Two die in Glider mid-air

[Karen]

Witnesses indicate two sailplanes in the same thermal.

Anyone have pilot names or are these Alberta Soaring Council people?
Some of them were just here with their new winch, visiting us in the
Southwest US.


WWW.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2011/09/04/bc-glider-crash.html

Karen

[Hagbard Celine]

I have no other details but do know they were both Invermere locals.

[Walt Connelly]

Hard to think of anything other than pilot error for a mid air. Even with my relative lack of experience, I have had a close call or three. Thus far the best advice I have been given is that if I don't like how someone is flying in a thermal, go find another thermal.

Walt

[Sandy Stevenson]

On Sep 5, 2:43*am, Hagbard Celine > wrote:
> I have no other details but do know they were both Invermere locals.

Both flew out of Invermere, but one lived in Calgary, the other in
Kelowna, B.C.
Few details are known at this time.
The names of the pilots have not been released pending notification of
next of kin.
Condolences to their families and friends is about all we can say at
the moment.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Sep 5, 7:20*am, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> Hard to think of anything other than pilot error for a mid air. *Even
> with my relative lack of experience, I have had a close call or three.
> Thus far the best advice I have been given is that if I don't like how
> someone is flying in a thermal, go find another thermal. *
>
> Walt
>
> --
> Walt Connelly

perhaps we can combine this tragic accident with the recent thread
about the "joy of soaring" book and have a discussion about how to
avoid these accidents by having better reading/instructional material
available.

Brad

[Frank Whiteley]

On Sep 5, 8:20*am, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> Hard to think of anything other than pilot error for a mid air. *Even
> with my relative lack of experience, I have had a close call or three.
> Thus far the best advice I have been given is that if I don't like how
> someone is flying in a thermal, go find another thermal. *
>
> Walt
>
> --
> Walt Connelly

Wave at them. If they don't wave back........

[Frank Whiteley]

On Sep 5, 2:43*am, Hagbard Celine > wrote:
> I have no other details but do know they were both Invermere locals.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/09/05/dead-gliders-mourned

"Friends within a tight-knit flying club are still coming to terms
with the loss of two of their own, victims of a deadly mid-air crash
near Windermere, B.C. The men have been identified as Calgary
resident Keith Watson, 50, and Kelowna’s Ray Perino, 59, longtime
sailplane enthusiasts who had become friends through the Canadian
Rockies Soaring Club."

[Walt Connelly]

On Sep 5, 2:43*am, Hagbard Celine wrote:
I have no other details but do know they were both Invermere locals.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/09/05/dead-gliders-mourned

"Friends within a tight-knit flying club are still coming to terms
with the loss of two of their own, victims of a deadly mid-air crash
near Windermere, B.C. The men have been identified as Calgary
resident Keith Watson, 50, and Kelowna’s Ray Perino, 59, longtime
sailplane enthusiasts who had become friends through the Canadian
Rockies Soaring Club."

This is the latest I have been able to find. Wait until Cookie reads this.

http://www.canada.com/health/blindness+suspected+deadly+glider+crash/5355383/story.html

I guess there are times of day and geographies where being blinded by the sun is a possibility but under such conditions I think I would depart the thermal.

Walt

[JS]

Fare well, Smurf.
Jim
http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=2119643

[John Smith]

Walt Connelly wrote:
> Hard to think of anything other than pilot error for a mid air.

Yes an no. Fact is, it's impossible for a human to see every threat in
time. Yes, we have to try, but at the same time we must admit that no
matter how hard we work at it, we will never be able to reach that goal.
That's the reason why FLARM has been developed.

[Walt Connelly]

Walt Connelly wrote:
Hard to think of anything other than pilot error for a mid air.

Yes an no. Fact is, it's impossible for a human to see every threat in
time. Yes, we have to try, but at the same time we must admit that no
matter how hard we work at it, we will never be able to reach that goal.
That's the reason why FLARM has been developed.


I agree but at the same time I would ask if they were doing what I have been told is important when thermaling with another airplane. If they were 180 degrees apart in the turn and turning in the same direction it would seem almost impossible to do a mid air.

I feel it is important to identify the real causes of these accidents and learn from them. The loss of a life is terrible, failure to learn from such a loss is inexcusable.

JMHO

Walt

[Walt Connelly]

There appears to be some disagreement with the comments that this collision occurred in a thermal. Found the following comments online regarding this accident.

From Fun Junkie:

This was a tragic ACCIDENT, nothing more. Having reviewed the gps logs of each gliders flight path and the video of the collision, there are two things that need to be cleared up.

First, neither glider was in a thermal so the discussions about that are pointless.

Second, neither glider was "show boating" or doing anything unsafe at the time of the collision, or prior to it.

They were simply flying in an area they knew very well and have flown hundreds of times before. On this particular flight they happened to be flying in the same geographical area but approaching from opposite directions. Both gliders were in essentially level flight and at the same altitude. For whatever reason... they simply did not see each other in sufficient time to avoid a collision. Gliders approaching each other at the same altitude are very difficult to see and close on each other very quickly. As a friend and fellow pilot of both Keith and Ray, I will miss them dearly and offer my sincerest condolences to their families and friends. This was simply a very tragic accident between two pilots who took flying safety very seriously.

End of comments

Amazing how often the facts of the case take a long time to become clear. The idea that they were not in a thermal makes more sense to me.

