Midair Warning

[[email protected]]

Warning/Caution:
A couple of days ago an F-16 broadsided a Cessna 150 at a couple of thousand feet over mid to lower South Carolina not far from where we fly gliders out of Perry or Manning. The still reasonably intact F-16 was damaged requiring the pilot to punch out which he did safely. The thousands of pieces of the C-150 are probably still floating down. They finally found the bodies of the 60 year old man and his 20 year old son.
The F-16 was shooting practice approaches at CHS (Charleston) and of course was in contact with ATC and or Charleston Approach. The usually poor media coverage hasn't a clue about the relationship, if any, of the C150 and ATC.
This could have been a glider. Same scenario is easily possible in most areas of the US in which gliders fly. It's been a while since we have had a glider/power mid-air, thank goodness but let's take this as a wake-up.
It's a fact that most US gliders still don't have a transponder. Many of my glider friends with power ratings just don't feel comfortable talking to ATC and seldom do! A few of our really good contest pilots don't even have a power rating and never ever talk to any FAA facilities. Back when I started cross country soaring in the 50s
this was , I thought, okay and much more fun not ever leaving 123.3.
Sadly that is just not the case today. Hardly anywhere in the US is it really safe to fly "in the blind". I really cherish the memory of my first 20 or 30 years of cross country soaring. My last 20 or so were scary and now that I've been out of it 10 years I wonder if I would love it now like I once did?
If you are not a current commercial pilot or at least fly power mostly on IFR flight plans, or at very least frequently fly cross country using VFR following then you are probably not comfortable working with ATC and in my opinion are not nearly as safe as you should be.
If all of your club gliders, at least those that go cross country, are not transponder equipped you, for your own sake, should encourage such. There are many really nice 2 1/4 " TX available now.
If you don't have an instrument rating you should still get a few hours with a good instructor frequenting active ATC equivalent areas.
Since writing the last paragraph I opened today's mail and see that SSA is encouraging a negative response to FAAs plan to make transponders mandatory for gliders. I've always mistrusted the FAA and have seldom found anything nice to say about them, but I'll not buck them on this TX issue. (Sorry Richard!)
Bottom line for me is: The pain of being too old to soar is lessened by seeing the increasing slope of the complexity and expense of the sport.
Fly safe or at least fly scared.

ED

[Bob Pasker]

As an instrument-rated power pilot, I have always flown VFR with flight following, or when not using flight following, I would tune in the CTAF of airports as I flew near, esp in copters. My airplane has both weather and a TCAS overlaid on the moving map. More information was always better.

Getting into a glider with no electrical system, and no traffic or communications, was very cool, so long as I was flying around the airport. But as soon as I started longer flights and XC flights, I went out and bought myself a good handheld radio and a PowerFlarm, but I still feel naked flying without a transponder, especially surrounding Reno.

There are three competing factors, as far as I can see, to not wanting "gear" in the aircraft: cost, feeling of independence, and safety. My first priority has always been safety, and I have spent the money to buy the gear I needed, since I thought it was a good as an insurance premium. But I definitely love the feeling of independence that comes from flying around, no engine, and no radio waves. Gliding has always been a low-cost business, and I know that there are a lot of people out there who save every penny to fly.

There's also the argument about "keeping your head outside the cockpit," which I totally agree on, and that's why its important for any traffic alerting system (like the vario) to be audible.

--b

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:46:04 -0700, Bob Pasker wrote:

> As an instrument-rated power pilot, I have always flown VFR with flight
> following, or when not using flight following, I would tune in the CTAF
> of airports as I flew near, esp in copters. My airplane has both
> weather and a TCAS overlaid on the moving map. More information was
> always better.
>
I'm very pleased with the Dittel KRT2 I fitted last year in response to
the impending switch to 8.33 kHz channel spacing in the UK. The
unexpected benefit is that it has dual channel monitoring, so I can stay
on 130.4 and use the standby channel to listen to nearby airfields. If I
need to talk to them, a single button press to swap the channels is all
it takes.


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

[[email protected]]

Gliders flying X-C would be much safer if equipped with transponders. If you have occasion to fly up front in a small jet (say, a Citation), you'll see that not only at times they fly where we fly, but that without a transponder the pilot would not be able to change course in time to avoid a collision. A transponder, like flarm, is pretty cheap life insurance.



On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 2:13:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Warning/Caution:
> A couple of days ago an F-16 broadsided a Cessna 150 at a couple of thousand feet over mid to lower South Carolina not far from where we fly gliders out of Perry or Manning. The still reasonably intact F-16 was damaged requiring the pilot to punch out which he did safely. The thousands of pieces of the C-150 are probably still floating down. They finally found the bodies of the 60 year old man and his 20 year old son.
> The F-16 was shooting practice approaches at CHS (Charleston) and of course was in contact with ATC and or Charleston Approach. The usually poor media coverage hasn't a clue about the relationship, if any, of the C150 and ATC.
> This could have been a glider. Same scenario is easily possible in most areas of the US in which gliders fly. It's been a while since we have had a glider/power mid-air, thank goodness but let's take this as a wake-up.
> It's a fact that most US gliders still don't have a transponder. Many of my glider friends with power ratings just don't feel comfortable talking to ATC and seldom do! A few of our really good contest pilots don't even have a power rating and never ever talk to any FAA facilities. Back when I started cross country soaring in the 50s
> this was , I thought, okay and much more fun not ever leaving 123.3.
> Sadly that is just not the case today. Hardly anywhere in the US is it really safe to fly "in the blind". I really cherish the memory of my first 20 or 30 years of cross country soaring. My last 20 or so were scary and now that I've been out of it 10 years I wonder if I would love it now like I once did?
> If you are not a current commercial pilot or at least fly power mostly on IFR flight plans, or at very least frequently fly cross country using VFR following then you are probably not comfortable working with ATC and in my opinion are not nearly as safe as you should be.
> If all of your club gliders, at least those that go cross country, are not transponder equipped you, for your own sake, should encourage such. There are many really nice 2 1/4 " TX available now.
> If you don't have an instrument rating you should still get a few hours with a good instructor frequenting active ATC equivalent areas.
> Since writing the last paragraph I opened today's mail and see that SSA is encouraging a negative response to FAAs plan to make transponders mandatory for gliders. I've always mistrusted the FAA and have seldom found anything nice to say about them, but I'll not buck them on this TX issue. (Sorry Richard!)
> Bottom line for me is: The pain of being too old to soar is lessened by seeing the increasing slope of the complexity and expense of the sport.
> Fly safe or at least fly scared.
>
> ED

