline-on-glider and USA centric direction. I'll try to keep this to
the glider-glider scenario but I know I'll wander in places.

---

I'm trying to follow Mike Schumann's loopy logic here....

1. He claims ADS-B is better for glider-glider collision avoidance
than Flarm because all gliders have to install a Flarm device? -- like
WTF is he smoking? All gliders would have to install ADS-B for that to
work as well. And even if they did why would ADS-B be better at glider-
glider scenarios than the Flarm technology developed precisely for
doing that and proven in use worldwide by thousands of glider pilots
in challenging situations including busy contests.

2. He claims the fundamental problem most of us face is collision
threats with jets and other GA (non-glider) aircraft. -- That is just
obvious bull****, we all know of several collisions between gliders
and gliders and tow-planes in the USA in the last several years and
several overseas -- who here thinks collision risk with GA is more of
a blanket serious issue across the USA glider fleet? Where are all
those past collisions then? Risks scenarios will vary by location and
there will be locations where risk of a GA or airline collision may be
the main concern but it is ridiculous to claim that GA collision are
a larger risk on average for a USA glider pilot. The risk for
airliner collision is concentrated at certain locations and is a
concern mostly because the consequence x risk product is so large.

---

There is no ADS-B carriage mandate for gliders in the USA. I expect
lots (several hundreds) of gliders in the USA are going to have
PowerFLARM installed within the next year or so. Effectively none will
have ADS-B data-out. I expect the USA contest scene to rapidly get to
significant PowerFLARM adaption, helped by purchases and rental
programs that seem to be coming together. But most pre-orders and
interest in purchases that I have seen locally of PowerFLARM is from
recreational XC not contest glider pilots. And I expect to see FBOs
and clubs equipping there fleets including tow planes--at least one
local operation seems pretty committed to do that asap. It is on a
roll. But there will still be lots of people who choose not to install
Flarm products and I expect those same people would also not (because
they don't want to and/or cannot afford to) install ADS-B products,
especially ones costing significantly more.

Meanwhile ADS-B is happening so slowly it might as well be dead in the
water as far as any use in the near term is concerned for ADS-B data-
out in gliders (data-in is more doable but has serious restrictions in
the USA due to dual-link). ADS-B data-out and data-in *are*
interesting to think about on a 5-10 year scale evolution for
compatibility with GA and other traffic systems but ADS-B data-out and
data-in are *not* interesting competitively with Flarm for glider-
glider collision avoidance.

The last thing the USA glider community needs is this continued
irresponsible harping about ADS-B in an attempt to slow adoption of
technology that can save pilots lives now, whether it is Flarm for
glider-glider risks or transponders for airline and fast jet risks
etc. I had enough of the promotion of UAT as interesting future
technology 5 years ago and saw the effect that had on some people near
busy airline traffic areas like Reno and those pilots thinking they
will defer purchasing a transponder because there is going to be a
mythical $500 box that will do everything in future (never mind that
what "do everything is" was not clear in their minds or that it has no
compatibility with the TCAS systems in those airliners).

---

Back to the completely stupid claim that ADS-B is the ultimate system
for glider-glider collision avoidance. For glider-glider and glider-
towplane collision avoidance Flarm is the undisputed technical and
market leader --

o Flarm has a large installed base of glider users worldwide. It is a
proven technology for glider-glider collision avoidance. Proven in
real world situations like major glider contests and worldwide by many
thousands of users.

o Flarm devices are relatively low cost to purchase and install.

o Flarm devices are compact and draw low power suitable for use in a
glider.

o A Flarm box includes receiver and transmitter capabilities *and*
processes and triggers audible and visual (internal or remote display)
warnings.

o Flarm collision avoidance algorithms (in the Flarm box) are designed
for glider-glider type scenarios. Especially to avoid the significant
false alarm rate that other technology would generate in gaggle type
scenarios, while on-tow, etc.

o Flarm devices include display capabilities supported by popular
soaring hardware and software vendors (to do that you need the traffic
threat processing in the box not in the external device/software - and
that is also a good for standardizing warning behavior etc.).

o Flarm supports contest/stealth behavior with log file verification
to allow use in contests. This is all debatable but the support for
the feature is at least there now. I really hate to think what
technology war would be unleashed if everybody had long range accurate
climb and position data on competitors.

---

So who is making a ADS-B based system that comes close to the above?
remembering the claim here is ADS-B will be best for glider-glider
scenarios - you cannot get close to the above list of capabilities by
taking a general purpose system and shoving it into a glider.

A UAT based systems for gliders has been talked about a lot by Mike
Schumann and others - so which manufacturer is going to deliver these
capabilities targeted specifically at the tiny USA glider community?
Maybe Mike can tell us who that will be.

There is UAT stuff designed for GA use is things like the NavWorx UAT
transceiver products we've heard Mike Schumann promoting here before.
And there is also the FreeFlight Rangr UAT transceiver series coming
to market (I've got bored making fun of the NavWorx product for use in
gliders so I'll pick on the FreeFlight one now...). The FreeFlight
Rangr is based on the Mitre prototype we've heard so much about (the
NavWorks was not based on Mitre) and it costs ~$5k for the transceiver
with no GPS and $7k for the transceiver with GPS (prices are lower for
non-TSO products for experimental aircraft and I expect given recent
FAA rulings on STC approval requirements we won't be sneaking non-TSO
ADS-B transmitters into certified gliders) and then you have to add an
external display/processor and the transceiver alone draws 0.7A @ 12V
and you still don't get collision avoidance warnings/false alarm
reduction necessary for things like thermalling with other gliders. So
yes prices will fall but where do the magic economics/market dynamics
come from that has somebody building this ADS-B UAT based system to
have the features needed for use in gliders?

Same for 1090ES based collision avoidance systems. Who is going to
build a system for the needs of the glider community? At least with
1090ES there is more of a worldwide market (even if there is still USA
specific issues with 1090ES). Oh wait there is a 1090ES receiver
coming to the USA market soon... and its PowerFLARM. But wait, any
glider pilot who wants to avoid other gliders and towplanes just
installs the PowerFLARM and it all just works. No adding ADS-B
anything, no additional $5k+ worth of hardware, no dealing with FAA
STC approval. And all the other gliders are much more likely to have
Flarm installed than ADS-B, and it all works properly for a glider
environment. So purely for glider-glider and glider-towplane collision
avoidance I don't see a reason for a USA glider pilot to install more
than PowerFLARM (and it has PCAS that works out of the box with not
extra hardware and gives compatibility with those of us who have
transponders in our gliders today and 1090ES data-in for visibility of
1090ES data-out equipped traffic as they equip).

---

In the USA ADS-B dual-link pretty much guarantees that a single link
layer ADS-B receiver will not work reliably as a collision avoidance
tool at low altitudes and other areas outside of GBT (ADS-B ground
station coverage). AOPA is starting to realize this in GA land and was
trying to get more GBT stations located near GA airports so ADS-B
could be a useful traffic collision avoidance tool near those airports
etc. But that is not going to happen widely. So unless there is wide
spread adoption of dual-link (1090ES+UAT) receivers (with a single-
channel transmitter) ADS-B itself as a collision avoidance technology
in the GA market has some serious issues. It looks like there are
areas of the USA where the GBT (ground station) coverage will be
horrible, and those areas just happen to be around significant gliding
locations like Southern Utah/Parowan and the White Mountains/Inyokern
Valley and other bits along the Sierras and lots of other places in
the middle of the USA. Low level coverage on ridges out east may also
be poor. For ADS-B as collision avoidance technology to work well
outside GBT coverage you either need to force adoption of one-link
layer across the US glider community or wait for dual-link receivers/
transceivers (with single link transmitters) to be developed (at more
cost).

So mmmmm what do we do as pilots at risk of mid-air collisions
today....keep waiting for maybe some future dual-link devices that
also has to meet those "designed for use in gliders" requirements I
list above? How many more pilots do we need to put at risk? Meanwhile
we can standardize on Flarm as the collision avoidance protocol to use
*now* and know it will work glider-glider without requiring ADS-B GBT
ground station coverage, or worrying about any of all the other crap
associated with ADS-B.

And the FAA just seriously jammed up the works by requiring STCs for
every ADS-B data-out installation. Anybody aware of a manufacturer
working on an STC approval for ADS-B data-out for their glider type?
It is not any impact on ADS-B data-out adoption in gliders that is the
real issue here, more importantly this is going to significantly slow
ADS-B data-out adoption in the GA market (if you want to "see" those
aircraft they need ADS-B data-out, and there has been no incentive for
them to equip and now there is a stronger disincentive to even try).
And this recent FAA ruling may also have smaller ADS-B vendors
businesses at risk. It just likely set back ADS-B deployment in the
USA by years (or however long it will take the FAA to undo this
"temporary" requirement and the industry to recover from the damage).

---

No single traffic collision avoidance technology well addresses major
scenarios like glider-glider, glider-GA, glider-airliner etc. And this
will not change for the foreseeable future. So if the pilot of that
PowerFLARM equipped glider also flies in areas of high density airline
and fast jet traffic or near lots of GA traffic they can consider
adding a Mode S or Mode C transponder. In the longer term they could
also add ADS-B data-out, either with a UAT or 1090ES. If they want a
transponder and ADS-B data-out then the logical choice is likely a
Mode S transponder like a Trig TT-21 with 1090ES data-out. But for
glider-glider scenarios there is absolutely no reason to look beyond
Flarm (PowerFLARM in the USA) --it is the ultimate technology designed
specifically for that application and it does it well.

Oh well, sorry, I know I should just ignore the trolls.

Darryl

Matt Herron Jr.

October 16th 10, 08:47 AM

On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November > wrote:
> On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith > wrote:
>
> > > Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > ---
>
> > Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
> > several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
> > light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
> > TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
> > jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
> > evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
> > apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
> > those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
> > register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
> > start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
> > information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
> > USA.
>
> > Allegheny 853
> > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed
>
> > Pacific Southwest 182
> > Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
> > San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed
>
> > Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
> > carriage requirements in the USA)
> > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured
>
> > NetJets N879QS
> > Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
> > Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)
>
> > Darryl
>
> Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators
> and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near
> Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of
> reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number
> since the 1980s.
>
> http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/portal/PORTAL.wwa_app_module.show...
>
> Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC
> database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the
> terms "glider" and "US air carrier".
>
> The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these
> other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between
> transponder-equipped powered aircraft.
>
> In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air
> collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and
> warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders
> form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial
> passengers are exposed to.
>
> Ian Grant IN

There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. It would
be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider
flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for
gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the
ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

October 16th 10, 01:36 PM

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:34:09 +0000, Peter Purdie wrote:

> Large areas of airspace are Class A-D reserved for IFR traffic under
> full ATC control, to ensure Caommercial Air Trafic passenger safety.
>
> Then you get low-cost carriers saving money by flying into small
> airports without such airspace, and taking fuel-saving short cuts
> through non-protected airspace.
>
It strikes me that if a low-cost carrier's airliner deliberately
transited uncontrolled airspace which is known to be regularly used by
gliders or GA aircraft that don't carry transponders and there was a
collision then the brown storm is more likely to envelop the ATC pilot,
who would be seen to have deliberately put his passengers at risk, than
the glider pilot.

If it further turned out that doing this was encouraged by the airline's
fuel saving policies then the storm would spread to encompass the airline
too on the basis that they had put profit before passenger safety.

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

John Smith

October 16th 10, 03:01 PM

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> It strikes me that if a low-cost carrier's airliner deliberately
> transited uncontrolled airspace

It strikes me that a pilot doesn't know that class E is controlled
airspace. Hence it was the controller who cleared the airliner to fly
that route.

Besides, as far as I know, Frankfurt-Hahn just can't be approached
without transiting class E airspace. So the only safe solution would be
to install more class D or C or a transponder mandating zone. I doubt
this would please the the glider pilots.