Walt

[Brad[_2_]]

On Sep 6, 3:47*pm, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> There appears to be some disagreement with the comments that this
> collision occurred in a thermal. *Found the following comments online
> regarding this accident.
>
> From Fun Junkie:
>
> This was a tragic ACCIDENT, nothing more. Having reviewed the gps logs
> of each gliders flight path and the video of the collision, there are
> two things that need to be cleared up.
>
> First, neither glider was in a thermal so the discussions about that are
> pointless.
>
> Second, neither glider was "show boating" or doing anything unsafe at
> the time of the collision, or prior to it.
>
> They were simply flying in an area they knew very well and have flown
> hundreds of times before. On this particular flight they happened to be
> flying in the same geographical area but approaching from opposite
> directions. Both gliders were in essentially level flight and at the
> same altitude. For whatever reason... they simply did not see each other
> in sufficient time to avoid a collision. Gliders approaching each other
> at the same altitude are very difficult to see and close on each other
> very quickly. As a friend and fellow pilot of both Keith and Ray, I will
> miss them dearly and offer my sincerest condolences to their families
> and friends. This was simply a very tragic accident between two pilots
> who took flying safety very seriously.
>
> End of comments
>
> Amazing how often the facts of the case take a long time to become
> clear. *The idea that they were not in a thermal makes more sense to
> me.
>
> Walt
>
> --
> Walt Connelly

quite frankly this is what really scares the **** out of me, and
pardon my french...................but I can't tell you how many times
I've lost track of my flying buddies only to have them appear where I
did not expect them. and this is with constant radio contact and
position reports.

anyone that tells you a proper scan will always save the day is
dreaming.................it will work until the day it doesn't and
then dog help us.

Brad

[Mike I Green]

A PowerFlarm might have prevented this accident. I am getting one.

Mike Green

On 9/6/2011 7:40 PM, Brad wrote:
> On Sep 6, 3:47 pm, Walt Connelly<Walt.Connelly.
> > wrote:
>> There appears to be some disagreement with the comments that this
>> collision occurred in a thermal. Found the following comments online
>> regarding this accident.
>>
>> From Fun Junkie:
>>
>> This was a tragic ACCIDENT, nothing more. Having reviewed the gps logs
>> of each gliders flight path and the video of the collision, there are
>> two things that need to be cleared up.
>>
>> First, neither glider was in a thermal so the discussions about that are
>> pointless.
>>
>> Second, neither glider was "show boating" or doing anything unsafe at
>> the time of the collision, or prior to it.
>>
>> They were simply flying in an area they knew very well and have flown
>> hundreds of times before. On this particular flight they happened to be
>> flying in the same geographical area but approaching from opposite
>> directions. Both gliders were in essentially level flight and at the
>> same altitude. For whatever reason... they simply did not see each other
>> in sufficient time to avoid a collision. Gliders approaching each other
>> at the same altitude are very difficult to see and close on each other
>> very quickly. As a friend and fellow pilot of both Keith and Ray, I will
>> miss them dearly and offer my sincerest condolences to their families
>> and friends. This was simply a very tragic accident between two pilots
>> who took flying safety very seriously.
>>
>> End of comments
>>
>> Amazing how often the facts of the case take a long time to become
>> clear. The idea that they were not in a thermal makes more sense to
>> me.
>>
>> Walt
>>
>> --
>> Walt Connelly
>
> quite frankly this is what really scares the **** out of me, and
> pardon my french...................but I can't tell you how many times
> I've lost track of my flying buddies only to have them appear where I
> did not expect them. and this is with constant radio contact and
> position reports.
>
> anyone that tells you a proper scan will always save the day is
> dreaming.................it will work until the day it doesn't and
> then dog help us.
>
> Brad

[Mike the Strike]

On Sep 6, 8:10*pm, Mike I Green > wrote:
> A PowerFlarm might have prevented this accident. *I am getting one.
>
> Mike Green
>
> On 9/6/2011 7:40 PM, Brad wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 3:47 pm, Walt Connelly<Walt.Connelly.
> > > *wrote:
> >> There appears to be some disagreement with the comments that this
> >> collision occurred in a thermal. *Found the following comments online
> >> regarding this accident.
>
> >> *From Fun Junkie:
>
> >> This was a tragic ACCIDENT, nothing more. Having reviewed the gps logs
> >> of each gliders flight path and the video of the collision, there are
> >> two things that need to be cleared up.
>
> >> First, neither glider was in a thermal so the discussions about that are
> >> pointless.
>
> >> Second, neither glider was "show boating" or doing anything unsafe at
> >> the time of the collision, or prior to it.
>
> >> They were simply flying in an area they knew very well and have flown
> >> hundreds of times before. On this particular flight they happened to be
> >> flying in the same geographical area but approaching from opposite
> >> directions. Both gliders were in essentially level flight and at the
> >> same altitude. For whatever reason... they simply did not see each other
> >> in sufficient time to avoid a collision. Gliders approaching each other
> >> at the same altitude are very difficult to see and close on each other
> >> very quickly. As a friend and fellow pilot of both Keith and Ray, I will
> >> miss them dearly and offer my sincerest condolences to their families
> >> and friends. This was simply a very tragic accident between two pilots
> >> who took flying safety very seriously.
>
> >> End of comments
>
> >> Amazing how often the facts of the case take a long time to become
> >> clear. *The idea that they were not in a thermal makes more sense to
> >> me.
>
> >> Walt
>
> >> --
> >> Walt Connelly
>
> > quite frankly this is what really scares the **** out of me, and
> > pardon my french...................but I can't tell you how many times
> > I've lost track of my flying buddies only to have them appear where I
> > did not expect them. and this is with constant radio contact and
> > position reports.
>
> > anyone that tells you a proper scan will always save the day is
> > dreaming.................it will work until the day it doesn't and
> > then dog help us.
>
> > Brad

As I have reported here before, I had a close head-on with a fellow
club member a couple of years ago. We were flying in opposite
directions along a cloudstreet and were in radio contact. I suddenly
saw a flash of orange ahead and slightly to my right, so I
instinctively climbed and banked left. My colleague passed not fifty
feet under my right wing and he never even saw me. One of the few
times that anti-collision markings helped (my glider has none). A
review of our GPS traces showed us closing at a speed of over 200 mph
(300 feet per second) and the time between seeing a head-on glider and
impact was barely sufficient to react.

Electronic countermeasures are the only solution.