[Hartley Falbaum[_2_]]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 2:13:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Warning/Caution:
> A couple of days ago an F-16 broadsided a Cessna 150 at a couple of thousand feet over mid to lower South Carolina not far from where we fly gliders out of Perry or Manning. The still reasonably intact F-16 was damaged requiring the pilot to punch out which he did safely. The thousands of pieces of the C-150 are probably still floating down. They finally found the bodies of the 60 year old man and his 20 year old son.
> The F-16 was shooting practice approaches at CHS (Charleston) and of course was in contact with ATC and or Charleston Approach. The usually poor media coverage hasn't a clue about the relationship, if any, of the C150 and ATC.
> This could have been a glider. Same scenario is easily possible in most areas of the US in which gliders fly. It's been a while since we have had a glider/power mid-air, thank goodness but let's take this as a wake-up.
> It's a fact that most US gliders still don't have a transponder. Many of my glider friends with power ratings just don't feel comfortable talking to ATC and seldom do! A few of our really good contest pilots don't even have a power rating and never ever talk to any FAA facilities. Back when I started cross country soaring in the 50s
> this was , I thought, okay and much more fun not ever leaving 123.3.
> Sadly that is just not the case today. Hardly anywhere in the US is it really safe to fly "in the blind". I really cherish the memory of my first 20 or 30 years of cross country soaring. My last 20 or so were scary and now that I've been out of it 10 years I wonder if I would love it now like I once did?
> If you are not a current commercial pilot or at least fly power mostly on IFR flight plans, or at very least frequently fly cross country using VFR following then you are probably not comfortable working with ATC and in my opinion are not nearly as safe as you should be.
> If all of your club gliders, at least those that go cross country, are not transponder equipped you, for your own sake, should encourage such. There are many really nice 2 1/4 " TX available now.
> If you don't have an instrument rating you should still get a few hours with a good instructor frequenting active ATC equivalent areas.
> Since writing the last paragraph I opened today's mail and see that SSA is encouraging a negative response to FAAs plan to make transponders mandatory for gliders. I've always mistrusted the FAA and have seldom found anything nice to say about them, but I'll not buck them on this TX issue. (Sorry Richard!)
> Bottom line for me is: The pain of being too old to soar is lessened by seeing the increasing slope of the complexity and expense of the sport.
> Fly safe or at least fly scared.
>
> ED

Do we know for sure?--Most, if not all Power Planes (Airplanes in FAA speak) are transponder equipped.
If so equipped, they are required to be on. If VFR, then squawk code 1200. Most likely this Cessna 150 had a transponder and thus turned on, even if not communicating with ATC by radio. Military talks to their own controllers usually, was the F-16 talking to the civilian controllers?
I am seriously considering installing a transponder in my glider, and I am a CFII so no qualms about talking to ATC. But I wonder--would a transponder have prevented this collision.

Hartley Falbaum
DG808C "KF" USA

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 2:28:29 PM UTC-7, Hartley Falbaum wrote:
/snip/
>
> Do we know for sure?--Most, if not all Power Planes (Airplanes in FAA speak) are transponder equipped.
> If so equipped, they are required to be on. If VFR, then squawk code 1200.. Most likely this Cessna 150 had a transponder and thus turned on, even if not communicating with ATC by radio. Military talks to their own controllers usually, was the F-16 talking to the civilian controllers?
> I am seriously considering installing a transponder in my glider, and I am a CFII so no qualms about talking to ATC. But I wonder--would a transponder have prevented this collision.
>
> Hartley Falbaum
> DG808C "KF" USA

Very, very sad.

The F-16C was operating out of Joint Base Charleston (KCHS), apparently practicing instrument approaches. (e.g. see http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150707/PC16/150709558). I have not see any details on exactly what the F16C or Cessna 150M was doing or who the Cessna may have been talking to. The Monck's corner area includes fixes and holding patterns for KCHS instrument approaches. KCHS is Class C, and the collision apparently happened well outside that Class C airspace.

According to Kathryn's report, both aircraft had operating transponders. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2015/07/cessna-150-and-f-16c-fighting-falcon.html
That Cessna also show up in the flightaware flight tracking databases, which confirms that it has a transponder installed, at least in the past. Radar and audio tapes should hopefully solve this one quickly...

And to preempt any TCAS questions, no an F16 does not have TCAS.