Mike Schumann

October 16th 10, 07:58 PM

On 10/16/2010 2:47 AM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> On Oct 12, 12:00 pm, India > wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 6:25 pm, Darryl > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 12, 2:08 am, John > wrote:
>>
>>>> Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>> ---
>>
>>> Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
>>> several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
>>> light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
>>> TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
>>> jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
>>> evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
>>> apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
>>> those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
>>> register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
>>> start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
>>> information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
>>> USA.
>>
>>> Allegheny 853
>>> MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
>>> Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed
>>
>>> Pacific Southwest 182
>>> Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
>>> San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed
>>
>>> Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
>>> carriage requirements in the USA)
>>> MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
>>> Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured
>>
>>> NetJets N879QS
>>> Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
>>> Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)
>>
>>> Darryl
>>
>> Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators
>> and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near
>> Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of
>> reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number
>> since the 1980s.
>>
>> http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/portal/PORTAL.wwa_app_module.show...
>>
>> Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC
>> database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the
>> terms "glider" and "US air carrier".
>>
>> The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these
>> other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between
>> transponder-equipped powered aircraft.
>>
>> In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air
>> collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and
>> warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders
>> form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial
>> passengers are exposed to.
>>
>> Ian Grant IN
>
> There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. It would
> be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider
> flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for
> gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the
> ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...
However, probably 80% of the GA aircraft in the US are transponder
equipped, while this is probably on the case for 10% of gliders.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike Schumann

October 16th 10, 08:20 PM

Did I strike a nerve????

If you want to talk about BS, then lets look at your claim that FLARM is
the world wide leader in collision avoidance for glider - glider
threats. No one denies that this is the case in Europe and elsewhere in
the world. In the US, FLARM currently does not exist, so it is
currently not a factor.

You make a very good case about how screwed up the FAA is and how the
ADS-B scene has been complicated by the dual link architecture, etc.....
No one disagrees with this assessment. The obvious question is how do
we improve this situation by introducing a 3rd incompatible option?????

Conversely to your insulting posting, I am not blindly advocating UAT
over all other alternatives. What I am suggesting is that we need a low
cost ADS-B solution so that it will be widely deployed, quickly. Given
that UAT has apparently stalled out, and that there seems to be
increasingly competitive 1090ES solutions coming on the market, maybe
that should be the technical solution we should get on board with,
particularly so we can get TCAS visibility.

What is very frustrating for me to witness is the lack of any strategic
focus on getting the FAA and glider specific avionics manufacturers to
come up with a unified ADS-B strategy so that we have equipment that
will take advantage of the national ground station system that will be
fully deployed by the end of 2012.

Instead, we have everyone drinking the FLARM koolaid, and disparaging
any other alternative viewpoints. This isn't going to help get anyone
to install FLARM or transponders.

There are some pockets where people are moving ahead (contests, Minden,
etc.). But there are a LOT of gliders flying very close to or under
Class B airspaces in the US that are not transponder equipped. It's not
that people categorically won't make the investment, but that they
aren't going to spend the money until they see a clear roadmap, so that
their investments are just throwing money down a rat hole.

Mike Schumann

On 10/16/2010 1:24 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:43 am, Mike Schumann<mike-nos...@traditions-
> [snip]
>>
>> The "ultimate" technology for glider to glider or glider to towplane
>> collision avoidance is NOT Flarm, at least in the US. For FLARM to be
>> effective, everyone has to install. You may get this to happen in US
>> contests, but it is a pipedream that there is going to be widespread
>> FLARM deployment outside of that limited environment.
>>
>> The "ultimate" technology in the US will be ADS-B. We can debate about
>> whether this will be UAT or 1090ES. FLARM is just a distraction that is
>> confusing the issue and doesn't really address the fundamental problem
>> most of us face, which is collision threats with jets and other GA
>> (non-glider) aircraft.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> Oh God spare us this grand standing for ADS-B and UAT technology. If
> it wasn't actually important saftey issue I'd let this troll like
> behavior go, but because it is I'll reply, and most of these points
> are just the same I've made before. Points apparently that Mike
> Schumann seems unable to comprehend or challenge in a cogent way. So
> apologies to the Europeans and others for dragging this off to a non-
> airline-on-glider and USA centric direction. I'll try to keep this to
> the glider-glider scenario but I know I'll wander in places.
>
> ---
>
> I'm trying to follow Mike Schumann's loopy logic here....
>
> 1. He claims ADS-B is better for glider-glider collision avoidance
> than Flarm because all gliders have to install a Flarm device? -- like
> WTF is he smoking? All gliders would have to install ADS-B for that to
> work as well. And even if they did why would ADS-B be better at glider-
> glider scenarios than the Flarm technology developed precisely for
> doing that and proven in use worldwide by thousands of glider pilots
> in challenging situations including busy contests.
>
> 2. He claims the fundamental problem most of us face is collision
> threats with jets and other GA (non-glider) aircraft. -- That is just
> obvious bull****, we all know of several collisions between gliders
> and gliders and tow-planes in the USA in the last several years and
> several overseas -- who here thinks collision risk with GA is more of
> a blanket serious issue across the USA glider fleet? Where are all
> those past collisions then? Risks scenarios will vary by location and
> there will be locations where risk of a GA or airline collision may be
> the main concern but it is ridiculous to claim that GA collision are
> a larger risk on average for a USA glider pilot. The risk for
> airliner collision is concentrated at certain locations and is a
> concern mostly because the consequence x risk product is so large.
>
> ---
>
> There is no ADS-B carriage mandate for gliders in the USA. I expect
> lots (several hundreds) of gliders in the USA are going to have
> PowerFLARM installed within the next year or so. Effectively none will
> have ADS-B data-out. I expect the USA contest scene to rapidly get to
> significant PowerFLARM adaption, helped by purchases and rental
> programs that seem to be coming together. But most pre-orders and
> interest in purchases that I have seen locally of PowerFLARM is from
> recreational XC not contest glider pilots. And I expect to see FBOs
> and clubs equipping there fleets including tow planes--at least one
> local operation seems pretty committed to do that asap. It is on a
> roll. But there will still be lots of people who choose not to install
> Flarm products and I expect those same people would also not (because
> they don't want to and/or cannot afford to) install ADS-B products,
> especially ones costing significantly more.
>
> Meanwhile ADS-B is happening so slowly it might as well be dead in the
> water as far as any use in the near term is concerned for ADS-B data-
> out in gliders (data-in is more doable but has serious restrictions in
> the USA due to dual-link). ADS-B data-out and data-in *are*
> interesting to think about on a 5-10 year scale evolution for
> compatibility with GA and other traffic systems but ADS-B data-out and
> data-in are *not* interesting competitively with Flarm for glider-
> glider collision avoidance.
>
> The last thing the USA glider community needs is this continued
> irresponsible harping about ADS-B in an attempt to slow adoption of
> technology that can save pilots lives now, whether it is Flarm for
> glider-glider risks or transponders for airline and fast jet risks
> etc. I had enough of the promotion of UAT as interesting future
> technology 5 years ago and saw the effect that had on some people near
> busy airline traffic areas like Reno and those pilots thinking they
> will defer purchasing a transponder because there is going to be a
> mythical $500 box that will do everything in future (never mind that
> what "do everything is" was not clear in their minds or that it has no
> compatibility with the TCAS systems in those airliners).
>
> ---
>
> Back to the completely stupid claim that ADS-B is the ultimate system
> for glider-glider collision avoidance. For glider-glider and glider-
> towplane collision avoidance Flarm is the undisputed technical and
> market leader --
>
> o Flarm has a large installed base of glider users worldwide. It is a
> proven technology for glider-glider collision avoidance. Proven in
> real world situations like major glider contests and worldwide by many
> thousands of users.
>
> o Flarm devices are relatively low cost to purchase and install.
>
> o Flarm devices are compact and draw low power suitable for use in a
> glider.
>
> o A Flarm box includes receiver and transmitter capabilities *and*
> processes and triggers audible and visual (internal or remote display)
> warnings.
>
> o Flarm collision avoidance algorithms (in the Flarm box) are designed
> for glider-glider type scenarios. Especially to avoid the significant
> false alarm rate that other technology would generate in gaggle type
> scenarios, while on-tow, etc.
>
> o Flarm devices include display capabilities supported by popular
> soaring hardware and software vendors (to do that you need the traffic
> threat processing in the box not in the external device/software - and
> that is also a good for standardizing warning behavior etc.).
>
> o Flarm supports contest/stealth behavior with log file verification
> to allow use in contests. This is all debatable but the support for
> the feature is at least there now. I really hate to think what
> technology war would be unleashed if everybody had long range accurate
> climb and position data on competitors.
>
> ---
>
> So who is making a ADS-B based system that comes close to the above?
> remembering the claim here is ADS-B will be best for glider-glider
> scenarios - you cannot get close to the above list of capabilities by
> taking a general purpose system and shoving it into a glider.
>
> A UAT based systems for gliders has been talked about a lot by Mike
> Schumann and others - so which manufacturer is going to deliver these
> capabilities targeted specifically at the tiny USA glider community?
> Maybe Mike can tell us who that will be.
>
> There is UAT stuff designed for GA use is things like the NavWorx UAT
> transceiver products we've heard Mike Schumann promoting here before.
> And there is also the FreeFlight Rangr UAT transceiver series coming
> to market (I've got bored making fun of the NavWorx product for use in
> gliders so I'll pick on the FreeFlight one now...). The FreeFlight
> Rangr is based on the Mitre prototype we've heard so much about (the
> NavWorks was not based on Mitre) and it costs ~$5k for the transceiver
> with no GPS and $7k for the transceiver with GPS (prices are lower for
> non-TSO products for experimental aircraft and I expect given recent
> FAA rulings on STC approval requirements we won't be sneaking non-TSO
> ADS-B transmitters into certified gliders) and then you have to add an
> external display/processor and the transceiver alone draws 0.7A @ 12V
> and you still don't get collision avoidance warnings/false alarm
> reduction necessary for things like thermalling with other gliders. So
> yes prices will fall but where do the magic economics/market dynamics
> come from that has somebody building this ADS-B UAT based system to
> have the features needed for use in gliders?
>
> Same for 1090ES based collision avoidance systems. Who is going to
> build a system for the needs of the glider community? At least with
> 1090ES there is more of a worldwide market (even if there is still USA
> specific issues with 1090ES). Oh wait there is a 1090ES receiver
> coming to the USA market soon... and its PowerFLARM. But wait, any
> glider pilot who wants to avoid other gliders and towplanes just
> installs the PowerFLARM and it all just works. No adding ADS-B
> anything, no additional $5k+ worth of hardware, no dealing with FAA
> STC approval. And all the other gliders are much more likely to have
> Flarm installed than ADS-B, and it all works properly for a glider
> environment. So purely for glider-glider and glider-towplane collision
> avoidance I don't see a reason for a USA glider pilot to install more
> than PowerFLARM (and it has PCAS that works out of the box with not
> extra hardware and gives compatibility with those of us who have
> transponders in our gliders today and 1090ES data-in for visibility of
> 1090ES data-out equipped traffic as they equip).
>
> ---
>
> In the USA ADS-B dual-link pretty much guarantees that a single link
> layer ADS-B receiver will not work reliably as a collision avoidance
> tool at low altitudes and other areas outside of GBT (ADS-B ground
> station coverage). AOPA is starting to realize this in GA land and was
> trying to get more GBT stations located near GA airports so ADS-B
> could be a useful traffic collision avoidance tool near those airports
> etc. But that is not going to happen widely. So unless there is wide
> spread adoption of dual-link (1090ES+UAT) receivers (with a single-
> channel transmitter) ADS-B itself as a collision avoidance technology
> in the GA market has some serious issues. It looks like there are
> areas of the USA where the GBT (ground station) coverage will be
> horrible, and those areas just happen to be around significant gliding
> locations like Southern Utah/Parowan and the White Mountains/Inyokern
> Valley and other bits along the Sierras and lots of other places in
> the middle of the USA. Low level coverage on ridges out east may also
> be poor. For ADS-B as collision avoidance technology to work well
> outside GBT coverage you either need to force adoption of one-link
> layer across the US glider community or wait for dual-link receivers/
> transceivers (with single link transmitters) to be developed (at more
> cost).
>
> So mmmmm what do we do as pilots at risk of mid-air collisions
> today....keep waiting for maybe some future dual-link devices that
> also has to meet those "designed for use in gliders" requirements I
> list above? How many more pilots do we need to put at risk? Meanwhile
> we can standardize on Flarm as the collision avoidance protocol to use
> *now* and know it will work glider-glider without requiring ADS-B GBT
> ground station coverage, or worrying about any of all the other crap
> associated with ADS-B.
>
> And the FAA just seriously jammed up the works by requiring STCs for
> every ADS-B data-out installation. Anybody aware of a manufacturer
> working on an STC approval for ADS-B data-out for their glider type?
> It is not any impact on ADS-B data-out adoption in gliders that is the
> real issue here, more importantly this is going to significantly slow
> ADS-B data-out adoption in the GA market (if you want to "see" those
> aircraft they need ADS-B data-out, and there has been no incentive for
> them to equip and now there is a stronger disincentive to even try).
> And this recent FAA ruling may also have smaller ADS-B vendors
> businesses at risk. It just likely set back ADS-B deployment in the
> USA by years (or however long it will take the FAA to undo this
> "temporary" requirement and the industry to recover from the damage).
>
> ---
>
> No single traffic collision avoidance technology well addresses major
> scenarios like glider-glider, glider-GA, glider-airliner etc. And this
> will not change for the foreseeable future. So if the pilot of that
> PowerFLARM equipped glider also flies in areas of high density airline
> and fast jet traffic or near lots of GA traffic they can consider
> adding a Mode S or Mode C transponder. In the longer term they could
> also add ADS-B data-out, either with a UAT or 1090ES. If they want a
> transponder and ADS-B data-out then the logical choice is likely a
> Mode S transponder like a Trig TT-21 with 1090ES data-out. But for
> glider-glider scenarios there is absolutely no reason to look beyond
> Flarm (PowerFLARM in the USA) --it is the ultimate technology designed
> specifically for that application and it does it well.
>
> Oh well, sorry, I know I should just ignore the trolls.
>
> Darryl
>
>
>