Mike

[Matt RX]

On Sep 6, 8:10*pm, Mike I Green wrote:[color=blue][i]
A PowerFlarm might have prevented this accident. *I am getting one.

Mike Green

As I have reported here before, I had a close head-on with a fellow
club member a couple of years ago. We were flying in opposite
directions along a cloudstreet and were in radio contact. I suddenly
saw a flash of orange ahead and slightly to my right, so I
instinctively climbed and banked left. My colleague passed not fifty
feet under my right wing and he never even saw me. One of the few
times that anti-collision markings helped (my glider has none). A
review of our GPS traces showed us closing at a speed of over 200 mph
(300 feet per second) and the time between seeing a head-on glider and
impact was barely sufficient to react.

Electronic countermeasures are the only solution.

Mike

Report on CBC radio this morning indicated that the Canadian Rockies Soaring Club had just ordered FLARM for all their gliders prior to the accident.... Unforunatley not installed in time. Not sure if the gliders involved were club ships. I met Keith Watson a few weeks ago when he dropped by the club I fly with and we talked for quite some time while I was working on my LS-3. Nice guy and I was sadened to hear about the accident.

Mid airs have always been my biggest source of fear in soaring. I get upset with myself everytime I notice a Cessna after it has already passed me! I watched a Challenger pass by once at the same altitude and thought to myself that I would have 0 chance avoiding a head on with a jet. I`m borderline obsessive with keeping track of every other glider in the air and I`m still surprised how many times I loose people and find them again much closer than expected.

Matt

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

I have a transponder, PCAS and FLARM on order. Last spring I added a
BRS, its amazing how much the BRS makes me feel secure. They have been
successfully deployed as low as 260 feet.
Cheers,
JJ
Oh, yeah, I also have a radio............and I use it when running
under a cloud street as in "JJ just turned Hayfork and is southbound
at16".

[Dan Marotta]

And, speaking of jets...

Years ago, while climbing above the Black Forest Glider Port at about 11,000
MSL (4,000 AGL), I noticed a tiny spot on the horizon to the south. On the
next turn, I saw the B-757 maneuvering to avoid a collision with me! I was
thankful that those guys had their heads outside the cockpit and saw me
because I had no chance to avoid a collision.

I always wondered why the FAA routed airliners traveling between Colorado
Springs (COS) and Denver (DEN) directly over our small airpark at 11,000'
MSL.

And to bore everyone further - back in the late 70s, and before knowing
anything about gliders, I was flight engineer on a B-727 on a leg between
DEN (the old Stapleton airport) and COS. Our clearance took us directly
down the ramparts of the Front Range and the captain said, "Let's see how
fast this baby will go!". We were cruising at 350 KIAS at 11,000 MSL right
over prime glider territory! I don't recall the season and I've always
wondered if there were any gliders there at the time...


"Matt RX" > wrote in message
...
>
> Mike the Strike;782551 Wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 8:10*pm, Mike I Green
>> wrote:[color=blue][i]
>> A PowerFlarm might have prevented this accident. *I am getting one.
>>
>> Mike Green
>>
>> As I have reported here before, I had a close head-on with a fellow
>> club member a couple of years ago. We were flying in opposite
>> directions along a cloudstreet and were in radio contact. I suddenly
>> saw a flash of orange ahead and slightly to my right, so I
>> instinctively climbed and banked left. My colleague passed not fifty
>> feet under my right wing and he never even saw me. One of the few
>> times that anti-collision markings helped (my glider has none). A
>> review of our GPS traces showed us closing at a speed of over 200 mph
>> (300 feet per second) and the time between seeing a head-on glider and
>> impact was barely sufficient to react.
>>
>> Electronic countermeasures are the only solution.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Report on CBC radio this morning indicated that the Canadian Rockies
> Soaring Club had just ordered FLARM for all their gliders prior to the
> accident.... Unforunatley not installed in time. Not sure if the gliders
> involved were club ships. I met Keith Watson a few weeks ago when he
> dropped by the club I fly with and we talked for quite some time while I
> was working on my LS-3. Nice guy and I was sadened to hear about the
> accident.
>
> Mid airs have always been my biggest source of fear in soaring. I get
> upset with myself everytime I notice a Cessna after it has already
> passed me! I watched a Challenger pass by once at the same altitude and
> thought to myself that I would have 0 chance avoiding a head on with a
> jet. I`m borderline obsessive with keeping track of every other glider
> in the air and I`m still surprised how many times I loose people and
> find them again much closer than expected.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt RX

[Dr_Marko_Rocznik]

Flarm helps a great deal preventing this! I have flown it in Europe
and it is even working well with several gliders in one thermal. I
hope the US-version of Power-Flarm will start to ship soon here. It's
so sad not just for the families but for our sport in general..

Marko

[Ramy]