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 1:13:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Warning/Caution:
> A couple of days ago an F-16 broadsided a Cessna 150 at a couple of thousand feet over mid to lower South Carolina not far from where we fly gliders out of Perry or Manning. The still reasonably intact F-16 was damaged requiring the pilot to punch out which he did safely. The thousands of pieces of the C-150 are probably still floating down. They finally found the bodies of the 60 year old man and his 20 year old son.
> The F-16 was shooting practice approaches at CHS (Charleston) and of course was in contact with ATC and or Charleston Approach. The usually poor media coverage hasn't a clue about the relationship, if any, of the C150 and ATC.
> This could have been a glider. Same scenario is easily possible in most areas of the US in which gliders fly. It's been a while since we have had a glider/power mid-air, thank goodness but let's take this as a wake-up.
> It's a fact that most US gliders still don't have a transponder. Many of my glider friends with power ratings just don't feel comfortable talking to ATC and seldom do! A few of our really good contest pilots don't even have a power rating and never ever talk to any FAA facilities. Back when I started cross country soaring in the 50s
> this was , I thought, okay and much more fun not ever leaving 123.3.
> Sadly that is just not the case today. Hardly anywhere in the US is it really safe to fly "in the blind". I really cherish the memory of my first 20 or 30 years of cross country soaring. My last 20 or so were scary and now that I've been out of it 10 years I wonder if I would love it now like I once did?
> If you are not a current commercial pilot or at least fly power mostly on IFR flight plans, or at very least frequently fly cross country using VFR following then you are probably not comfortable working with ATC and in my opinion are not nearly as safe as you should be.
> If all of your club gliders, at least those that go cross country, are not transponder equipped you, for your own sake, should encourage such. There are many really nice 2 1/4 " TX available now.
> If you don't have an instrument rating you should still get a few hours with a good instructor frequenting active ATC equivalent areas.
> Since writing the last paragraph I opened today's mail and see that SSA is encouraging a negative response to FAAs plan to make transponders mandatory for gliders. I've always mistrusted the FAA and have seldom found anything nice to say about them, but I'll not buck them on this TX issue. (Sorry Richard!)
> Bottom line for me is: The pain of being too old to soar is lessened by seeing the increasing slope of the complexity and expense of the sport.
> Fly safe or at least fly scared.
>
> ED

I totally agree that all aircraft (including gliders) should be transponder and/or ADS-B OUT equipped, so that they are visible to other aircraft and ATC.

However, a BIG unanswered question in this accident is whether the Cessna 150 was transponder equipped, and whether it was turned on at the time. Did the F-16 have TCAS? Was the Cessna visible on ATC radar?

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 1:13:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > Warning/Caution:
> > A couple of days ago an F-16 broadsided a Cessna 150 at a couple of thousand feet over mid to lower South Carolina not far from where we fly gliders out of Perry or Manning. The still reasonably intact F-16 was damaged requiring the pilot to punch out which he did safely. The thousands of pieces of the C-150 are probably still floating down. They finally found the bodies of the 60 year old man and his 20 year old son.
> > The F-16 was shooting practice approaches at CHS (Charleston) and of course was in contact with ATC and or Charleston Approach. The usually poor media coverage hasn't a clue about the relationship, if any, of the C150 and ATC.
> > This could have been a glider. Same scenario is easily possible in most areas of the US in which gliders fly. It's been a while since we have had a glider/power mid-air, thank goodness but let's take this as a wake-up.
> > It's a fact that most US gliders still don't have a transponder. Many of my glider friends with power ratings just don't feel comfortable talking to ATC and seldom do! A few of our really good contest pilots don't even have a power rating and never ever talk to any FAA facilities. Back when I started cross country soaring in the 50s
> > this was , I thought, okay and much more fun not ever leaving 123.3.
> > Sadly that is just not the case today. Hardly anywhere in the US is it really safe to fly "in the blind". I really cherish the memory of my first 20 or 30 years of cross country soaring. My last 20 or so were scary and now that I've been out of it 10 years I wonder if I would love it now like I once did?
> > If you are not a current commercial pilot or at least fly power mostly on IFR flight plans, or at very least frequently fly cross country using VFR following then you are probably not comfortable working with ATC and in my opinion are not nearly as safe as you should be.
> > If all of your club gliders, at least those that go cross country, are not transponder equipped you, for your own sake, should encourage such. There are many really nice 2 1/4 " TX available now.
> > If you don't have an instrument rating you should still get a few hours with a good instructor frequenting active ATC equivalent areas.
> > Since writing the last paragraph I opened today's mail and see that SSA is encouraging a negative response to FAAs plan to make transponders mandatory for gliders. I've always mistrusted the FAA and have seldom found anything nice to say about them, but I'll not buck them on this TX issue. (Sorry Richard!)
> > Bottom line for me is: The pain of being too old to soar is lessened by seeing the increasing slope of the complexity and expense of the sport.
> > Fly safe or at least fly scared.
> >
> > ED
>
> I totally agree that all aircraft (including gliders) should be transponder and/or ADS-B OUT equipped, so that they are visible to other aircraft and ATC.
>
> However, a BIG unanswered question in this accident is whether the Cessna 150 was transponder equipped, and whether it was turned on at the time. Did the F-16 have TCAS? Was the Cessna visible on ATC radar?

No, aircraft in high-density traffic areas need to be transponder equipped, maybe ADS-B out as well. UAT-Out only does not provide visibility to TCAS but that is not a factor in this mid-air.

If you look up at the post a little before yours you'll see most of your questions answered. Well at least what should have been happening, without seeing radar tapes, nobody knows if the transponder (and encoded altitude) in the Cessna was working correctly at that exact time or if there as some other problem.

[kirk.stant]

Transponders are only HALF the solution. You also need a means to detect other aircraft in your vicinity, so that YOU can initiate detection and avoidance. A transponder by itself will do ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD in preventing a glider to glider, or glider to VFR power (not talking to center) mid-air.

Fighters do not carry TCAS. They MAY be talking to center, but in a MOA they may never get a call about your presence from ATC, even if you have a transponder. Most have radar, and many have transponder interrogators that should let them detect you well before a midair will occur (I had this capability in old F-4Es back in the 80s and used it a lot while low in MOAs to find and avoid VFR traffic).