Andreas Maurer

October 16th 10, 10:51 PM

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:01:58 +0200, John Smith
> wrote:

>Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> It strikes me that if a low-cost carrier's airliner deliberately
>> transited uncontrolled airspace
>
>It strikes me that a pilot doesn't know that class E is controlled
>airspace. Hence it was the controller who cleared the airliner to fly
>that route.
>
>Besides, as far as I know, Frankfurt-Hahn just can't be approached
>without transiting class E airspace. So the only safe solution would be
>to install more class D or C or a transponder mandating zone. I doubt
>this would please the the glider pilots.

Well... I fly in the vicinity of Frankfurt-Hahn, and its D airspace
ought to be completely sufficient to fly the complete approach without
ever touching the surrounding E airspace.

However, I have the feeling that especially Ryan Air is deliberately
trying to create as many near-miss reports in Germany as possible in
order to enlarge the D airspaces around "their" airports as much as
possible - to enable them to fly their trademark straight-in
approaches.

Last July I was on board of a Ryan Air 737 (1.98 Euros from
Zweibruecken to Londion Stansted - and back !!!) that was flying a
straight-in approach to Zweibruecken... after a 50 nm (for insiders:
we entered E airspace north of Trier....!!!) final in E airspace at
6.000 ft, right below the cloud streets.
There are no airspace restrictions that would enforce such an
approach.

Regards
Andreas

John Smith

October 16th 10, 11:29 PM

Andreas Maurer wrote:
> Well... I fly in the vicinity of Frankfurt-Hahn, and its D airspace
> ought to be completely sufficient to fly the complete approach without
> ever touching the surrounding E airspace.

Well... in the German glider forum, a controller says otherwise.
Personally, I can't judge it, but I tend to believe the controller.

> Last July I was on board of a Ryan Air 737 (1.98 Euros from
> Zweibruecken to Londion Stansted - and back !!!) that was flying a
> straight-in approach to Zweibruecken... after a 50 nm (for insiders:
> we entered E airspace north of Trier....!!!) final in E airspace at
> 6.000 ft, right below the cloud streets.

As it was class E, they were cleared for that route by the controller.
So blame the controller and not Ryanair.

Mark Dickson[_2_]

October 17th 10, 12:26 AM

No, it's Ryanair. They always look for direct routings, even if it
takes them outside controlled airspace. As for believing ATCOs,
well, they will always say there isn't enough controlled airspace; if
class D has been established around Hahn, it will be large enough
for vectoring onto the ILS. Contrary to popular myth, gliders show
as a primary return on radar displays; whether controllers choose
to avoid them or notice them is another matter.

At 22:29 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote:
>Andreas Maurer wrote:
>> Well... I fly in the vicinity of Frankfurt-Hahn, and its D airspace
>> ought to be completely sufficient to fly the complete approach
without
>> ever touching the surrounding E airspace.
>
>Well... in the German glider forum, a controller says otherwise.
>Personally, I can't judge it, but I tend to believe the controller.
>
>> Last July I was on board of a Ryan Air 737 (1.98 Euros from
>> Zweibruecken to Londion Stansted - and back !!!) that was
flying a
>> straight-in approach to Zweibruecken... after a 50 nm (for
insiders:
>> we entered E airspace north of Trier....!!!) final in E airspace at
>> 6.000 ft, right below the cloud streets.
>
>As it was class E, they were cleared for that route by the
controller.
>So blame the controller and not Ryanair.
>

John Smith

October 17th 10, 12:39 AM

Mark Dickson wrote:
> No, it's Ryanair. They always look for direct routings, even if it
> takes them outside controlled airspace.

They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to
allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who doesn't even
know that class E airspace is controlled?

> Contrary to popular myth, gliders show
> as a primary return on radar displays

Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered out by
the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the
controller's display.

Andreas Maurer

October 17th 10, 01:00 AM

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:29:20 +0200, John Smith
> wrote:

>Well... in the German glider forum, a controller says otherwise.
>Personally, I can't judge it, but I tend to believe the controller.

Compared to, say, Frankfurt Rhein-Main, Hahn airport has a D airspace
whose dimensions in runway heading are not much smaller, yet it's got
less than ten percent of Rhein-Main's traffic. No airliner is forced
to fly through E on approach to Rhein-Main.

Whatever some controllers say, at Hahn it is not necessary to route
approaching IFR traffic through E airspace at less than 7.000 ft - the
D airspace is easily long enough to lead IFR traffic at 7.000 ft onto
the extended centerline, permitting them to start their final descend
safely within D.

Ryan Air has a tendency to fly very tight visual approaches in order
to save time and fuel, therefore they need to be relatively low on the
downwind leg.

>As it was class E, they were cleared for that route by the controller.
>So blame the controller and not Ryanair.

Well... I wouldn't be that keen on blaming Ryan Air if there wasn't a
definitive tendency to provide province airports in Germany with huge
TMZ's and D airspaces immediately when Ryan Air starts operationg
there - even if there are only a handful of flights (as, in the case
of Zweibruecken, less than ten) per day.

Regards
Andreas

Ramy

October 17th 10, 04:00 AM

On Oct 16, 12:20*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> Did I strike a nerve????
>
> If you want to talk about BS, then lets look at your claim that FLARM is
> the world wide leader in collision avoidance for glider - glider
> threats. *No one denies that this is the case in Europe and elsewhere in
> the world. *In the US, FLARM currently does not exist, so it is
> currently not a factor.
>
> You make a very good case about how screwed up the FAA is and how the
> ADS-B scene has been complicated by the dual link architecture, etc.....
> * No one disagrees with this assessment. *The obvious question is how do
> we improve this situation by introducing a 3rd incompatible option?????
>
> Conversely to your insulting posting, I am not blindly advocating UAT
> over all other alternatives. *What I am suggesting is that we need a low
> cost ADS-B solution so that it will be widely deployed, quickly. *Given
> that UAT has apparently stalled out, and that there seems to be
> increasingly competitive 1090ES solutions coming on the market, maybe
> that should be the technical solution we should get on board with,
> particularly so we can get TCAS visibility.
>
> What is very frustrating for me to witness is the lack of any strategic
> focus on getting the FAA and glider specific avionics manufacturers to
> come up with a unified ADS-B strategy so that we have equipment that
> will take advantage of the national ground station system that will be
> fully deployed by the end of 2012.
>
> Instead, we have everyone drinking the FLARM koolaid, and disparaging
> any other alternative viewpoints. *This isn't going to help get anyone
> to install FLARM or transponders.
>
> There are some pockets where people are moving ahead (contests, Minden,
> etc.). *But there are a LOT of gliders flying very close to or under
> Class B airspaces in the US that are not transponder equipped. *It's not
> that people categorically won't make the investment, but that they
> aren't going to spend the money until they see a clear roadmap, so that
> their investments are just throwing money down a rat hole.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> On 10/16/2010 1:24 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 14, 11:43 am, Mike Schumann<mike-nos...@traditions-
> > [snip]
>
> >> The "ultimate" technology for glider to glider or glider to towplane
> >> collision avoidance is NOT Flarm, at least in the US. *For FLARM to be
> >> effective, everyone has to install. *You may get this to happen in US
> >> contests, but it is a pipedream that there is going to be widespread
> >> FLARM deployment outside of that limited environment.
>
> >> The "ultimate" technology in the US will be ADS-B. *We can debate about
> >> whether this will be UAT or 1090ES. *FLARM is just a distraction that is
> >> confusing the issue and doesn't really address the fundamental problem
> >> most of us face, which is collision threats with jets and other GA
> >> (non-glider) aircraft.
>
> >> --
> >> Mike Schumann
>
> > Oh God spare us this grand standing for ADS-B and UAT technology. If
> > it wasn't actually important saftey issue I'd let this troll like
> > behavior go, but because it is I'll reply, and most of these points
> > are just the same I've made before. Points apparently that Mike
> > Schumann seems unable to comprehend or challenge in a cogent way. So
> > apologies to the Europeans and others for dragging this off to a non-
> > airline-on-glider and USA centric direction. I'll try to keep this to
> > the glider-glider scenario but I know I'll wander in places.
>
> > ---
>
> > I'm trying to follow Mike Schumann's loopy logic here....
>
> > 1. He claims ADS-B is better for glider-glider collision avoidance
> > than Flarm because all gliders have to install a Flarm device? -- like
> > WTF is he smoking? All gliders would have to install ADS-B for that to
> > work as well. And even if they did why would ADS-B be better at glider-
> > glider scenarios than the Flarm technology developed precisely for
> > doing that and proven in use worldwide by thousands of glider pilots
> > in challenging situations including busy contests.
>
> > 2. He claims the fundamental problem most of us face is collision
> > threats with jets and other GA (non-glider) aircraft. -- That is just
> > obvious bull****, we all know of several collisions *between gliders
> > and gliders and tow-planes in the USA in the last several years and
> > several overseas -- who here thinks collision risk with GA is more of
> > a blanket serious issue across the USA glider fleet? Where are all
> > those past collisions then? Risks scenarios will vary by location and
> > there will be locations where risk of a GA or airline collision may be
> > the main concern but it is *ridiculous to claim that GA collision are
> > a larger risk on average for a USA glider pilot. *The risk for
> > airliner collision is concentrated at certain locations and is a
> > concern mostly because the consequence x risk product is so large.
>
> > ---
>
> > There is no ADS-B carriage mandate for gliders in the USA. I expect
> > lots (several hundreds) of gliders in the USA are going to have
> > PowerFLARM installed within the next year or so. Effectively none will
> > have ADS-B data-out. I expect the USA contest scene to rapidly get to
> > significant PowerFLARM adaption, helped by purchases and rental
> > programs that seem to be coming together. But most pre-orders and
> > interest in purchases that I have seen locally of PowerFLARM is from
> > recreational XC not contest glider pilots. And I expect to see FBOs
> > and clubs equipping there fleets including tow planes--at least one
> > local operation seems pretty committed to do that asap. It is on a
> > roll. But there will still be lots of people who choose not to install
> > Flarm products and I expect those same people would also not (because
> > they don't want to and/or cannot afford to) install ADS-B products,
> > especially ones costing significantly more.
>
> > Meanwhile ADS-B is happening so slowly it might as well be dead in the
> > water as far as any use in the near term is concerned for ADS-B data-
> > out in gliders (data-in is more doable but has serious restrictions in
> > the USA due to dual-link). *ADS-B data-out and data-in *are*
> > interesting to think about on a 5-10 year scale evolution for
> > compatibility with GA and other traffic systems but ADS-B data-out and
> > data-in are *not* interesting competitively with Flarm for glider-
> > glider collision avoidance.
>
> > The last thing the USA glider community needs is this continued
> > irresponsible harping about ADS-B in an attempt to slow adoption of
> > technology that can save pilots lives now, whether it is Flarm for
> > glider-glider risks or transponders for airline and fast jet risks
> > etc. I had enough of the *promotion of UAT as interesting future
> > technology 5 years ago and saw the effect that had on some people near
> > busy airline traffic areas like Reno and those pilots thinking they
> > will defer purchasing a transponder because there is going to be a
> > mythical $500 box that will do everything in future (never mind that
> > what "do everything is" was not clear in their minds or that it has no
> > compatibility with the TCAS systems in those airliners).
>
> > ---
>
> > Back to the completely stupid claim that ADS-B is the ultimate system
> > for glider-glider collision avoidance. For glider-glider and glider-
> > towplane collision avoidance Flarm is the undisputed technical and
> > market leader --
>
> > o Flarm has a large installed base of glider users worldwide. It is a
> > proven technology for glider-glider collision avoidance. Proven in
> > real world situations like major glider contests and worldwide by many
> > thousands of users.
>
> > o Flarm devices are relatively low cost to purchase and install.
>
> > o Flarm devices are compact and draw low power suitable for use in a
> > glider.
>
> > o A Flarm box includes receiver and transmitter capabilities *and*
> > processes and triggers audible and visual (internal or remote display)
> > warnings.
>
> > o Flarm collision avoidance algorithms (in the Flarm box) are designed
> > for glider-glider type scenarios. Especially to avoid the significant
> > false alarm rate that other technology would generate in gaggle type
> > scenarios, while on-tow, etc.
>
> > o Flarm devices include display capabilities supported by popular
> > soaring hardware and software vendors (to do that you need the traffic
> > threat processing in the box not in the external device/software - and
> > that is also a good for standardizing warning behavior etc.).
>
> > o Flarm supports contest/stealth behavior with log file verification
> > to allow use in contests. This is all debatable but the support for
> > the feature is at least there now. I really hate to think what
> > technology war would be unleashed if everybody had long range accurate
> > climb and position data on competitors.
>
> > ---
>
> > So who is making a ADS-B based system that comes close to the above?
> > remembering the claim here is ADS-B will be best for glider-glider
> > scenarios - you cannot get close to the above list of capabilities by
> > taking a general purpose system and shoving it into a glider.
>
> > A UAT based systems for gliders has been talked about a lot by Mike
> > Schumann and others - so which manufacturer is going to deliver these
> > capabilities targeted specifically at the tiny USA glider community?
> > Maybe Mike can tell us who that will be.
>
> > There is UAT stuff designed for GA use is things like the NavWorx UAT
> > transceiver products we've heard Mike Schumann promoting here before.
> > And there is also the FreeFlight Rangr UAT transceiver series coming
> > to market (I've got bored making fun of the NavWorx product for use in
> > gliders so I'll pick on the FreeFlight one now...). The FreeFlight
> > Rangr is based on the Mitre prototype we've heard so much about (the
> > NavWorks was not based on Mitre) and it costs ~$5k for the transceiver
> > with no GPS and $7k for the transceiver with GPS (prices are lower for
> > non-TSO products for experimental aircraft and I expect given recent
> > FAA rulings on STC approval requirements we won't be sneaking non-TSO
> > ADS-B transmitters into certified gliders) and then you have to- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