On Sep 8, 8:01*am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> And, speaking of jets...
>
> Years ago, while climbing above the Black Forest Glider Port at about 11,000
> MSL (4,000 AGL), I noticed a tiny spot on the horizon to the south. *On the
> next turn, I saw the B-757 maneuvering to avoid a collision with me! *I was
> thankful that those guys had their heads outside the cockpit and saw me
> because I had no chance to avoid a collision.
>
> I always wondered why the FAA routed airliners traveling between Colorado
> Springs (COS) and Denver (DEN) directly over our small airpark at 11,000'
> MSL.
>
> And to bore everyone further - back in the late 70s, and before knowing
> anything about gliders, I was flight engineer on a B-727 on a leg between
> DEN (the old Stapleton airport) and COS. *Our clearance took us directly
> down the ramparts of the Front Range and the captain said, "Let's see how
> fast this baby will go!". *We were cruising at 350 KIAS at 11,000 MSL right
> over prime glider territory! *I don't recall the season and I've always
> wondered if there were any gliders there at the time...
>
> "Matt RX" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mike the Strike;782551 Wrote:
> >> On Sep 6, 8:10*pm, Mike I Green
> >> wrote:[color=blue][i]
> >> A PowerFlarm might have prevented this accident. *I am getting one.
>
> >> Mike Green
>
> >> As I have reported here before, I had a close head-on with a fellow
> >> club member a couple of years ago. *We were flying in opposite
> >> directions along a cloudstreet and were in radio contact. *I suddenly
> >> saw a flash of orange ahead and slightly to my right, so I
> >> instinctively climbed and banked left. *My colleague passed not fifty
> >> feet under my right wing and he never even saw me. *One of the few
> >> times that anti-collision markings helped (my glider has none). *A
> >> review of our GPS traces showed us closing at a speed of over 200 mph
> >> (300 feet per second) and the time between seeing a head-on glider and
> >> impact was barely sufficient to react.
>
> >> Electronic countermeasures are the only solution.
>
> >> Mike
>
> > Report on CBC radio this morning indicated that the Canadian Rockies
> > Soaring Club had just ordered FLARM for all their gliders prior to the
> > accident.... Unforunatley not installed in time. Not sure if the gliders
> > involved were club ships. I met Keith Watson a few weeks ago when he
> > dropped by the club I fly with and we talked for quite some time while I
> > was working on my LS-3. Nice guy and I was sadened to hear about the
> > accident.
>
> > Mid airs have always been my biggest source of fear in soaring. I get
> > upset with myself everytime I notice a Cessna after it has already
> > passed me! I watched a Challenger pass by once at the same altitude and
> > thought to myself that I would have 0 chance avoiding a head on with a
> > jet. I`m borderline obsessive with keeping track of every other glider
> > in the air and I`m still surprised how many times I loose people and
> > find them again much closer than expected.
>
> > Matt
>
> > --
> > Matt RX- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dan, I assume you were not flying with a transponder at that time, but
flying with one now. Since I started flying with transponders I never
saw an airliner too close, and I am flying in some of the most busy
airspaces in the US (Bay Area and Reno).
But transponder wouldn't have saved those folks. Flarm could. How
tragic.

Ramy

[Eric]

On Sep 8, 1:35*pm, Dr_Marko_Rocznik > wrote:
> Flarm helps a great deal preventing this! I have flown it in Europe
> and it is even working well with several gliders in one thermal. I
> hope the US-version of Power-Flarm will start to ship soon here. It's
> so sad not just for the families but for our sport in general..
>
> Marko

CBC radio reported the accident yesterday and interviewed Paul Remde,
Apparently the club is installing PowerFlarms in all their club
ships. I'm still waiting for mine...

Eric Frere (GBSC)

[Matt RX]

I had a close call with an A310 about 15 years ago. He broke through a light overcast at about 4000 AGL. I was at 3000 and right in this decent path! I put the 1-36 into a dive to get out of his way. I don't like thinking about what might have happened if I wasn't looking in the right direction.

I was directly over top of the gliderport at the time and was surprised as the airway and approaches to the local airport are well to the north and south. He was attending an airshow I later found out and was probably doing a straight in approach to the show box from the west.

Matt

And, speaking of jets...

Years ago, while climbing above the Black Forest Glider Port at about 11,000
MSL (4,000 AGL), I noticed a tiny spot on the horizon to the south. On the
next turn, I saw the B-757 maneuvering to avoid a collision with me! I was
thankful that those guys had their heads outside the cockpit and saw me
because I had no chance to avoid a collision.

I always wondered why the FAA routed airliners traveling between Colorado
Springs (COS) and Denver (DEN) directly over our small airpark at 11,000'
MSL.

And to bore everyone further - back in the late 70s, and before knowing
anything about gliders, I was flight engineer on a B-727 on a leg between
DEN (the old Stapleton airport) and COS. Our clearance took us directly
down the ramparts of the Front Range and the captain said, "Let's see how
fast this baby will go!". We were cruising at 350 KIAS at 11,000 MSL right
over prime glider territory! I don't recall the season and I've always
wondered if there were any gliders there at the time...


"Matt RX" wrote in message
...

Mike the Strike;782551 Wrote:
On Sep 6, 8:10*pm, Mike I Green
wrote:[color=blue][i]
A PowerFlarm might have prevented this accident. *I am getting one.

Mike Green

As I have reported here before, I had a close head-on with a fellow
club member a couple of years ago. We were flying in opposite
directions along a cloudstreet and were in radio contact. I suddenly
saw a flash of orange ahead and slightly to my right, so I
instinctively climbed and banked left. My colleague passed not fifty
feet under my right wing and he never even saw me. One of the few
times that anti-collision markings helped (my glider has none). A
review of our GPS traces showed us closing at a speed of over 200 mph
(300 feet per second) and the time between seeing a head-on glider and
impact was barely sufficient to react.

Electronic countermeasures are the only solution.

Mike

Report on CBC radio this morning indicated that the Canadian Rockies
Soaring Club had just ordered FLARM for all their gliders prior to the
accident.... Unforunatley not installed in time. Not sure if the gliders
involved were club ships. I met Keith Watson a few weeks ago when he
dropped by the club I fly with and we talked for quite some time while I
was working on my LS-3. Nice guy and I was sadened to hear about the
accident.

Mid airs have always been my biggest source of fear in soaring. I get
upset with myself everytime I notice a Cessna after it has already
passed me! I watched a Challenger pass by once at the same altitude and
thought to myself that I would have 0 chance avoiding a head on with a
jet. I`m borderline obsessive with keeping track of every other glider
in the air and I`m still surprised how many times I loose people and
find them again much closer than expected.

Matt




--
Matt RX

[Dan Marotta]

Yes, I'm flying with a transponder now and I see a lot of arriving and
departing traffic to ABQ. As you noted, they don't seem too close so I
guess it's working!