But - I think it is REALLY foolish to depend on your transponder and ATC to keep you safe - apparently it didn't work in this case. If the Cessna had been carrying a PCAS or PowerFLARM he may have detected the F-16 in time to at least look for it.

Bottom line. See and Avoid really doesn't work. Big Sky Theory works MOST of the time. Transponders are good for letting airliners see you, but are not much help against VFR traffic or other gliders. PCAS is cheap, and works. Transponder and PF is the best current equipment fit, hands down.

Kirk
66

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 7:37:08 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> Transponders are only HALF the solution. You also need a means to detect other aircraft in your vicinity, so that YOU can initiate detection and avoidance. A transponder by itself will do ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD in preventing a glider to glider, or glider to VFR power (not talking to center) mid-air.
>
> Fighters do not carry TCAS. They MAY be talking to center, but in a MOA they may never get a call about your presence from ATC, even if you have a transponder. Most have radar, and many have transponder interrogators that should let them detect you well before a midair will occur (I had this capability in old F-4Es back in the 80s and used it a lot while low in MOAs to find and avoid VFR traffic).
>
> But - I think it is REALLY foolish to depend on your transponder and ATC to keep you safe - apparently it didn't work in this case. If the Cessna had been carrying a PCAS or PowerFLARM he may have detected the F-16 in time to at least look for it.
>
> Bottom line. See and Avoid really doesn't work. Big Sky Theory works MOST of the time. Transponders are good for letting airliners see you, but are not much help against VFR traffic or other gliders. PCAS is cheap, and works. Transponder and PF is the best current equipment fit, hands down.
>
> Kirk
> 66

The other half of the solution is that ATC (whether Military or Civilian) should provide traffic separation between VFR and IFR traffic, and ALL high speed aircraft (including Military) should be equipped with TCAS or equivalent collision warning or avoidance systems.

This apparently wasn't the case in this instance. The moral of the story is that GA and Glider pilots can't rely on the other guys to avoid collisions. We need to proactively keep track of all the traffic in our vicinity and get out of the way. Low cost ADS-B (IN and OUT) systems and TIS-B are going to be a big help.

[Bob Pasker]

The F16 has better than TCAS-- it has in board radar

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/ANApg68/Pages/default.aspx

[Sean Fidler]

Well said. Thx!

[Dan Marotta]

Maybe things have changed, but when I was flying a lot of IFR, ATC had
no duty to separate IFR and VFR traffic /_in VMC_/. The best you could
hope for as a VFR pilot was to request flight following and then, on a
workload allowing basis, ATC would issue advisories on IFR traffic.
Likewise, workload allowing, ATC would issue advisories of VFR aircraft
to IFR aircraft. The pilot in command has always had the responsibility
of maintaining separation from other aircraft in VMC.

Someone mentioned earlier that, if the Cessna had had a Power Flarm
installed, he would have seen the F-16. I'll bet that if a poll of
general aviation pilots _/in the USA/_ asking their opinion of Power
Flarm was taken the vast majority of answers would be, "What's Power
Flarm?". We glider pilots live in a very small community mostly unknown
to the rest of aviation and a piece of equipment which is to most glider
pilots the end-all of safety is irrelevant to general aviation.

Discussing this tragic accident on this forum has no real bearing on
soaring other than the admonition to keep your head out and your eyes open.

On 7/10/2015 11:57 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 7:37:08 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
>> Transponders are only HALF the solution. You also need a means to detect other aircraft in your vicinity, so that YOU can initiate detection and avoidance. A transponder by itself will do ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD in preventing a glider to glider, or glider to VFR power (not talking to center) mid-air.
>>
>> Fighters do not carry TCAS. They MAY be talking to center, but in a MOA they may never get a call about your presence from ATC, even if you have a transponder. Most have radar, and many have transponder interrogators that should let them detect you well before a midair will occur (I had this capability in old F-4Es back in the 80s and used it a lot while low in MOAs to find and avoid VFR traffic).
>>
>> But - I think it is REALLY foolish to depend on your transponder and ATC to keep you safe - apparently it didn't work in this case. If the Cessna had been carrying a PCAS or PowerFLARM he may have detected the F-16 in time to at least look for it.
>>
>> Bottom line. See and Avoid really doesn't work. Big Sky Theory works MOST of the time. Transponders are good for letting airliners see you, but are not much help against VFR traffic or other gliders. PCAS is cheap, and works. Transponder and PF is the best current equipment fit, hands down.
>>
>> Kirk
>> 66
> The other half of the solution is that ATC (whether Military or Civilian) should provide traffic separation between VFR and IFR traffic, and ALL high speed aircraft (including Military) should be equipped with TCAS or equivalent collision warning or avoidance systems.
>
> This apparently wasn't the case in this instance. The moral of the story is that GA and Glider pilots can't rely on the other guys to avoid collisions. We need to proactively keep track of all the traffic in our vicinity and get out of the way. Low cost ADS-B (IN and OUT) systems and TIS-B are going to be a big help.

--
Dan Marotta

[Ramy[_2_]]

Indeed most GA never heard of PowerFlarm.
The soaring community is obviously ahead of power pilots with collision avoidance technology, and the reason is that we took the matter in our own hands and did not wait for the FAA to protect us. It is too bad that most GA is still depending on See and Avoid when the technology exists for more than a decade!

Ramy

[jfitch]

The problem is, PowerFlarm is raised to the FAA's attention, it will need to be certified, raising the cost by around 5x.

[Bob Pasker]

That's still true. But I have always found ATC to be quite vigilant in reporting traffic with flight following or IFR in VMC, if not necessarily providing collision avoidance vectors. They do still get radar alerts if you have a TXP, and sometimes primary targets. One time flying 500' offshore Monterey bay at 500' in a citabria, what was then called Monterey Approach called to tell me that there was a primary target my altitude 1 mile, "but it could be an 18-wheeler on Highway 1."