Mike, do you own a PC or a Notebook? I mean, why buying one when the
technology, hardware and software, keep changing? PC are absolete
after 3-5 years, so why throwing money down a rat hole instead of
waiting for the ultimate PC? The answer is obvious, since they are
available now and worth the investment even if you need to replace
them in 3-5 years.
The PowerFlarm is available now (almost) and no other solution is
likely going to replace it in the next 3 years at least, this is why
we should all get one.

Ramy

Mike Schumann

October 17th 10, 05:58 AM

On 10/16/2010 11:00 PM, Ramy wrote:
> On Oct 16, 12:20 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> Did I strike a nerve????
>>
>> If you want to talk about BS, then lets look at your claim that FLARM is
>> the world wide leader in collision avoidance for glider - glider
>> threats. No one denies that this is the case in Europe and elsewhere in
>> the world. In the US, FLARM currently does not exist, so it is
>> currently not a factor.
>>
>> You make a very good case about how screwed up the FAA is and how the
>> ADS-B scene has been complicated by the dual link architecture, etc.....
>> No one disagrees with this assessment. The obvious question is how do
>> we improve this situation by introducing a 3rd incompatible option?????
>>
>> Conversely to your insulting posting, I am not blindly advocating UAT
>> over all other alternatives. What I am suggesting is that we need a low
>> cost ADS-B solution so that it will be widely deployed, quickly. Given
>> that UAT has apparently stalled out, and that there seems to be
>> increasingly competitive 1090ES solutions coming on the market, maybe
>> that should be the technical solution we should get on board with,
>> particularly so we can get TCAS visibility.
>>
>> What is very frustrating for me to witness is the lack of any strategic
>> focus on getting the FAA and glider specific avionics manufacturers to
>> come up with a unified ADS-B strategy so that we have equipment that
>> will take advantage of the national ground station system that will be
>> fully deployed by the end of 2012.
>>
>> Instead, we have everyone drinking the FLARM koolaid, and disparaging
>> any other alternative viewpoints. This isn't going to help get anyone
>> to install FLARM or transponders.
>>
>> There are some pockets where people are moving ahead (contests, Minden,
>> etc.). But there are a LOT of gliders flying very close to or under
>> Class B airspaces in the US that are not transponder equipped. It's not
>> that people categorically won't make the investment, but that they
>> aren't going to spend the money until they see a clear roadmap, so that
>> their investments are just throwing money down a rat hole.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>>
>> On 10/16/2010 1:24 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 14, 11:43 am, Mike Schumann<mike-nos...@traditions-
>>> [snip]
>>
>>>> The "ultimate" technology for glider to glider or glider to towplane
>>>> collision avoidance is NOT Flarm, at least in the US. For FLARM to be
>>>> effective, everyone has to install. You may get this to happen in US
>>>> contests, but it is a pipedream that there is going to be widespread
>>>> FLARM deployment outside of that limited environment.
>>
>>>> The "ultimate" technology in the US will be ADS-B. We can debate about
>>>> whether this will be UAT or 1090ES. FLARM is just a distraction that is
>>>> confusing the issue and doesn't really address the fundamental problem
>>>> most of us face, which is collision threats with jets and other GA
>>>> (non-glider) aircraft.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>>> Oh God spare us this grand standing for ADS-B and UAT technology. If
>>> it wasn't actually important saftey issue I'd let this troll like
>>> behavior go, but because it is I'll reply, and most of these points
>>> are just the same I've made before. Points apparently that Mike
>>> Schumann seems unable to comprehend or challenge in a cogent way. So
>>> apologies to the Europeans and others for dragging this off to a non-
>>> airline-on-glider and USA centric direction. I'll try to keep this to
>>> the glider-glider scenario but I know I'll wander in places.
>>
>>> ---
>>
>>> I'm trying to follow Mike Schumann's loopy logic here....
>>
>>> 1. He claims ADS-B is better for glider-glider collision avoidance
>>> than Flarm because all gliders have to install a Flarm device? -- like
>>> WTF is he smoking? All gliders would have to install ADS-B for that to
>>> work as well. And even if they did why would ADS-B be better at glider-
>>> glider scenarios than the Flarm technology developed precisely for
>>> doing that and proven in use worldwide by thousands of glider pilots
>>> in challenging situations including busy contests.
>>
>>> 2. He claims the fundamental problem most of us face is collision
>>> threats with jets and other GA (non-glider) aircraft. -- That is just
>>> obvious bull****, we all know of several collisions between gliders
>>> and gliders and tow-planes in the USA in the last several years and
>>> several overseas -- who here thinks collision risk with GA is more of
>>> a blanket serious issue across the USA glider fleet? Where are all
>>> those past collisions then? Risks scenarios will vary by location and
>>> there will be locations where risk of a GA or airline collision may be
>>> the main concern but it is ridiculous to claim that GA collision are
>>> a larger risk on average for a USA glider pilot. The risk for
>>> airliner collision is concentrated at certain locations and is a
>>> concern mostly because the consequence x risk product is so large.
>>
>>> ---
>>
>>> There is no ADS-B carriage mandate for gliders in the USA. I expect
>>> lots (several hundreds) of gliders in the USA are going to have
>>> PowerFLARM installed within the next year or so. Effectively none will
>>> have ADS-B data-out. I expect the USA contest scene to rapidly get to
>>> significant PowerFLARM adaption, helped by purchases and rental
>>> programs that seem to be coming together. But most pre-orders and
>>> interest in purchases that I have seen locally of PowerFLARM is from
>>> recreational XC not contest glider pilots. And I expect to see FBOs
>>> and clubs equipping there fleets including tow planes--at least one
>>> local operation seems pretty committed to do that asap. It is on a
>>> roll. But there will still be lots of people who choose not to install
>>> Flarm products and I expect those same people would also not (because
>>> they don't want to and/or cannot afford to) install ADS-B products,
>>> especially ones costing significantly more.
>>
>>> Meanwhile ADS-B is happening so slowly it might as well be dead in the
>>> water as far as any use in the near term is concerned for ADS-B data-
>>> out in gliders (data-in is more doable but has serious restrictions in
>>> the USA due to dual-link). ADS-B data-out and data-in *are*
>>> interesting to think about on a 5-10 year scale evolution for
>>> compatibility with GA and other traffic systems but ADS-B data-out and
>>> data-in are *not* interesting competitively with Flarm for glider-
>>> glider collision avoidance.
>>
>>> The last thing the USA glider community needs is this continued
>>> irresponsible harping about ADS-B in an attempt to slow adoption of
>>> technology that can save pilots lives now, whether it is Flarm for
>>> glider-glider risks or transponders for airline and fast jet risks
>>> etc. I had enough of the promotion of UAT as interesting future
>>> technology 5 years ago and saw the effect that had on some people near
>>> busy airline traffic areas like Reno and those pilots thinking they
>>> will defer purchasing a transponder because there is going to be a
>>> mythical $500 box that will do everything in future (never mind that
>>> what "do everything is" was not clear in their minds or that it has no
>>> compatibility with the TCAS systems in those airliners).
>>
>>> ---
>>
>>> Back to the completely stupid claim that ADS-B is the ultimate system
>>> for glider-glider collision avoidance. For glider-glider and glider-
>>> towplane collision avoidance Flarm is the undisputed technical and
>>> market leader --
>>
>>> o Flarm has a large installed base of glider users worldwide. It is a
>>> proven technology for glider-glider collision avoidance. Proven in
>>> real world situations like major glider contests and worldwide by many
>>> thousands of users.
>>
>>> o Flarm devices are relatively low cost to purchase and install.
>>
>>> o Flarm devices are compact and draw low power suitable for use in a
>>> glider.
>>
>>> o A Flarm box includes receiver and transmitter capabilities *and*
>>> processes and triggers audible and visual (internal or remote display)
>>> warnings.
>>
>>> o Flarm collision avoidance algorithms (in the Flarm box) are designed
>>> for glider-glider type scenarios. Especially to avoid the significant
>>> false alarm rate that other technology would generate in gaggle type
>>> scenarios, while on-tow, etc.
>>
>>> o Flarm devices include display capabilities supported by popular
>>> soaring hardware and software vendors (to do that you need the traffic
>>> threat processing in the box not in the external device/software - and
>>> that is also a good for standardizing warning behavior etc.).
>>
>>> o Flarm supports contest/stealth behavior with log file verification
>>> to allow use in contests. This is all debatable but the support for
>>> the feature is at least there now. I really hate to think what
>>> technology war would be unleashed if everybody had long range accurate
>>> climb and position data on competitors.
>>
>>> ---
>>
>>> So who is making a ADS-B based system that comes close to the above?
>>> remembering the claim here is ADS-B will be best for glider-glider
>>> scenarios - you cannot get close to the above list of capabilities by
>>> taking a general purpose system and shoving it into a glider.
>>
>>> A UAT based systems for gliders has been talked about a lot by Mike
>>> Schumann and others - so which manufacturer is going to deliver these
>>> capabilities targeted specifically at the tiny USA glider community?
>>> Maybe Mike can tell us who that will be.
>>
>>> There is UAT stuff designed for GA use is things like the NavWorx UAT
>>> transceiver products we've heard Mike Schumann promoting here before.
>>> And there is also the FreeFlight Rangr UAT transceiver series coming
>>> to market (I've got bored making fun of the NavWorx product for use in
>>> gliders so I'll pick on the FreeFlight one now...). The FreeFlight
>>> Rangr is based on the Mitre prototype we've heard so much about (the
>>> NavWorks was not based on Mitre) and it costs ~$5k for the transceiver
>>> with no GPS and $7k for the transceiver with GPS (prices are lower for
>>> non-TSO products for experimental aircraft and I expect given recent
>>> FAA rulings on STC approval requirements we won't be sneaking non-TSO
>>> ADS-B transmitters into certified gliders) and then you have to- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -...
>>
>> read more »
>
> Mike, do you own a PC or a Notebook? I mean, why buying one when the
> technology, hardware and software, keep changing? PC are absolete
> after 3-5 years, so why throwing money down a rat hole instead of
> waiting for the ultimate PC? The answer is obvious, since they are
> available now and worth the investment even if you need to replace
> them in 3-5 years.
> The PowerFlarm is available now (almost) and no other solution is
> likely going to replace it in the next 3 years at least, this is why
> we should all get one.
>
> Ramy
If you want to hype PowerFlarm when it is legal to offer it for sale and
it is shipping, be my guest. Right now you are pushing vaporware. It
is also not legal to offer this product for sale until after it is FCC
approved.