"Ramy" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 8:01 am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> And, speaking of jets...
>
> Years ago, while climbing above the Black Forest Glider Port at about
> 11,000
> MSL (4,000 AGL), I noticed a tiny spot on the horizon to the south. On the
> next turn, I saw the B-757 maneuvering to avoid a collision with me! I was
> thankful that those guys had their heads outside the cockpit and saw me
> because I had no chance to avoid a collision.
>
> I always wondered why the FAA routed airliners traveling between Colorado
> Springs (COS) and Denver (DEN) directly over our small airpark at 11,000'
> MSL.
>
> And to bore everyone further - back in the late 70s, and before knowing
> anything about gliders, I was flight engineer on a B-727 on a leg between
> DEN (the old Stapleton airport) and COS. Our clearance took us directly
> down the ramparts of the Front Range and the captain said, "Let's see how
> fast this baby will go!". We were cruising at 350 KIAS at 11,000 MSL right
> over prime glider territory! I don't recall the season and I've always
> wondered if there were any gliders there at the time...
>
> "Matt RX" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mike the Strike;782551 Wrote:
> >> On Sep 6, 8:10*pm, Mike I Green
> >> wrote:[color=blue][i]
> >> A PowerFlarm might have prevented this accident. *I am getting one.
>
> >> Mike Green
>
> >> As I have reported here before, I had a close head-on with a fellow
> >> club member a couple of years ago. We were flying in opposite
> >> directions along a cloudstreet and were in radio contact. I suddenly
> >> saw a flash of orange ahead and slightly to my right, so I
> >> instinctively climbed and banked left. My colleague passed not fifty
> >> feet under my right wing and he never even saw me. One of the few
> >> times that anti-collision markings helped (my glider has none). A
> >> review of our GPS traces showed us closing at a speed of over 200 mph
> >> (300 feet per second) and the time between seeing a head-on glider and
> >> impact was barely sufficient to react.
>
> >> Electronic countermeasures are the only solution.
>
> >> Mike
>
> > Report on CBC radio this morning indicated that the Canadian Rockies
> > Soaring Club had just ordered FLARM for all their gliders prior to the
> > accident.... Unforunatley not installed in time. Not sure if the gliders
> > involved were club ships. I met Keith Watson a few weeks ago when he
> > dropped by the club I fly with and we talked for quite some time while I
> > was working on my LS-3. Nice guy and I was sadened to hear about the
> > accident.
>
> > Mid airs have always been my biggest source of fear in soaring. I get
> > upset with myself everytime I notice a Cessna after it has already
> > passed me! I watched a Challenger pass by once at the same altitude and
> > thought to myself that I would have 0 chance avoiding a head on with a
> > jet. I`m borderline obsessive with keeping track of every other glider
> > in the air and I`m still surprised how many times I loose people and
> > find them again much closer than expected.
>
> > Matt
>
> > --
> > Matt RX- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dan, I assume you were not flying with a transponder at that time, but
flying with one now. Since I started flying with transponders I never
saw an airliner too close, and I am flying in some of the most busy
airspaces in the US (Bay Area and Reno).
But transponder wouldn't have saved those folks. Flarm could. How
tragic.

Ramy

[jcarlyle]

Transponders are not a magic shield.

I fly with a Mode S transponder in the busy Philadelphia / New York
airspace. I often see airliners diverting course to go around me
(particularly commuters), but then there was the Southwest 737 that
flew 300 feet directly over me. I was thermalling at 5700, he was
straight and level at 6000. Gliders in this area have a discrete
transponder code, and we know from conversations with ATC that they're
keeping track of us specifically as glider traffic. So, I know for
certain that (1) the Southwest pilot was aware of me (long before I
was aware of him), and (2) he was also aware that I was a glider.

I'm not standing on principle here, if I'd seen him sooner I would
have quit thermalling and flown 90 degrees to his track while losing
altitude (quickly). But it was a hazy day, I was thermalling, he was
doing 250 kts, and I just flat didn't see him until he was about a
mile away.

Moral - keep a good lookout, amd remember that stuff can happen in
spite of a transponder...

-John

On Sep 8, 1:56 pm, Ramy > wrote:
> Since I started flying with transponders I never
> saw an airliner too close, and I am flying in some of the most busy
> airspaces in the US (Bay Area and Reno).

[Brad[_2_]]

On Sep 9, 8:54*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Transponders are not a magic shield.
>
> I fly with a Mode S transponder in the busy Philadelphia / New York
> airspace. I often see airliners diverting course to go around me
> (particularly commuters), but then there was the Southwest 737 that
> flew 300 feet directly over me. I was thermalling at 5700, he was
> straight and level at 6000. Gliders in this area have a discrete
> transponder code, and we know from conversations with ATC that they're
> keeping track of us specifically as glider traffic. So, I know for
> certain that (1) the Southwest pilot was aware of me (long before I
> was aware of him), and (2) he was also aware that I was a glider.
>
> I'm not standing on principle here, if I'd seen him sooner I would
> have quit thermalling and flown 90 degrees to his track while losing
> altitude (quickly). But it was a hazy day, I was thermalling, he was
> doing 250 kts, and I just flat didn't see him until he was about a
> mile away.
>
> Moral - keep a good lookout, amd remember that stuff can happen in
> spite of a transponder...
>
> -John
>
> On Sep 8, 1:56 pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Since I started flying with transponders I never
> > saw an airliner too close, and I am flying in some of the most busy
> > airspaces in the US (Bay Area and Reno).

out here in Boeing country it's not uncommon to see test flights
returning right thru the same airspace we fly gliders. it's quite a
sight to have then drop out of the clouds at 3000' just south of KAWO.
it's also quite a sight to see the big dreamlifter do the same
thing................I've taken a few pics of this big bird and had it
fill the frame.