[[email protected]]

There is much more wrong with the Power Flarm comment.
I have Flarm.
Transponder targets do not provide the information that Flarm targets have.
One has to actually visually search for the transponder target.
At the speeds the F-16 was travelling....Flarm is iffy.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 11:00:12 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> There is much more wrong with the Power Flarm comment.
> I have Flarm.
> Transponder targets do not provide the information that Flarm targets have.
> One has to actually visually search for the transponder target.
> At the speeds the F-16 was travelling....Flarm is iffy.

"Under 10,000ft, under 250kts", granted, that's still ~450'/second if you're not moving, even more if you're head on.
I would guess the jet was even slower than 250kts "in the pattern".

While I agree that we should try to learn from this accident, sometimes "crap happens" regardless of how many "roadblocks to crap" we throw up.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 5:37:00 AM UTC-7, Bob Pasker wrote:
> The F16 has better than TCAS-- it has in board radar
>
> http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/ANApg68/Pages/default.aspx

No. Radar and TCAS are not related. Radar is not some magic thing that sees aircraft all around you, issues a traffic warning etc.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 8:00:12 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> There is much more wrong with the Power Flarm comment.
> I have Flarm.
> Transponder targets do not provide the information that Flarm targets have.
> One has to actually visually search for the transponder target.
> At the speeds the F-16 was travelling....Flarm is iffy.

The Flarm part of this thread is going a bit off the rails. PowerFLARM is not targeted at GA use (certainly not in the USA), for very good reasons. Well maybe the few GA aircraft that should have PowerFLARM are tow planes.

AFAIK the F-16C is not equipped with 1090ES Out, it is equipped with a very capable military/IFF transponder that supports Mode S and will show up as a PCAS alert on a PowerFLARM... given all the usual requirements like the transponder the F16 would need to be being interrogated etc. If the USAF eventually equips their fighters with 1090ES out then a PowerFLARM would provide much more useful warning (surprise! cost and complexity of installing ADS-B out affects the military as well).

PCAS is just not a very effective warning against a fast jet like an F-16 (even if flying < 250 knots), you have no clue what direction the treat is in, you may not get much warning time, the jets may maneuver rapidly vertical (outside of the PCAs warning box), they are camouflaged, small and and difficult to see. There are ADS-B based options that a GA aircraft could deploy that would (via TIS-B) better show the F-16 traffic (but they also are not perfect), but the cost and hassle of installing those is likely not appealing to many lower-end GA aircraft owners.

Flarm does not need to be "raised to the FAA's attention".. the FAA is well aware of what Flarm is, including the FAA folks who worked on the recent TABS TSO. The soaring community would seriously harm it's reputation by proposing PowerFLARM for use in GA aircraft, it is just not suitable for that, not in the unique USA ADS-B market. FLARM certainly knows that and is not marketing the product for GA users in the USA. And likewise transponder and ADS-B solutions are not suitable for use in gliders for glider-glider traffic awareness. Unfortunately we are stuck in that space spanning two worlds and for some glider owners/pilots that means, and will increasingly mean, equipping with both PowerFLARM and a transponder and maybe other parts of the ADS-B puzzle (like possibly TABS if that takes off).

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 1:18:17 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 8:00:12 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > There is much more wrong with the Power Flarm comment.
> > I have Flarm.
> > Transponder targets do not provide the information that Flarm targets have.
> > One has to actually visually search for the transponder target.
> > At the speeds the F-16 was travelling....Flarm is iffy.
>
> The Flarm part of this thread is going a bit off the rails. PowerFLARM is not targeted at GA use (certainly not in the USA), for very good reasons. Well maybe the few GA aircraft that should have PowerFLARM are tow planes.
>
> AFAIK the F-16C is not equipped with 1090ES Out, it is equipped with a very capable military/IFF transponder that supports Mode S and will show up as a PCAS alert on a PowerFLARM... given all the usual requirements like the transponder the F16 would need to be being interrogated etc. If the USAF eventually equips their fighters with 1090ES out then a PowerFLARM would provide much more useful warning (surprise! cost and complexity of installing ADS-B out affects the military as well).
>
> PCAS is just not a very effective warning against a fast jet like an F-16 (even if flying < 250 knots), you have no clue what direction the treat is in, you may not get much warning time, the jets may maneuver rapidly vertical (outside of the PCAs warning box), they are camouflaged, small and and difficult to see. There are ADS-B based options that a GA aircraft could deploy that would (via TIS-B) better show the F-16 traffic (but they also are not perfect), but the cost and hassle of installing those is likely not appealing to many lower-end GA aircraft owners.
>
> Flarm does not need to be "raised to the FAA's attention".. the FAA is well aware of what Flarm is, including the FAA folks who worked on the recent TABS TSO. The soaring community would seriously harm it's reputation by proposing PowerFLARM for use in GA aircraft, it is just not suitable for that, not in the unique USA ADS-B market. FLARM certainly knows that and is not marketing the product for GA users in the USA. And likewise transponder and ADS-B solutions are not suitable for use in gliders for glider-glider traffic awareness. Unfortunately we are stuck in that space spanning two worlds and for some glider owners/pilots that means, and will increasingly mean, equipping with both PowerFLARM and a transponder and maybe other parts of the ADS-B puzzle (like possibly TABS if that takes off).

I totally agree with your assessment of the limited value of PCAS for high speed collision threats like F-16s.

Assuming that this Cessna was within range of an ADS-B ground station, a low cost ADS-B solution (both IN and OUT) connected to an iPhone or iPAD app like ForeFlight could have given the Cessna pilots a good warning of the traffic that was heading straight towards them.