In the mean time, you are disparaging products, like Navworx that are
FCC approved and shipping. If you would spend 10% of your energy on
encouraging See-You, Clear Nav, and other similar glider avionics
manufacturers to support this and other ADS-B products, then I would
have a little less cynicism about the PowerFLARM koolaid that is being
dispensed on this forum.

--
Mike Schumann

Mark Dickson[_2_]

October 17th 10, 09:31 AM

I am fully aware class E is controlled. Ryanair will accept routeings
outside controlled airspace. ie class F & G.

At 23:39 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote:
>Mark Dickson wrote:
>> No, it's Ryanair. They always look for direct routings, even if it
>> takes them outside controlled airspace.
>
>They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to
>allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who
doesn't even
>know that class E airspace is controlled?
>
>> Contrary to popular myth, gliders show
>> as a primary return on radar displays
>
>Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered
out by
>the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the
>controller's display.
>

Mark Dickson[_2_]

October 17th 10, 09:43 AM

Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar.

At 23:39 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote:
>Mark Dickson wrote:
>> No, it's Ryanair. They always look for direct routings, even if it
>> takes them outside controlled airspace.
>
>They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to
>allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who
doesn't even
>know that class E airspace is controlled?
>
>> Contrary to popular myth, gliders show
>> as a primary return on radar displays
>
>Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered
out by
>the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the
>controller's display.
>

John Smith

October 17th 10, 11:01 AM

Mark Dickson wrote:
> Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar.

The controllers I know tell me otherwise.

India November

October 17th 10, 12:32 PM

On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:
> On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith > wrote:
>
> > > > Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > > ---
>
> > > Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
> > > several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
> > > light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
> > > TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
> > > jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
> > > evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
> > > apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
> > > those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
> > > register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
> > > start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
> > > information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
> > > USA.
>
> > > Allegheny 853
> > > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > > Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed
>
> > > Pacific Southwest 182
> > > Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
> > > San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed
>
> > > Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
> > > carriage requirements in the USA)
> > > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > > Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured
>
> > > NetJets N879QS
> > > Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
> > > Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)
>
> > > Darryl
>
> > Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators
> > and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near
> > Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of
> > reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number
> > since the 1980s.
>
> >http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/portal/PORTAL.wwa_app_module.show...
>
> > Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC
> > database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the
> > terms "glider" and "US air carrier".
>
> > The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these
> > other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between
> > transponder-equipped powered aircraft.
>
> > In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air
> > collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and
> > warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders
> > form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial
> > passengers are exposed to.
>
> > Ian Grant IN
>
> There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would
> be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider
> flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for
> gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the
> ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air
transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because
gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware
of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure.

However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a
near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a
similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is
that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and
have a greater propensity to report such incidents.

This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are
seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the
conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air
collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the
following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder
returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2006/a06o0206/a06o0206.pdf

Airspace separation is the best bet.

Ian Grant

Derek C

October 17th 10, 12:34 PM

On Oct 17, 9:43*am, Mark Dickson > wrote:
> Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar. *
>

I fly at Lasham (UK) which is relatively close to the ATC Radar
station at Farnborough. It is set to filter out anything moving at low
speeds such as clouds, flocks of birds and gliders thermalling. They
can usually get weak returns from gliders flying straight, but this is
not guaranteed.

Derek C

Mike Schumann

October 17th 10, 01:14 PM

On 10/17/2010 4:43 AM, Mark Dickson wrote:
> Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar.
>
> At 23:39 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote:
>> Mark Dickson wrote:
>>> No, it's Ryanair. They always look for direct routings, even if it
>>> takes them outside controlled airspace.
>>
>> They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to
>> allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who
> doesn't even
>> know that class E airspace is controlled?
>>
>>> Contrary to popular myth, gliders show
>>> as a primary return on radar displays
>>
>> Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered
> out by
>> the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the
>> controller's display.
>>
>
Even if non-equipped gliders show up, there is no altitude info. In the
US, standard procedure is that IFR traffic is not routed around VFR
airplanes, even if they are transponder equipped. If you are lucky, the
IFR traffic will get a traffic advisory. Keep your fingers crossed that
the IFR traffic has TCAS and that the pilots follow the RA instructions.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike the Strike

October 17th 10, 05:31 PM

On Oct 17, 5:14*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 10/17/2010 4:43 AM, Mark Dickson wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar.
>
> > At 23:39 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote:
> >> Mark Dickson wrote:
> >>> No, it's Ryanair. *They always look for direct routings, even if it
> >>> takes them outside controlled airspace.
>
> >> They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to
> >> allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who
> > doesn't even
> >> know that class E airspace is controlled?
>
> >>> Contrary to popular myth, gliders show
> >>> as a primary return on radar displays
>
> >> Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered
> > out by
> >> the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the
> >> controller's display.
>
> Even if non-equipped gliders show up, there is no altitude info. *In the
> US, standard procedure is that IFR traffic is not routed around VFR
> airplanes, even if they are transponder equipped. *If you are lucky, the
> IFR traffic will get a traffic advisory. *Keep your fingers crossed that
> the IFR traffic has TCAS and that the pilots follow the RA instructions.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

At least in Tucson, I believe that ATC does route IFR traffic away
from transponder-equipped gliders. We have a unique squawk code and,
at least from my observations, controllers keep airliners well away
from gliders so equipped. When my transponder was down for repair, I
got to see a lot of aircraft really close up!

Of course, the unintended consequence is that airliners diverted from
around me are often sent through nearby thermals where some of my non-
transponder equipped colleagues are soaring.

Mike

Darryl Ramm

October 17th 10, 08:30 PM

On Oct 17, 4:32*am, India November > wrote:
[snip]
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air
> transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because
> gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware
> of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure.
>
> However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a
> near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a
> similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is
> that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and
> have a greater propensity to report such incidents.
>
> This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are
> seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the
> conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air
> collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the
> following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder
> returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2006/a06o0206/a06o...
>
> Airspace separation is the best bet.
>
> Ian Grant

Ian

I don't disagree with either of the first two points. And in locations
like near Reno that even if pilots are not hyper-vigilant about close
encounters with gliders that ATC and the rest of the FAA will be if
they are aware of it at all (e.g. from the radio).

However there is just no logical reason for claiming that those two
points extrapolate to somehow "knock[s] on the head the assertion that
gliders are seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics". You
have no information about how many near misses might be occurring
between non-transponder equipped gliders not being detected by TCAS
alerts and/or visual identification by airline crews. We just don't
know. Just not knowing is just not knowing.

NMAC and other accident/incident databases are great for some things.
It is educating to just browse through but for making claims either
way with very low indecent numbers and a very large overall expected
under-reporting rate I just do not think that NMAC is en effective
tool in this area.

I also don't understand exactly what you mean by "Airspace separation
is the best bet". I could well agree with you, I just don't know what
you mean. Looking at the USA situation that I understand -- If it
means the full hard separation of all IFR traffic via Class B and
Class C -- then I just do not see that politically ever going to
happen in the USA. Maybe in Europe where it is more like that now (at
least for the airliners, except for cases like we've talked about
here). And do you mean the allowing gliders within that airspace with
transponders (and ADS-B data-out in future?) only or excluding gliders
from that airspace entirely?

Darryl

Darryl Ramm

October 17th 10, 08:51 PM

On Oct 17, 1:43*am, Mark Dickson > wrote:
> Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar. *
>
> At 23:39 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote:
>
> >Mark Dickson wrote:
> >> No, it's Ryanair. *They always look for direct routings, even if it
> >> takes them outside controlled airspace.
>
> >They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to
> >allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who
> doesn't even
> >know that class E airspace is controlled?
>
> >> Contrary to popular myth, gliders show
> >> as a primary return on radar displays
>
> >Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered
> out by
> >the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the
> >controller's display.
>
>

John is right, and we need to be careful with claims like this because
misunderstanding around statements like this can lead people to
dismiss the role of transponders in providing a valuable tool for
traffic awareness/separation, especially near those airliners and fast
jets.

The answer is both yes (from a technically possible viewpoint) but in
practice it is almost certainly no.

A modern primary radar system will usually have no problem detecting a
glider under benign circumstances, including a fiberglass glider (not
carbon) -- there is enough metal in the glider to show up. However in
practice to have the radar set to detect the glider the controllers
will be seeing all kinds of ground and other clutter (birds, traffic
on roads/freeways, wind turbines, ....). In practice in most places
the Doppler discriminators aka "MTI" (Motion Target Indicator) will be
set to reduce all this clutter and give the radar operator a usable
display. In that practical situation they won't see slow speed gliders
thermalling, those targets would have be removed by the MTI.

It is not possible to say more without knowing the particular
situation. The clutter and other issues, type of radar and target
ranges and elevation etc. If it important you can followup with your
local ATC radar facility and ask them. But I expect the answer in
practice is they will not be able to usefully observe a glider from a
primary radar return.

And even if they could observe the glider the radar likely only
provides location, with no elevation data. e.g. for all civil approach/
terminal radar in the USA. And even if a radar system (like the ARSR-4
used in the USA for civil en-route and CONUS surveillance) does
provide some crude primary radar elevation data it is not always clear
this is passed to particular ATC operators at all, and if it is it is
unlikely to be useful for usual ATC separation services.

Darryl

Mike Schumann

October 17th 10, 09:10 PM

On 10/17/2010 12:31 PM, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Oct 17, 5:14 am, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 10/17/2010 4:43 AM, Mark Dickson wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar.
>>
>>> At 23:39 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote:
>>>> Mark Dickson wrote:
>>>>> No, it's Ryanair. They always look for direct routings, even if it
>>>>> takes them outside controlled airspace.
>>
>>>> They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to
>>>> allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who
>>> doesn't even
>>>> know that class E airspace is controlled?
>>
>>>>> Contrary to popular myth, gliders show
>>>>> as a primary return on radar displays
>>
>>>> Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered
>>> out by
>>>> the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the
>>>> controller's display.
>>
>> Even if non-equipped gliders show up, there is no altitude info. In the
>> US, standard procedure is that IFR traffic is not routed around VFR
>> airplanes, even if they are transponder equipped. If you are lucky, the
>> IFR traffic will get a traffic advisory. Keep your fingers crossed that
>> the IFR traffic has TCAS and that the pilots follow the RA instructions.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> At least in Tucson, I believe that ATC does route IFR traffic away
> from transponder-equipped gliders. We have a unique squawk code and,
> at least from my observations, controllers keep airliners well away
> from gliders so equipped. When my transponder was down for repair, I
> got to see a lot of aircraft really close up!
>
> Of course, the unintended consequence is that airliners diverted from
> around me are often sent through nearby thermals where some of my non-
> transponder equipped colleagues are soaring.
>
> Mike
It's great that your local controllers are doing this. It needs to
happen everywhere. See this study by MIT's Lincoln labs from 2005:

http://www.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol16_no2/16_2_04Kuchar.pdf

See pages 287-288. There were an average of 9 TCAS RAs per DAY within
60 miles of the Lincoln Labs sensor in Boston. This is a direct result
of ATC not vectoring traffic around transponder equipped GA aircraft,
and effectively using TCAS as the primary VFR / IFR collision avoidance
system.