Brad

[Darryl Ramm]

jcarlyle > wrote:
> Transponders are not a magic shield.
>
> I fly with a Mode S transponder in the busy Philadelphia / New York
> airspace. I often see airliners diverting course to go around me
> (particularly commuters), but then there was the Southwest 737 that
> flew 300 feet directly over me. I was thermalling at 5700, he was
> straight and level at 6000. Gliders in this area have a discrete
> transponder code, and we know from conversations with ATC that they're
> keeping track of us specifically as glider traffic. So, I know for
> certain that (1) the Southwest pilot was aware of me (long before I
> was aware of him), and (2) he was also aware that I was a glider.
>
> I'm not standing on principle here, if I'd seen him sooner I would
> have quit thermalling and flown 90 degrees to his track while losing
> altitude (quickly). But it was a hazy day, I was thermalling, he was
> doing 250 kts, and I just flat didn't see him until he was about a
> mile away.
>
> Moral - keep a good lookout, amd remember that stuff can happen in
> spite of a transponder...
>
> -John

Something is a little strange here as this seems well within the
altitude difference window that should have generated an RA. Which is a
big deal to the 737 crew both from the immediate required response to
the RA and subsequent reporting/paperwork.

Darryl

[jcarlyle]

I'm also puzzled as to why he didn't react to my presence. I would
think that his TCAS would have detected me. Nevertheless, there he was
- no course or alititude variation at all, he just flew right over me,
going _real_ fast. The other thing about it was that he wasn't on a
normal arrival path for PHL. I had my biannual VFR transponder check 3
weeks after this experience, and the Trig TT21 passed just fine. I
don't know what happened, but I hope not to be caught in a similar
situation again.

-John

On Sep 9, 5:14 pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> Something is a little strange here as this seems well within the
> altitude difference window that should have generated an RA. Which is a
> big deal to the 737 crew both from the immediate required response to
> the RA and subsequent reporting/paperwork.
>
> Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

John

So my very next thought was has the encoder/altimeter system been tested
recently?

A standard biannual transponder check for a non-IFR aircraft does not
include a check of the altimeter/altitude encoder system, it just
includes RF tests--a fairly useless throwback to the days of much less
reliable traveling wave tube based transponders. The tests on first
install does include altimeter/encoder tests.

I've seen quite a few owners assume that the encoder/altimeter is being
tested, but unless you've made arrangement with the test provider this
just usually won't be done for these subsequent checks.

A simple test is to compare the altimeter (when set to 29.92"Hg) and
what the TT21 display says for the altitude. But that does not exclude
problems like the static line being disconnected behind the panel or
contaminated with water etc.

If this had happened to me and I'm sure my transponder was working I'd
probably contact the ATC/approach folks and have a chat - this just
should not happen with a TCAS II equipped 737. Unfortunately we don't
have Mode-S RA downlink really used in the USA. When used (like more
widely in Europe) that provides ATC controllers with direct visibility
to RA events in their airspace.

Darryl


On 9/9/11 2:48 PM, jcarlyle wrote:
> I'm also puzzled as to why he didn't react to my presence. I would
> think that his TCAS would have detected me. Nevertheless, there he was
> - no course or alititude variation at all, he just flew right over me,
> going _real_ fast. The other thing about it was that he wasn't on a
> normal arrival path for PHL. I had my biannual VFR transponder check 3
> weeks after this experience, and the Trig TT21 passed just fine. I
> don't know what happened, but I hope not to be caught in a similar
> situation again.
>
> -John
>
> On Sep 9, 5:14 pm, Darryl > wrote:
>> Something is a little strange here as this seems well within the
>> altitude difference window that should have generated an RA. Which is a
>> big deal to the 737 crew both from the immediate required response to
>> the RA and subsequent reporting/paperwork.
>>
>> Darryl
>

[jcarlyle]

Darryl,

Although the encoder/altimeter weren't formally checked during the
biannual transponder check, the technician did me a favor and quickly
checked the correspondance at 0, 5000, 10000 and 20000 feet - they
were OK. I also routinely check the transponder altitude reading
against my alitimeter during each flight. So I'm pretty sure that's
all OK. As for your suggestion about chatting with ATC, that didn't
happen.

-John

On Sep 9, 6:48 pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> John
>
> So my very next thought was has the encoder/altimeter system been tested
> recently?
>
> A standard biannual transponder check for a non-IFR aircraft does not
> include a check of the altimeter/altitude encoder system, it just
> includes RF tests--a fairly useless throwback to the days of much less
> reliable traveling wave tube based transponders. The tests on first
> install does include altimeter/encoder tests.
>
> I've seen quite a few owners assume that the encoder/altimeter is being
> tested, but unless you've made arrangement with the test provider this
> just usually won't be done for these subsequent checks.
>
> A simple test is to compare the altimeter (when set to 29.92"Hg) and
> what the TT21 display says for the altitude. But that does not exclude
> problems like the static line being disconnected behind the panel or
> contaminated with water etc.
>
> If this had happened to me and I'm sure my transponder was working I'd
> probably contact the ATC/approach folks and have a chat - this just
> should not happen with a TCAS II equipped 737. Unfortunately we don't
> have Mode-S RA downlink really used in the USA. When used (like more
> widely in Europe) that provides ATC controllers with direct visibility
> to RA events in their airspace.
>
> Darryl

[John Firth]

Ann Welch, a many time steward at WGC s , always warned against setting G
and R tasks due to the risk of collision; one nearly got me; about 3 secs
warning.
If you are running a cloud street, use the L/R lift indications to turn
slightly; no longer will you be a "stationary" speck to the other pilot and
the wing movment will make you easier to see.
A climbing turn is even better.
John F