Hopefully the new FAA interest in low cost ADS-B based beacon technology will result in some serious cost reductions, so that this technology is affordable by everyone.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 11:46:37 AM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 1:18:17 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 8:00:12 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > There is much more wrong with the Power Flarm comment.
> > > I have Flarm.
> > > Transponder targets do not provide the information that Flarm targets have.
> > > One has to actually visually search for the transponder target.
> > > At the speeds the F-16 was travelling....Flarm is iffy.
> >
> > The Flarm part of this thread is going a bit off the rails. PowerFLARM is not targeted at GA use (certainly not in the USA), for very good reasons.. Well maybe the few GA aircraft that should have PowerFLARM are tow planes..
> >
> > AFAIK the F-16C is not equipped with 1090ES Out, it is equipped with a very capable military/IFF transponder that supports Mode S and will show up as a PCAS alert on a PowerFLARM... given all the usual requirements like the transponder the F16 would need to be being interrogated etc. If the USAF eventually equips their fighters with 1090ES out then a PowerFLARM would provide much more useful warning (surprise! cost and complexity of installing ADS-B out affects the military as well).
> >
> > PCAS is just not a very effective warning against a fast jet like an F-16 (even if flying < 250 knots), you have no clue what direction the treat is in, you may not get much warning time, the jets may maneuver rapidly vertical (outside of the PCAs warning box), they are camouflaged, small and and difficult to see. There are ADS-B based options that a GA aircraft could deploy that would (via TIS-B) better show the F-16 traffic (but they also are not perfect), but the cost and hassle of installing those is likely not appealing to many lower-end GA aircraft owners.
> >
> > Flarm does not need to be "raised to the FAA's attention".. the FAA is well aware of what Flarm is, including the FAA folks who worked on the recent TABS TSO. The soaring community would seriously harm it's reputation by proposing PowerFLARM for use in GA aircraft, it is just not suitable for that, not in the unique USA ADS-B market. FLARM certainly knows that and is not marketing the product for GA users in the USA. And likewise transponder and ADS-B solutions are not suitable for use in gliders for glider-glider traffic awareness. Unfortunately we are stuck in that space spanning two worlds and for some glider owners/pilots that means, and will increasingly mean, equipping with both PowerFLARM and a transponder and maybe other parts of the ADS-B puzzle (like possibly TABS if that takes off).
>
> I totally agree with your assessment of the limited value of PCAS for high speed collision threats like F-16s.
>
> Assuming that this Cessna was within range of an ADS-B ground station, a low cost ADS-B solution (both IN and OUT) connected to an iPhone or iPAD app like ForeFlight could have given the Cessna pilots a good warning of the traffic that was heading straight towards them.

Define low-cost, an actually installed ADS-B Out Solution in a certified aircraft, in the price-point of a C-150M may not to be "low-cost" to many owners.

Could have, yes. But as with all technology it has limitations, including needing to be both within ADS-B ground station and SSR coverage (hopefully should have been OK in this case... but lets see what actual altitude the collision happened at), and the small vertical coverage area (the ADS-B coverage pancake or cylinder) won't catch fast vertically maneuvering jets (also should have been OK in this case assuming the F-16 was doing standard instrument approaches). And the traffic warning system needs to be a bit more than a tablet, you need the audio alarms wired into the audio panel/headphones or similar. Something so seemingly simple, but often missing from many tablet type installs I've seen in light aircraft (you need an audio panel with appropriate inputs, older ones don't have that).

With any fast jet traffic situation probalby the most effective thing is you want *them* to know you are there. And in this case that relied on SSR and ATC, and so far it looks like the Cessna was equipped perfectly reasonably with a transponder. What the NTSB and Air Force investigations find will be interesting and hopefully useful in preventing similar accidents in future.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 2:46:37 PM UTC-4, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 1:18:17 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 8:00:12 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > There is much more wrong with the Power Flarm comment.
> > > I have Flarm.
> > > Transponder targets do not provide the information that Flarm targets have.
> > > One has to actually visually search for the transponder target.
> > > At the speeds the F-16 was travelling....Flarm is iffy.
> >
> > The Flarm part of this thread is going a bit off the rails. PowerFLARM is not targeted at GA use (certainly not in the USA), for very good reasons.. Well maybe the few GA aircraft that should have PowerFLARM are tow planes..
> >
> > AFAIK the F-16C is not equipped with 1090ES Out, it is equipped with a very capable military/IFF transponder that supports Mode S and will show up as a PCAS alert on a PowerFLARM... given all the usual requirements like the transponder the F16 would need to be being interrogated etc. If the USAF eventually equips their fighters with 1090ES out then a PowerFLARM would provide much more useful warning (surprise! cost and complexity of installing ADS-B out affects the military as well).
> >
> > PCAS is just not a very effective warning against a fast jet like an F-16 (even if flying < 250 knots), you have no clue what direction the treat is in, you may not get much warning time, the jets may maneuver rapidly vertical (outside of the PCAs warning box), they are camouflaged, small and and difficult to see. There are ADS-B based options that a GA aircraft could deploy that would (via TIS-B) better show the F-16 traffic (but they also are not perfect), but the cost and hassle of installing those is likely not appealing to many lower-end GA aircraft owners.
> >
> > Flarm does not need to be "raised to the FAA's attention".. the FAA is well aware of what Flarm is, including the FAA folks who worked on the recent TABS TSO. The soaring community would seriously harm it's reputation by proposing PowerFLARM for use in GA aircraft, it is just not suitable for that, not in the unique USA ADS-B market. FLARM certainly knows that and is not marketing the product for GA users in the USA. And likewise transponder and ADS-B solutions are not suitable for use in gliders for glider-glider traffic awareness. Unfortunately we are stuck in that space spanning two worlds and for some glider owners/pilots that means, and will increasingly mean, equipping with both PowerFLARM and a transponder and maybe other parts of the ADS-B puzzle (like possibly TABS if that takes off).
>
> I totally agree with your assessment of the limited value of PCAS for high speed collision threats like F-16s.
>
> Assuming that this Cessna was within range of an ADS-B ground station, a low cost ADS-B solution (both IN and OUT) connected to an iPhone or iPAD app like ForeFlight could have given the Cessna pilots a good warning of the traffic that was heading straight towards them.
>
> Hopefully the new FAA interest in low cost ADS-B based beacon technology will result in some serious cost reductions, so that this technology is affordable by everyone.