--
Mike Schumann

Derek C

October 18th 10, 09:38 PM

On Oct 17, 12:32*pm, India November > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith > wrote:
>
> > > > > Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > > > ---
>
> > > > Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
> > > > several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
> > > > light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
> > > > TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
> > > > jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
> > > > evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
> > > > apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
> > > > those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
> > > > register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes.. I
> > > > start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
> > > > information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
> > > > USA.
>
> > > > Allegheny 853
> > > > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > > > Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed
>
> > > > Pacific Southwest 182
> > > > Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
> > > > San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed
>
> > > > Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
> > > > carriage requirements in the USA)
> > > > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > > > Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured
>
> > > > NetJets N879QS
> > > > Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
> > > > Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)
>
> > > > Darryl
>
> > > Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators
> > > and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near
> > > Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of
> > > reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number
> > > since the 1980s.
>
> > >http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/portal/PORTAL.wwa_app_module.show....
>
> > > Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC
> > > database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the
> > > terms "glider" and "US air carrier".
>
> > > The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these
> > > other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between
> > > transponder-equipped powered aircraft.
>
> > > In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air
> > > collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and
> > > warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders
> > > form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial
> > > passengers are exposed to.
>
> > > Ian Grant IN
>
> > There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would
> > be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider
> > flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for
> > gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the
> > ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air
> transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because
> gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware
> of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure.
>
> However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a
> near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a
> similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is
> that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and
> have a greater propensity to report such incidents.
>
> This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are
> seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the
> conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air
> collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the
> following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder
> returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2006/a06o0206/a06o...
>
> Airspace separation is the best bet.
>
> Ian Grant- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That is why I am against fitting transponders to gliders. They are
expensive and do not protect us from 99.9% of the mid-air collisions
(glider/glider or glider/light aircraft) that we are ever likely to
have. The number of glider/Commercial Transport mid-air collisions is
2 to the best of my knowledge, neither of which caused any fatalities
(Reno and Airbus in Class G airspace over France).

Derek C

Ramy

October 18th 10, 10:21 PM

On Oct 18, 1:38*pm, Derek C > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 12:32*pm, India November > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > > > > ---
>
> > > > > Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
> > > > > several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
> > > > > light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
> > > > > TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
> > > > > jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
> > > > > evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
> > > > > apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
> > > > > those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
> > > > > register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
> > > > > start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
> > > > > information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
> > > > > USA.
>
> > > > > Allegheny 853
> > > > > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > > > > Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed
>
> > > > > Pacific Southwest 182
> > > > > Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
> > > > > San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed
>
> > > > > Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
> > > > > carriage requirements in the USA)
> > > > > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > > > > Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured
>
> > > > > NetJets N879QS
> > > > > Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
> > > > > Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)
>
> > > > > Darryl
>
> > > > Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators
> > > > and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near
> > > > Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of
> > > > reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number
> > > > since the 1980s.
>
> > > >http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/portal/PORTAL.wwa_app_module.show...
>
> > > > Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC
> > > > database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the
> > > > terms "glider" and "US air carrier".
>
> > > > The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these
> > > > other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between
> > > > transponder-equipped powered aircraft.
>
> > > > In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air
> > > > collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and
> > > > warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders
> > > > form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial
> > > > passengers are exposed to.
>
> > > > Ian Grant IN
>
> > > There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would
> > > be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider
> > > flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for
> > > gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the
> > > ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air
> > transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because
> > gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware
> > of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure.
>
> > However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a
> > near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a
> > similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is
> > that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and
> > have a greater propensity to report such incidents.
>
> > This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are
> > seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the
> > conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air
> > collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the
> > following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder
> > returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2006/a06o0206/a06o...
>
> > Airspace separation is the best bet.
>
> > Ian Grant- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> That is why I am against fitting transponders to gliders. They are
> expensive and do not protect us from 99.9% of the mid-air collisions
> (glider/glider or glider/light aircraft) that we are ever likely to
> have. The number of glider/Commercial Transport mid-air collisions is
> 2 to the best of my knowledge, neither of which caused any fatalities
> (Reno and Airbus in Class G airspace over France).
>
> Derek C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You should add "miracally". The only reason why we don't have much
more midairs with commercial traffic is that luckily most glider
pilots flying in congested areas have common sense and fly with
transponders. I estimate around 80% of gliders flying XC in the Reno
area use transponders even though it is not mandatory. Otherwise I am
pretty sure we would have a catastrophic midair in this area by now.

Ramy

Darryl Ramm

October 19th 10, 12:18 AM

On Oct 18, 1:38*pm, Derek C > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 12:32*pm, India November > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > > > > ---
>
> > > > > Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
> > > > > several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
> > > > > light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
> > > > > TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
> > > > > jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
> > > > > evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
> > > > > apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
> > > > > those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
> > > > > register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
> > > > > start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
> > > > > information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
> > > > > USA.
>
> > > > > Allegheny 853
> > > > > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > > > > Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed
>
> > > > > Pacific Southwest 182
> > > > > Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
> > > > > San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed
>
> > > > > Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
> > > > > carriage requirements in the USA)
> > > > > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > > > > Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured
>
> > > > > NetJets N879QS
> > > > > Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
> > > > > Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)
>
> > > > > Darryl
>
> > > > Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators
> > > > and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near
> > > > Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of
> > > > reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number
> > > > since the 1980s.
>
> > > >http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/portal/PORTAL.wwa_app_module.show...
>
> > > > Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC
> > > > database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the
> > > > terms "glider" and "US air carrier".
>
> > > > The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these
> > > > other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between
> > > > transponder-equipped powered aircraft.
>
> > > > In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air
> > > > collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and
> > > > warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders
> > > > form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial
> > > > passengers are exposed to.
>
> > > > Ian Grant IN
>
> > > There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would
> > > be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider
> > > flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for
> > > gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the
> > > ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air
> > transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because
> > gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware
> > of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure.
>
> > However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a
> > near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a
> > similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is
> > that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and
> > have a greater propensity to report such incidents.
>
> > This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are
> > seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the
> > conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air
> > collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the
> > following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder
> > returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2006/a06o0206/a06o...
>
> > Airspace separation is the best bet.
>
> > Ian Grant- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> That is why I am against fitting transponders to gliders. They are
> expensive and do not protect us from 99.9% of the mid-air collisions
> (glider/glider or glider/light aircraft) that we are ever likely to
> have. The number of glider/Commercial Transport mid-air collisions is
> 2 to the best of my knowledge, neither of which caused any fatalities
> (Reno and Airbus in Class G airspace over France).
>
> Derek C

This statement again suffers from the assumption that there is one
environment that applies to everybody. We have many situations
worldwide where I would hope nobody think a glider needs any mandatory
collision avoidance technology through situations where there is
significant risk of a glider-glider mid-air (e.g. contests, busy
clubs), and in other locations maybe GA traffic offers the most
significant risk. To situations where gliders are in close proximity
to airliners and fast jets and where the product of risk x consequence
should be a serious concern.

The collision at Reno was with a Hawker 800. There have been "close"
incidents with airliners there as well. Large numbers of the glider
pilots who fly near Reno undertsand in detail the traffic patterns,
conclicts and risks and equip wih transponders. We don't need to wait
for a fatality from an airliner collision to prove it is a justified
saftey measure. Risks from other parts of a glider pilots flying
activities need to be considered separately from that risk x
consequence of a collision with an airliner. Whether you might have a
statistically higher probability of having a mid-air with another
glider should not drive the risk decision about whether to utilize a
transponder in these key areas where we have a serious problem with
close proximity of airliner and fast jet traffic.

I hope what is going on here is a reaction to concerns about blanket
transponder mandates. They don't make sense (unless folks in high risk
areas don't volitarilly adopt them or can't be locally forced to if
the voluntary stuff just does not happen).

Darryl

Derek C

October 19th 10, 03:17 AM

On Oct 19, 12:18*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Oct 18, 1:38*pm, Derek C > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 12:32*pm, India November > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > > > > > ---
>
> > > > > > Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
> > > > > > several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
> > > > > > light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
> > > > > > TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
> > > > > > jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
> > > > > > evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
> > > > > > apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
> > > > > > those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
> > > > > > register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
> > > > > > start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
> > > > > > information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
> > > > > > USA.
>
> > > > > > Allegheny 853
> > > > > > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > > > > > Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed
>
> > > > > > Pacific Southwest 182
> > > > > > Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
> > > > > > San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed
>
> > > > > > Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
> > > > > > carriage requirements in the USA)
> > > > > > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > > > > > Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured
>
> > > > > > NetJets N879QS
> > > > > > Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
> > > > > > Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)
>
> > > > > > Darryl
>
> > > > > Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators
> > > > > and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near
> > > > > Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of
> > > > > reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number
> > > > > since the 1980s.
>
> > > > >http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/portal/PORTAL.wwa_app_module.show...
>
> > > > > Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC
> > > > > database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the
> > > > > terms "glider" and "US air carrier".
>
> > > > > The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these
> > > > > other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between
> > > > > transponder-equipped powered aircraft.
>
> > > > > In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air
> > > > > collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and
> > > > > warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders
> > > > > form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial
> > > > > passengers are exposed to.
>
> > > > > Ian Grant IN
>
> > > > There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would
> > > > be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider
> > > > flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for
> > > > gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the
> > > > ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air
> > > transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because
> > > gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware
> > > of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure.
>
> > > However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a
> > > near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a
> > > similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is
> > > that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and
> > > have a greater propensity to report such incidents.
>
> > > This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are
> > > seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the
> > > conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air
> > > collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the
> > > following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder
> > > returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2006/a06o0206/a06o...
>
> > > Airspace separation is the best bet.
>
> > > Ian Grant- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > That is why I am against fitting transponders to gliders. They are
> > expensive and do not protect us from 99.9% of the mid-air collisions
> > (glider/glider or glider/light aircraft) that we are ever likely to
> > have. The number of glider/Commercial Transport mid-air collisions is
> > 2 to the best of my knowledge, neither of which caused any fatalities
> > (Reno and Airbus in Class G airspace over France).
>
> > Derek C
>
> This statement again suffers from the assumption that there is one
> environment that applies to everybody. We have many situations
> worldwide where I would hope nobody think a glider needs any mandatory
> collision avoidance technology through situations where there is
> significant risk of a glider-glider mid-air (e.g. contests, busy
> clubs), and in other locations maybe GA traffic offers the most
> significant risk. To situations where gliders are in close proximity
> to airliners and fast jets and where the product of risk x consequence
> should be a serious concern.
>
> The collision at Reno was with a Hawker 800. There have been "close"
> incidents with airliners there as well. Large numbers of the glider
> pilots who fly near Reno undertsand in detail the traffic patterns,
> conclicts and risks and equip wih transponders. We don't need to wait
> for a fatality from an airliner collision to prove it is a justified
> saftey measure. *Risks from other parts of a glider pilots flying
> activities need to be considered separately from that risk x
> consequence of a collision with an airliner. Whether you might have a
> statistically higher probability of having a mid-air with another
> glider should not drive the risk decision about whether to utilize a
> transponder in these key areas where we have a serious problem with
> close proximity of airliner and fast jet traffic.
>
> I hope what is going on here is a reaction to concerns about blanket
> transponder mandates. They don't make sense (unless folks in high risk
> areas don't volitarilly adopt them or can't be locally forced to if
> the voluntary stuff just does not happen).
>
> Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, but in one area in Europe where transponders are mandatory for
gliders, the ATC controllers often ask the pilots to turn them off on
busy gliding days because of information overload on their screens!
Hence they are a total waste of money and battery power! Now if we
could get a cheap, low power instrument that provides a universal
electronic collision avoidance system, that would be different.