>Although the encoder/altimeter weren't formally checked during the
>biannual transponder check, the technician did me a favor and quickly
>checked the correspondance at 0, 5000, 10000 and 20000 feet - they
>were OK. I also routinely check the transponder altitude reading
>against my alitimeter during each flight. So I'm pretty sure that's
>all OK. As for your suggestion about chatting with ATC, that didn't
>happen.
>
>-John
>
>On Sep 9, 6:48 pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>> John
>>
>> So my very next thought was has the encoder/altimeter system been
tested
>> recently?
>>
>> A standard biannual transponder check for a non-IFR aircraft does not
>> include a check of the altimeter/altitude encoder system, it just
>> includes RF tests--a fairly useless throwback to the days of much less
>> reliable traveling wave tube based transponders. The tests on first
>> install does include altimeter/encoder tests.
>>
>> I've seen quite a few owners assume that the encoder/altimeter is being
>> tested, but unless you've made arrangement with the test provider this
>> just usually won't be done for these subsequent checks.
>>
>> A simple test is to compare the altimeter (when set to 29.92"Hg) and
>> what the TT21 display says for the altitude. But that does not exclude
>> problems like the static line being disconnected behind the panel or
>> contaminated with water etc.
>>
>> If this had happened to me and I'm sure my transponder was working I'd
>> probably contact the ATC/approach folks and have a chat - this just
>> should not happen with a TCAS II equipped 737. Unfortunately we don't
>> have Mode-S RA downlink really used in the USA. When used (like more
>> widely in Europe) that provides ATC controllers with direct visibility
>> to RA events in their airspace.
>>
>> Darryl
>

[jcarlyle]

John F,

I understand your cloud street advice, but don't understand "G and R
tasks". Would you please elaborate?

In the case I was describing, I was in a house thermal 3 miles from my
home field, gaining altitude prepatory to starting a TAT. We get
fairly frequent turboprop commuter aircraft running between 4000 to
6000 feet from NW to SE (and vice versa) close to that area (they're
the ones I described as changing course to avoid us gliders), but no
one could recall ever seeing a jet airliner that low going from SW to
NE. It was a strange situation, made worse by him apparently not
detecting me via TCAS or knowing of me via ATC - and of course, me not
seeing him until he was way too close!

-John

On Sep 10, 9:33 am, John Firth > wrote:
> Ann Welch, a many time steward at WGC s , always warned against setting G
> and R tasks due to the risk of collision; one nearly got me; about 3 secs
> warning.
> If you are running a cloud street, use the L/R lift indications to turn
> slightly; no longer will you be a "stationary" speck to the other pilot and
> the wing movment will make you easier to see.
> A climbing turn is even better.
> John F

[bart s]

As a european and as a first hand experience from a mid air by the
FLARM system. It amazes me how still people can stick their head in
the sand and say Look-out is the only thing you need!

You need lookout supported by FLARM, supported by FLARM RADAR,
supported by TRANSPONDER for the big heavy metal, supported by
COLLISION MARKINGS on your plane..

and even then sometimes you find a plane passing you below that you
haven't spotted with your eyes first.

I was alerted by flarm in a thermal of another glider that flew in
front of me. he was hidden below my cockpit edge and out of my field
of vision. I was able to dive below him with 8 meters to spare !!
FLARM WORKS, Adopt it. If you start using it you will see your look-
out is poor sometimes....

Zen



On 9 sep, 17:14, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> jcarlyle > wrote:
> > Transponders are not a magic shield.
>
> > I fly with a Mode S transponder in the busy Philadelphia / New York
> > airspace. I often see airliners diverting course to go around me
> > (particularly commuters), but then there was the Southwest 737 that
> > flew 300 feet directly over me. I was thermalling at 5700, he was
> > straight and level at 6000. Gliders in this area have a discrete
> > transponder code, and we know from conversations with ATC that they're
> > keeping track of us specifically as glider traffic. So, I know for
> > certain that (1) the Southwest pilot was aware of me (long before I
> > was aware of him), and (2) he was also aware that I was a glider.
>
> > I'm not standing on principle here, if I'd seen him sooner I would
> > have quit thermalling and flown 90 degrees to his track while losing
> > altitude (quickly). But it was a hazy day, I was thermalling, he was
> > doing 250 kts, and I just flat didn't see him until he was about a
> > mile away.
>
> > Moral - keep a good lookout, amd remember that stuff can happen in
> > spite of a transponder...
>
> > -John
>
> Something is a little strange here as this seems well within the
> altitude difference window that should have generated an RA. Which is a
> big deal to the 737 crew both from the immediate required response to
> the RA and subsequent reporting/paperwork.
>
> Darryl- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

[jcarlyle]

Bart,

Collision markings and transponder exist. Flarm has been on order for
a year, and is not yet available. I'm hoping (a) I get the Flarm and
(b) they implement ADS-B display _before_ I have another aerial
encounter.

-John

On Sep 11, 4:59 am, bart s > wrote:
> As a european and as a first hand experience from a mid air by the
> FLARM system. It amazes me how still people can stick their head in
> the sand and say Look-out is the only thing you need!
>
> You need lookout supported by FLARM, supported by FLARM RADAR,
> supported by TRANSPONDER for the big heavy metal, supported by
> COLLISION MARKINGS on your plane..
>
> and even then sometimes you find a plane passing you below that you
> haven't spotted with your eyes first.
>
> I was alerted by flarm in a thermal of another glider that flew in
> front of me. he was hidden below my cockpit edge and out of my field
> of vision. I was able to dive below him with 8 meters to spare !!
> FLARM WORKS, Adopt it. If you start using it you will see your look-
> out is poor sometimes....
>
> Zen

[Darryl Ramm]

PowerFLARM does display 1090ES traffic now. It does not yet alert/warn
on 1090ES traffic threats. ADS-B especially with the screwed up
dual-link layer system being rolled out in the USA is a much larger
topic. Including how many threats out there today are actually 1090ES
data-out equipped. ADS-B data-out carriage for full participation,
Ground station coverage, ADS-B TIS-B and ADS-R support etc.

PowerFLARM portable units are about to roll out in the USA in greater
numbers - Urs updated here on that recently with info on the antenna
problems.

I think we have pretty good interest in PowerFLARM adoption in the USA
soaring community now. We could have been a lot further along and have
fewer dead pilots had we all, including the SSA, worked to more actively
encourage FLARM to enter the USA market years ago.