Sorry for sounding like a Luddite, but, not EVERYONE has a smartphone/IPad in their possession.
I think the FAA (and others) need to realize that not EVERYONE has this "baseline" equipment. While it's "nice to have", I'm also supporting 3 other people in my house.
I have no "real job" currently, even when I did, I had better things to spend my money on.

Keep pushing this thought (smartphone/IPad) and you can yet drive EVEN MORE pilots out of flying.
Then you have the perfect situation...... no planes, no conflicts....... thus, no need for a few thousand dollars for collision avoidance.

If you think, "I'm too cheap", then help me pay house bills, college expenses, etc., THEN I can consider spending money towards FLYING!.

Sorta gives credence towards, "Flying is a rich/old man sport"........

BTW, I've been flying sailplanes sine the early 70's, partly through my time/money as well as my mother and a LOT of others.

PS, "No silver spoon here". Although I will admit, I have a LOT of great opportunities over the decades. For that, I'm very thankful.....

PPS, I own a Nomex suit, so, flame away....... ;-)

[Dan Marotta]

"Under 10,000ft, under 250kts"

Unless the aircraft flight manual states otherwise. I think the F-16
flies 300 KIAS in the traffic pattern. Any Viper drivers out there to
chime in?

On 7/11/2015 11:36 AM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 11:00:12 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>> There is much more wrong with the Power Flarm comment.
>> I have Flarm.
>> Transponder targets do not provide the information that Flarm targets have.
>> One has to actually visually search for the transponder target.
>> At the speeds the F-16 was travelling....Flarm is iffy.
> "Under 10,000ft, under 250kts", granted, that's still ~450'/second if you're not moving, even more if you're head on.
> I would guess the jet was even slower than 250kts "in the pattern".
>
> While I agree that we should try to learn from this accident, sometimes "crap happens" regardless of how many "roadblocks to crap" we throw up.

--
Dan Marotta

[SoaringXCellence]

Having watched and flown with F-16s in a pattern, I would guess that they're more like 120 in the pattern.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 6:20:55 PM UTC-7, SoaringXCellence wrote:
> Having watched and flown with F-16s in a pattern, I would guess that they're more like 120 in the pattern.

I'm not sure why we are talking pattern numbers, this mid-air collision was not near the pattern at KCHS, it occurred outside KCHS Class C airspace. And whether the F-16 was actually flying an instrument procedures at the time, actually under approach radar control, etc. at the actual time of the accident is not clear AFAIK (the flight mission was apparently to practice instrument approaches, it does not mean the pilot was doing that at the time of the mid-air, but could have been... that area is part of instrument approaches into KCHS).

For some (better than usual "journalism", but it still has problems) coverage of this see James Fallows article... http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/07/why-would-a-fighter-jet-and-a-little-cessna-be-in-the-same-part-of-the-sky/397880/

As clarified there, and by the USAF in other news coverage, the F-16C was out of Shaw AFB en-route to KCHS and it sounds like had not actually yet got to KCHS/executed an instrument approach--but I may be reading too much into that.

I'm not sure why Fallows thinks this collision might have happened in an MOA, local news sources describe the mid-air as happening over Lewisfield Plantation in Moncks Corner, SC, which is approximately 33°9′36″N 79°59′37″W, something like 20 nautical miles outside the GAMECOCK MOA, and quite close to Berkeley County Airport (KMKS) where the Cessna 150 had apparently departed.

[Bob Pasker]

FWIW, Class C airspace has a 20nm uncharted procedural outer area, which means that they have approach radar to 20 miles, and hat would include the point where the mid air occurred. --bob

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 7:51:02 PM UTC-7, Bob Pasker wrote:
> FWIW, Class C airspace has a 20nm uncharted procedural outer area, which means that they have approach radar to 20 miles, and hat would include the point where the mid air occurred. --bob

Yes, if he was in fact doing an approach at the time... which it seem fair to assume, and you would hope he would be talking to approach even if not, but who knows, the radar and audio tapes should really help solve this one quickly. Even a good idea of the altitude of the mid-air would answer a lot of the possible scenario questions I have.

[Bob Pasker]

> if he was in fact doing an approach at the time

the RADAR works whether you're on approach or not :)

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 8:39:21 PM UTC-7, Bob Pasker wrote:
> > if he was in fact doing an approach at the time
>
> the RADAR works whether you're on approach or not :)

I do know how RADAR works, in lots more detail than we need to get into here. But SSR surveillance only "works" in any useful collision avoidance sense if:

1. The transponders in both aircraft are on and operating correctly, (I'll skip for now any discussion about the KCHS Approach ASR-8(?) primary radar limitations/performance issues)
2. The aircraft are at a suitable height (and location) for SSR coverage for that ATC facility
3. One or both pilots are talking to approach/ATC
4. Approach/ATC provides them with some traffic warning/separation instructions, and
5. The pilot(s) are able to use that warning/instructions to avoid each other

Which is why there are lots of relevant questions about what exactly was happening, which AFAIK at the moment can only be guessed at, including.... Was the F-16 flying an approach or otherwise talking to KCHS Approach (and on VHF/UHF?)? Was the F-16 actually in IMC? Just exiting IMC? Was the Cessna 150 on flight following/talking to KCHS Approach (on the same frequency so they could hear the F-16?)? What altitude did the collision happen at? When/did the F-16 hand off from Shaw RAPCON to KCHS Approach? Were both transponders and encoders actually working correctly? What traffic warning/separation did Approach provide if anything? What were the pilots reactions to any warning? etc., etc., etc.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 2:13:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Warning/Caution:

Surprised...thread has gone way off OP's intent.