Derek C

Derek C

October 19th 10, 03:53 AM

On Oct 19, 3:17*am, Derek C > wrote:
> On Oct 19, 12:18*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 1:38*pm, Derek C > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 17, 12:32*pm, India November > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > > > > > > ---
>
> > > > > > > Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
> > > > > > > several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
> > > > > > > light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
> > > > > > > TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
> > > > > > > jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
> > > > > > > evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
> > > > > > > apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
> > > > > > > those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
> > > > > > > register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
> > > > > > > start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
> > > > > > > information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
> > > > > > > USA.
>
> > > > > > > Allegheny 853
> > > > > > > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > > > > > > Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed
>
> > > > > > > Pacific Southwest 182
> > > > > > > Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
> > > > > > > San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed
>
> > > > > > > Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
> > > > > > > carriage requirements in the USA)
> > > > > > > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > > > > > > Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured
>
> > > > > > > NetJets N879QS
> > > > > > > Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
> > > > > > > Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)
>
> > > > > > > Darryl
>
> > > > > > Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators
> > > > > > and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near
> > > > > > Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of
> > > > > > reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number
> > > > > > since the 1980s.
>
> > > > > >http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/portal/PORTAL.wwa_app_module..show...
>
> > > > > > Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC
> > > > > > database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the
> > > > > > terms "glider" and "US air carrier".
>
> > > > > > The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these
> > > > > > other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between
> > > > > > transponder-equipped powered aircraft.
>
> > > > > > In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air
> > > > > > collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and
> > > > > > warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders
> > > > > > form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial
> > > > > > passengers are exposed to.
>
> > > > > > Ian Grant IN
>
> > > > > There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would
> > > > > be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider
> > > > > flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for
> > > > > gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the
> > > > > ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air
> > > > transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because
> > > > gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware
> > > > of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure.
>
> > > > However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a
> > > > near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a
> > > > similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is
> > > > that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and
> > > > have a greater propensity to report such incidents.
>
> > > > This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are
> > > > seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the
> > > > conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air
> > > > collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the
> > > > following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder
> > > > returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2006/a06o0206/a06o...
>
> > > > Airspace separation is the best bet.
>
> > > > Ian Grant- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > That is why I am against fitting transponders to gliders. They are
> > > expensive and do not protect us from 99.9% of the mid-air collisions
> > > (glider/glider or glider/light aircraft) that we are ever likely to
> > > have. The number of glider/Commercial Transport mid-air collisions is
> > > 2 to the best of my knowledge, neither of which caused any fatalities
> > > (Reno and Airbus in Class G airspace over France).
>
> > > Derek C
>
> > This statement again suffers from the assumption that there is one
> > environment that applies to everybody. We have many situations
> > worldwide where I would hope nobody think a glider needs any mandatory
> > collision avoidance technology through situations where there is
> > significant risk of a glider-glider mid-air (e.g. contests, busy
> > clubs), and in other locations maybe GA traffic offers the most
> > significant risk. To situations where gliders are in close proximity
> > to airliners and fast jets and where the product of risk x consequence
> > should be a serious concern.
>
> > The collision at Reno was with a Hawker 800. There have been "close"
> > incidents with airliners there as well. Large numbers of the glider
> > pilots who fly near Reno undertsand in detail the traffic patterns,
> > conclicts and risks and equip wih transponders. We don't need to wait
> > for a fatality from an airliner collision to prove it is a justified
> > saftey measure. *Risks from other parts of a glider pilots flying
> > activities need to be considered separately from that risk x
> > consequence of a collision with an airliner. Whether you might have a
> > statistically higher probability of having a mid-air with another
> > glider should not drive the risk decision about whether to utilize a
> > transponder in these key areas where we have a serious problem with
> > close proximity of airliner and fast jet traffic.
>
> > I hope what is going on here is a reaction to concerns about blanket
> > transponder mandates. They don't make sense (unless folks in high risk
> > areas don't volitarilly adopt them or can't be locally forced to if
> > the voluntary stuff just does not happen).
>
> > Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, but in one area in Europe where transponders are mandatory for
> gliders, the ATC controllers often ask the pilots to turn them off on
> busy gliding days because of information overload on their screens!
> Hence they are a total waste of money and battery power! *Now if we
> could get a cheap, low power instrument that provides a universal
> electronic collision avoidance system, that would be different.
>
> Derek C-

P.S. This was a fatal mid-air collision between a glider and a
military light aircraft in the UK that might have been avoided by the
use of such a device:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/publications/formal_reports/5_2010_g_byxr_and_g_ckht.cfm

One of the problems in the UK is large volumes of Class A and D
controlled airspace around major and some minor airports that largely
exclude gliders, except by special local agreements. These cause
bottlenecks in the open Class G airspace used by non-commercial
traffic. This mid-air occured in a fairly narrow gap between the
Heathrow and Brize Norton zones on a very good gliding day. One has to
question why the Grob (power) pilot, who suffered from restricted neck
movement, was carrying out aerobatics in such a congested area!

Derek C

Darryl Ramm

October 19th 10, 04:35 AM

On Oct 18, 7:17*pm, Derek C > wrote:
> On Oct 19, 12:18*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 1:38*pm, Derek C > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 17, 12:32*pm, India November > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > > > > > > ---
>
> > > > > > > Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
> > > > > > > several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
> > > > > > > light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
> > > > > > > TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
> > > > > > > jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
> > > > > > > evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
> > > > > > > apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
> > > > > > > those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
> > > > > > > register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
> > > > > > > start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
> > > > > > > information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
> > > > > > > USA.
>
> > > > > > > Allegheny 853
> > > > > > > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > > > > > > Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed
>
> > > > > > > Pacific Southwest 182
> > > > > > > Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
> > > > > > > San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed
>
> > > > > > > Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
> > > > > > > carriage requirements in the USA)
> > > > > > > MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
> > > > > > > Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured
>
> > > > > > > NetJets N879QS
> > > > > > > Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
> > > > > > > Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)
>
> > > > > > > Darryl
>
> > > > > > Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators
> > > > > > and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near
> > > > > > Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of
> > > > > > reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number
> > > > > > since the 1980s.
>
> > > > > >http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/portal/PORTAL.wwa_app_module..show...
>
> > > > > > Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC
> > > > > > database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the
> > > > > > terms "glider" and "US air carrier".
>
> > > > > > The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these
> > > > > > other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between
> > > > > > transponder-equipped powered aircraft.
>
> > > > > > In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air
> > > > > > collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and
> > > > > > warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders
> > > > > > form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial
> > > > > > passengers are exposed to.
>
> > > > > > Ian Grant IN
>
> > > > > There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would
> > > > > be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider
> > > > > flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for
> > > > > gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the
> > > > > ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air
> > > > transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because
> > > > gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware
> > > > of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure.
>
> > > > However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a
> > > > near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a
> > > > similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is
> > > > that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and
> > > > have a greater propensity to report such incidents.
>
> > > > This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are
> > > > seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the
> > > > conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air
> > > > collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the
> > > > following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder
> > > > returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2006/a06o0206/a06o...
>
> > > > Airspace separation is the best bet.
>
> > > > Ian Grant- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > That is why I am against fitting transponders to gliders. They are
> > > expensive and do not protect us from 99.9% of the mid-air collisions
> > > (glider/glider or glider/light aircraft) that we are ever likely to
> > > have. The number of glider/Commercial Transport mid-air collisions is
> > > 2 to the best of my knowledge, neither of which caused any fatalities
> > > (Reno and Airbus in Class G airspace over France).
>
> > > Derek C
>
> > This statement again suffers from the assumption that there is one
> > environment that applies to everybody. We have many situations
> > worldwide where I would hope nobody think a glider needs any mandatory
> > collision avoidance technology through situations where there is
> > significant risk of a glider-glider mid-air (e.g. contests, busy
> > clubs), and in other locations maybe GA traffic offers the most
> > significant risk. To situations where gliders are in close proximity
> > to airliners and fast jets and where the product of risk x consequence
> > should be a serious concern.
>
> > The collision at Reno was with a Hawker 800. There have been "close"
> > incidents with airliners there as well. Large numbers of the glider
> > pilots who fly near Reno undertsand in detail the traffic patterns,
> > conclicts and risks and equip wih transponders. We don't need to wait
> > for a fatality from an airliner collision to prove it is a justified
> > saftey measure. *Risks from other parts of a glider pilots flying
> > activities need to be considered separately from that risk x
> > consequence of a collision with an airliner. Whether you might have a
> > statistically higher probability of having a mid-air with another
> > glider should not drive the risk decision about whether to utilize a
> > transponder in these key areas where we have a serious problem with
> > close proximity of airliner and fast jet traffic.
>
> > I hope what is going on here is a reaction to concerns about blanket
> > transponder mandates. They don't make sense (unless folks in high risk
> > areas don't volitarilly adopt them or can't be locally forced to if
> > the voluntary stuff just does not happen).
>
> > Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, but in one area in Europe where transponders are mandatory for
> gliders, the ATC controllers often ask the pilots to turn them off on
> busy gliding days because of information overload on their screens!
> Hence they are a total waste of money and battery power! *Now if we
> could get a cheap, low power instrument that provides a universal
> electronic collision avoidance system, that would be different.
>
> Derek C

The situation with the Schiphol TMA has come up in this thread earlier
and it should never have happened. There are various filters that
could have been put in place/developed for the screen display data to
avoid that overload. It should have been tested before the deployment.
It should be an embarrassment to the Dutch authorities and a caution
to others but it is not a fundamental problem with transponders or ATC
systems.

The search for low-cost universal device is a dangerous red herring.
That's what has caused so much confusion and mis-set expectations
around ADS-B and UATs in the USA. There are separate threat scenarios
and legacy technologies (transponders, SSR, TCAS, etc.) and new
systems (ADS-B) coming that are *not* replacements for those legacy
systems (and in Europe the ADS-B link layer is Mode S/1090ES) and then
we have innovative technology like Flarm. The challenge is exactly how
all the different parts fits together and what the most important
threats to address for each pilots own situation.

And we can't just ignore legacy technology (like TCAS) for scenarios
where it is important--some of the silliest comments I've seen are
things along the line of dismissing "transponders as old technology"--
they have an important role to fill, especially with that TCAS
compatibility.

The discussion on "universal" collision avoidance technology starts
and ends with there is just no such thing. There are products that
combine different technology (like PowerFLARM) but a full solution
there would still takes multiple products, will not be "low cost" and
such an approach is going to not be justified for most gliders.

BTW that is one reason I worry about blanket national/federal
regulations for any of this stuff and much prefer to see local
voluntary adoption of appropriate technology for these scenarios.
Where that does not happen then consider mandating use but I'd hate to
see that pushed out nationally. e.g. if needed because voluntary
adoption fails I could support putting a transponder TMZ around a busy
mixed airliner/glider location or mandating Flarm in busy contests.
But I'd hate to see national adoption of one technology or anther
mandated especially if it forces people in one location to adopt
something they don't need at all and that costs prevents them
deploying something more useful for their actual need. And yes some
gliders may indeed need more than one technology box (e.g. a
PowerFLARM and Mode S transponder) for their threat scenario.