Darryl

jcarlyle > wrote:
> Bart,
>
> Collision markings and transponder exist. Flarm has been on order for
> a year, and is not yet available. I'm hoping (a) I get the Flarm and
> (b) they implement ADS-B display _before_ I have another aerial
> encounter.
>
> -John
>
> On Sep 11, 4:59 am, bart s > wrote:
> > As a european and as a first hand experience from a mid air by the
> > FLARM system. It amazes me how still people can stick their head in
> > the sand and say Look-out is the only thing you need!
> >
> > You need lookout supported by FLARM, supported by FLARM RADAR,
> > supported by TRANSPONDER for the big heavy metal, supported by
> > COLLISION MARKINGS on your plane..
> >
> > and even then sometimes you find a plane passing you below that you
> > haven't spotted with your eyes first.
> >
> > I was alerted by flarm in a thermal of another glider that flew in
> > front of me. he was hidden below my cockpit edge and out of my field
> > of vision. I was able to dive below him with 8 meters to spare !!
> > FLARM WORKS, Adopt it. If you start using it you will see your look-
> > out is poor sometimes....
> >
> > Zen
>

[Marc]

On Sep 11, 9:41*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> I think we have pretty good interest in PowerFLARM adoption in the USA
> soaring community now. We could have been a lot further along and have
> fewer dead pilots had we all, including the SSA, worked to more actively
> encourage FLARM to enter the USA market years ago.

Be aware, I'm in a curmudgeonly mood today:

Perhaps 4 or 5 pilots have died in the past decade in the US in glider/
glider or glider/towplane accidents. During that same period, I
suspect 50 or 60 pilots have died from more mundane issues, like
collision with terrain, stall/spin, failure to connect the elevator,
etc.

As anyone who has been around the US soaring scene for a while knows,
when Joe Glider Pilot hits the rocks, fails to notice that the
spoilers are open on takeoff, or spins in the pattern, it was because
he was inadequately trained or should never have been a pilot in the
first place. When Famous Racing Pilot runs into another glider, or
crashes in trees and can't be found for 24 hours or so, however, it is
obviously an issue that requires an immediate technical solution.
While I encourage people to equip themselves with PowerFLARM, ELTs, or
anything else they think helps, I will suggest that we have a very odd
attitude towards safety here in the US. It's far too difficult to do
some things, like examining whether changes to the tow signals are
appropriate, making sure tow planes have working radios, or
encouraging CDs not to set tasks which result in gliders encountering
each other head-on at cruise speed. But, if there is a fancy safety
gadget to be bought, we all need to be with the program. That is the
American way.

Speaking as a pilot who has (hopefully, temporarily) grounded himself
due to concerns that real life has become too much of a distraction
from flying safely,
Marc

[Darryl Ramm]

Marc

As you know I am in a curmudgeonly mood all the time.

I am all for addressing the other issues. They are areas I worry about
personally. I use written checklists, deliberately purchased gliders
with auto control hookup, I like to do BFRs and spring checkouts with
different instructors. I have a VHF radio that works well and I use it.
I choose where I fly and will not fly at some locations that are just
don't have a strong safety culture. Being a technology geek I am going
to speak up on the technology stuff and hope that experienced
instructors etc lead on the other stuff--nice to see UH and Tom's posts
recently.

And at a completely callous level if those other folks go kill
themselves elsewhere and not run into me in a thermal etc. at least I am
alive. Hopefully there is not too self denial of my own other safety
risks going on here.

Too many times have I been surprised by other gliders and GA aircraft
and that is when trying to keep a good lookout. Given that I am actually
surprised we have as few mid-air fatalities as we do. And statistics be
damned, after losing friends in midairs that PowerFLARM could likely
have helped avoid (and yes so could radio use etc.) its very difficult
not to think that these are pretty cost effective and justifiable. Of
course Flarm is not a replacement for the eyeball or an excuse to not
think about things like safe task setting etc.


Darryl

Marc > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 9:41 am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> > I think we have pretty good interest in PowerFLARM adoption in the
> > USA
> > soaring community now. We could have been a lot further along and
> > have
> > fewer dead pilots had we all, including the SSA, worked to more
> > actively
> > encourage FLARM to enter the USA market years ago.
>
> Be aware, I'm in a curmudgeonly mood today:
>
> Perhaps 4 or 5 pilots have died in the past decade in the US in
> glider/
> glider or glider/towplane accidents. During that same period, I
> suspect 50 or 60 pilots have died from more mundane issues, like
> collision with terrain, stall/spin, failure to connect the elevator,
> etc.
>
> As anyone who has been around the US soaring scene for a while knows,
> when Joe Glider Pilot hits the rocks, fails to notice that the
> spoilers are open on takeoff, or spins in the pattern, it was because
> he was inadequately trained or should never have been a pilot in the
> first place. When Famous Racing Pilot runs into another glider, or
> crashes in trees and can't be found for 24 hours or so, however, it is
> obviously an issue that requires an immediate technical solution.
> While I encourage people to equip themselves with PowerFLARM, ELTs, or
> anything else they think helps, I will suggest that we have a very odd
> attitude towards safety here in the US. It's far too difficult to do
> some things, like examining whether changes to the tow signals are
> appropriate, making sure tow planes have working radios, or
> encouraging CDs not to set tasks which result in gliders encountering
> each other head-on at cruise speed. But, if there is a fancy safety
> gadget to be bought, we all need to be with the program. That is the
> American way.
>
> Speaking as a pilot who has (hopefully, temporarily) grounded himself
> due to concerns that real life has become too much of a distraction
> from flying safely,
> Marc
>

[Ventus_a]

[QUOTE=jcarlyle;782917]John F,

I understand your cloud street advice, but don't understand "G and R
tasks". Would you please elaborate?


I would think 'Goal and Return' aka Out and Return

Colin