Darryl

Derek C

October 19th 10, 05:25 AM

On Oct 19, 4:35*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Oct 18, 7:17*pm, Derek C > wrote:
>

> > > Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yes, but in one area in Europe where transponders are mandatory for
> > gliders, the ATC controllers often ask the pilots to turn them off on
> > busy gliding days because of information overload on their screens!
> > Hence they are a total waste of money and battery power! *Now if we
> > could get a cheap, low power instrument that provides a universal
> > electronic collision avoidance system, that would be different.
>
> > Derek C
>
> The situation with the Schiphol TMA has come up in this thread earlier
> and it should never have happened. There are various filters that
> could have been put in place/developed for the screen display data to
> avoid that overload. It should have been tested before the deployment.
> It should be an embarrassment to the Dutch authorities and a caution
> to others but it is not a fundamental problem with transponders or ATC
> systems.
>
> The search for low-cost universal device is a dangerous red herring.
> That's what has caused so much confusion and mis-set expectations
> around ADS-B and UATs in the USA. There are separate threat scenarios
> and legacy technologies (transponders, SSR, TCAS, etc.) and new
> systems (ADS-B) coming that are *not* replacements for those legacy
> systems (and in Europe the ADS-B link layer is Mode S/1090ES) and then
> we have innovative technology like Flarm. The challenge is exactly how
> all the different parts fits together and what the most important
> threats to address for each pilots own situation.
>
> And we can't just ignore legacy technology (like TCAS) for scenarios
> where it is important--some of the silliest comments I've seen are
> things along the line of dismissing "transponders as old technology"--
> they have an important role to fill, especially with that TCAS
> compatibility.
>
> The discussion on "universal" collision avoidance technology starts
> and ends with there is just no such thing. There are products that
> combine different technology (like PowerFLARM) but a full solution
> there would still takes multiple products, will not be "low cost" and
> such an approach is going to not be justified for most gliders.
>
> BTW that is one reason I worry about blanket national/federal
> regulations for any of this stuff and much prefer to see local
> voluntary adoption of appropriate technology for these scenarios.
> Where that does not happen then consider mandating use but I'd hate to
> see that pushed out nationally. e.g. if needed because voluntary
> adoption fails I could support putting a transponder TMZ around a busy
> mixed airliner/glider location or mandating Flarm in busy contests.
> But I'd hate to see national ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If ATC are filtering out the transponder returns from gliders to avoid
screen clutter, then there is no point in gliders carrying these
expensive, power hungry and difficult to service bits of kit!

Generally I am happy with the UK situation where Commercial Air
Traffic flies under IFR in Class A to D airspace and gliders fly VFR
in Class G. This keeps me separated from the airliners. Problem is
that low cost carriers such as Ryanair are increasing flying into
minor regional airfields and creating a demand for more and more
controlled airspace. We are being squeezed into what's left, with a
greater risk of mid-air collisions with GA and military aircraft that
are also largely forced to use the same airspace.

If a low cost/low power collision alert device can be developed, I
would welcome it, especially if it gives me more access to Class D
airspace.

The Americans seem to be forcing Mode S transponders on the whole
World purely because of problems around Reno Nevada!

Derek C

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 19th 10, 06:29 AM

On 10/18/2010 9:25 PM, Derek C wrote:
>
> If a low cost/low power collision alert device can be developed, I
> would welcome it, especially if it gives me more access to Class D
> airspace.
>
We all would welcome it, but what do we do until it appears? How many
years do we wait for our dream to come true?

I installed a Mode C transponder in my glider in 2002. At that time,
many pilots decided that transponders were a good idea, but they were
going to wait for the nifty new Mode S transponders with the lower cost
and lower current drain, which were going to be available "real soon
now". Well, seven (7!) years later, that nifty new Mode S transponder
was finally available - the Trig TT21!

I'm afraid this is what is going to happen now, where many pilots decide
that transponders, or Flarm, are a good idea, but they are going to wait
for the nifty new ADS-B transceivers with the lower cost and lower
current drain, which are going to be available "real soon now".

I have no crystal ball, but I expect it will also be many years before
these units are available. In the meantime, these pilots will ignore
usable, affordable devices they could install now (Flarm and
transponders). US pilots will have to wait till April next year for
Flarm, but the transponder everyone wanted in 2002 is available now.
> The Americans seem to be forcing Mode S transponders on the whole
> World purely because of problems around Reno Nevada!
>
Nonsense. Mode S is not required in the US for general aviation, only
for airliners. The US does not require transponders of any kind for
gliders and general aviation around Reno. Europe, however, is requiring
Mode S for some aircraft besides airliners. They have the density that
requires Mode S, the US doesn't. They are leading on this issue.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Darryl Ramm

October 19th 10, 06:49 AM

On Oct 18, 9:25*pm, Derek C > wrote:
> On Oct 19, 4:35*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 7:17*pm, Derek C > wrote:
>
> > > > Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Yes, but in one area in Europe where transponders are mandatory for
> > > gliders, the ATC controllers often ask the pilots to turn them off on
> > > busy gliding days because of information overload on their screens!
> > > Hence they are a total waste of money and battery power! *Now if we
> > > could get a cheap, low power instrument that provides a universal
> > > electronic collision avoidance system, that would be different.
>
> > > Derek C
>
> > The situation with the Schiphol TMA has come up in this thread earlier
> > and it should never have happened. There are various filters that
> > could have been put in place/developed for the screen display data to
> > avoid that overload. It should have been tested before the deployment.
> > It should be an embarrassment to the Dutch authorities and a caution
> > to others but it is not a fundamental problem with transponders or ATC
> > systems.
>
> > The search for low-cost universal device is a dangerous red herring.
> > That's what has caused so much confusion and mis-set expectations
> > around ADS-B and UATs in the USA. There are separate threat scenarios
> > and legacy technologies (transponders, SSR, TCAS, etc.) and new
> > systems (ADS-B) coming that are *not* replacements for those legacy
> > systems (and in Europe the ADS-B link layer is Mode S/1090ES) and then
> > we have innovative technology like Flarm. The challenge is exactly how
> > all the different parts fits together and what the most important
> > threats to address for each pilots own situation.
>
> > And we can't just ignore legacy technology (like TCAS) for scenarios
> > where it is important--some of the silliest comments I've seen are
> > things along the line of dismissing "transponders as old technology"--
> > they have an important role to fill, especially with that TCAS
> > compatibility.
>
> > The discussion on "universal" collision avoidance technology starts
> > and ends with there is just no such thing. There are products that
> > combine different technology (like PowerFLARM) but a full solution
> > there would still takes multiple products, will not be "low cost" and
> > such an approach is going to not be justified for most gliders.
>
> > BTW that is one reason I worry about blanket national/federal
> > regulations for any of this stuff and much prefer to see local
> > voluntary adoption of appropriate technology for these scenarios.
> > Where that does not happen then consider mandating use but I'd hate to
> > see that pushed out nationally. e.g. if needed because voluntary
> > adoption fails I could support putting a transponder TMZ around a busy
> > mixed airliner/glider location or mandating Flarm in busy contests.
> > But I'd hate to see national ...
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If ATC are filtering out the transponder returns from gliders to avoid
> screen clutter, then there is no point in gliders carrying these
> expensive, power hungry and difficult to service bits of kit!

No they filter by altitude band, by assigned controller, etc. And as
I've pointed out in this thread before the TCAS in the airliners keep
working regardless of what the controller sees.

>
> Generally I am happy with the UK situation where Commercial Air
> Traffic flies under IFR in Class A to D airspace and gliders fly VFR
> in Class G. This keeps me separated from the airliners. Problem is
> that low cost carriers such as Ryanair are increasing flying into
> minor regional airfields and creating a demand for more and more
> controlled airspace. We are being squeezed into what's left, with a
> greater risk of mid-air collisions with GA and military aircraft that
> are also largely forced to use the same airspace.
>
> If a low cost/low power collision alert device can be developed, I
> would welcome it, especially if it gives me more access to Class D
> airspace.

Yes and that device will look and smell like a transponder. If not
what kind of device do you think it will be that can interoperate with
SSR radar and TCAS etc. or be a link in future for 1090ES? I don't see
anybody making something significantly cheaper than a Trig TT21 or
similar Transponder? I don't know how Trig and others keep the costs
down on such small volumes as they are.

> The Americans seem to be forcing Mode S transponders on the whole
> World purely because of problems around Reno Nevada!

The Americans are doing nothing to you. Ryanair maybe.

> Derek C

Derek C

October 19th 10, 10:28 AM

On Oct 19, 6:49*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Oct 18, 9:25*pm, Derek C > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 4:35*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 18, 7:17*pm, Derek C > wrote:
>
> > > > > Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Yes, but in one area in Europe where transponders are mandatory for
> > > > gliders, the ATC controllers often ask the pilots to turn them off on
> > > > busy gliding days because of information overload on their screens!
> > > > Hence they are a total waste of money and battery power! *Now if we
> > > > could get a cheap, low power instrument that provides a universal
> > > > electronic collision avoidance system, that would be different.
>
> > > > Derek C
>
> > > The situation with the Schiphol TMA has come up in this thread earlier
> > > and it should never have happened. There are various filters that
> > > could have been put in place/developed for the screen display data to
> > > avoid that overload. It should have been tested before the deployment..
> > > It should be an embarrassment to the Dutch authorities and a caution
> > > to others but it is not a fundamental problem with transponders or ATC
> > > systems.
>
> > > The search for low-cost universal device is a dangerous red herring.
> > > That's what has caused so much confusion and mis-set expectations
> > > around ADS-B and UATs in the USA. There are separate threat scenarios
> > > and legacy technologies (transponders, SSR, TCAS, etc.) and new
> > > systems (ADS-B) coming that are *not* replacements for those legacy
> > > systems (and in Europe the ADS-B link layer is Mode S/1090ES) and then
> > > we have innovative technology like Flarm. The challenge is exactly how
> > > all the different parts fits together and what the most important
> > > threats to address for each pilots own situation.
>
> > > And we can't just ignore legacy technology (like TCAS) for scenarios
> > > where it is important--some of the silliest comments I've seen are
> > > things along the line of dismissing "transponders as old technology"--
> > > they have an important role to fill, especially with that TCAS
> > > compatibility.
>
> > > The discussion on "universal" collision avoidance technology starts
> > > and ends with there is just no such thing. There are products that
> > > combine different technology (like PowerFLARM) but a full solution
> > > there would still takes multiple products, will not be "low cost" and
> > > such an approach is going to not be justified for most gliders.
>
> > > BTW that is one reason I worry about blanket national/federal
> > > regulations for any of this stuff and much prefer to see local
> > > voluntary adoption of appropriate technology for these scenarios.
> > > Where that does not happen then consider mandating use but I'd hate to
> > > see that pushed out nationally. e.g. if needed because voluntary
> > > adoption fails I could support putting a transponder TMZ around a busy
> > > mixed airliner/glider location or mandating Flarm in busy contests.
> > > But I'd hate to see national ...
>
> > > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > If ATC are filtering out the transponder returns from gliders to avoid
> > screen clutter, then there is no point in gliders carrying these
> > expensive, power hungry and difficult to service bits of kit!
>
> No they filter by altitude band, by assigned controller, etc. And as
> I've pointed out in this thread before the TCAS in the airliners keep
> working regardless of what the controller sees.
>
>
>
> > Generally I am happy with the UK situation where Commercial Air
> > Traffic flies under IFR in Class A to D airspace and gliders fly VFR
> > in Class G. This keeps me separated from the airliners. Problem is
> > that low cost carriers such as Ryanair are increasing flying into
> > minor regional airfields and creating a demand for more and more
> > controlled airspace. We are being squeezed into what's left, with a
> > greater risk of mid-air collisions with GA and military aircraft that
> > are also largely forced to use the same airspace.
>
> > If a low cost/low power collision alert device can be developed, I
> > would welcome it, especially if it gives me more access to Class D
> > airspace.
>
> Yes and that device will look and smell like a transponder. If not
> what kind of device do you think it will be that can interoperate with
> SSR radar and TCAS etc. or be a link in future for 1090ES? I don't see
> anybody making something significantly cheaper than a Trig TT21 or
> similar Transponder? I don't know how Trig and others keep the costs
> down on such small volumes as they are.
>
> > The Americans seem to be forcing Mode S transponders on the whole
> > World purely because of problems around Reno Nevada!
>
> The Americans are doing nothing to you. Ryanair maybe.
>
>
>
The original poster in this thread sort of suggested that because of
an alleged near miss between a Ryanair jet and a glider near
Frankfurt, all gliders should carry transponders and that is
irresponsible not to do so. While I would not like to be responsible
for bringing down a passenger jet, there are other procedural and
technical ways of addressing this almost infinitesimally small risk.
The vast majority of glider mid-air collisions are with other gliders
and light GA aircraft, which transponders don't help with.

Derek C