[Dan Marotta]

You're talking final approach and it's probably a bit more than that.
I'm talking vectors or own navigation to a fix outside the IAF/FAF.

On 7/11/2015 7:20 PM, SoaringXCellence wrote:
> Having watched and flown with F-16s in a pattern, I would guess that they're more like 120 in the pattern.
>

--
Dan Marotta

[Dan Marotta]

Ah, yes, limitations...

I once almost swapped paint with an Army OV-10 at about 6,000' above
Eielson AFB, AK. He was inbound to Ft. Wainwright AAF, about 25 miles
away. I was talking to tower on a simulated flameout approach. I'm
pretty certain he was talking to Fairbanks Approach. Draw your own
conclusions.

And what's all this got to do with soaring? It's not winter. :-D

On 7/11/2015 10:23 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 8:39:21 PM UTC-7, Bob Pasker wrote:
>>> if he was in fact doing an approach at the time
>> the RADAR works whether you're on approach or not :)
> I do know how RADAR works, in lots more detail than we need to get into here. But SSR surveillance only "works" in any useful collision avoidance sense if:
>
> 1. The transponders in both aircraft are on and operating correctly, (I'll skip for now any discussion about the KCHS Approach ASR-8(?) primary radar limitations/performance issues)
> 2. The aircraft are at a suitable height (and location) for SSR coverage for that ATC facility
> 3. One or both pilots are talking to approach/ATC
> 4. Approach/ATC provides them with some traffic warning/separation instructions, and
> 5. The pilot(s) are able to use that warning/instructions to avoid each other
>
> Which is why there are lots of relevant questions about what exactly was happening, which AFAIK at the moment can only be guessed at, including.... Was the F-16 flying an approach or otherwise talking to KCHS Approach (and on VHF/UHF?)? Was the F-16 actually in IMC? Just exiting IMC? Was the Cessna 150 on flight following/talking to KCHS Approach (on the same frequency so they could hear the F-16?)? What altitude did the collision happen at? When/did the F-16 hand off from Shaw RAPCON to KCHS Approach? Were both transponders and encoders actually working correctly? What traffic warning/separation did Approach provide if anything? What were the pilots reactions to any warning? etc., etc., etc.

--
Dan Marotta

[Dan Marotta]

Sorry... Make that an OV-1 Mohawk.

On 7/12/2015 7:00 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Ah, yes, limitations...
>
> I once almost swapped paint with an Army OV-10 at about 6,000' above
> Eielson AFB, AK. He was inbound to Ft. Wainwright AAF, about 25 miles
> away. I was talking to tower on a simulated flameout approach. I'm
> pretty certain he was talking to Fairbanks Approach. Draw your own
> conclusions.
>
> And what's all this got to do with soaring? It's not winter. :-D
>
> On 7/11/2015 10:23 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 8:39:21 PM UTC-7, Bob Pasker wrote:
>>>> if he was in fact doing an approach at the time
>>> the RADAR works whether you're on approach or not :)
>> I do know how RADAR works, in lots more detail than we need to get into here. But SSR surveillance only "works" in any useful collision avoidance sense if:
>>
>> 1. The transponders in both aircraft are on and operating correctly, (I'll skip for now any discussion about the KCHS Approach ASR-8(?) primary radar limitations/performance issues)
>> 2. The aircraft are at a suitable height (and location) for SSR coverage for that ATC facility
>> 3. One or both pilots are talking to approach/ATC
>> 4. Approach/ATC provides them with some traffic warning/separation instructions, and
>> 5. The pilot(s) are able to use that warning/instructions to avoid each other
>>
>> Which is why there are lots of relevant questions about what exactly was happening, which AFAIK at the moment can only be guessed at, including.... Was the F-16 flying an approach or otherwise talking to KCHS Approach (and on VHF/UHF?)? Was the F-16 actually in IMC? Just exiting IMC? Was the Cessna 150 on flight following/talking to KCHS Approach (on the same frequency so they could hear the F-16?)? What altitude did the collision happen at? When/did the F-16 hand off from Shaw RAPCON to KCHS Approach? Were both transponders and encoders actually working correctly? What traffic warning/separation did Approach provide if anything? What were the pilots reactions to any warning? etc., etc., etc.
>
> --
> Dan Marotta

--
Dan Marotta

[kirk.stant]

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 7:30:07 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 2:13:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > Warning/Caution:
>
> Surprised...thread has gone way off OP's intent.

Not really - the original OP's intent was to say that everybody should have a transponder to prevent the kind of midair that just happened between the Cessna 150 and the F-16. Since both of them had transponders, that is obviously not entirely correct.

My earlier comment about PowerFLARM was purely in reference to the PCAS function incorporated in PF - unlike others I think the approximately 30 seconds of warning that there is traffic closing at your altitude is extremely useful - because it gets your head out of the cockpit and your eyes focused on finding the approaching traffic. That is why I always have my ZAON PCAS when I fly power and non-PF club gliders, and have PF in my glider.

I didn't mean to suggest that GA should adopt PF - although it sure wouldn't hurt!

One comment on the whole "high speed jet" scenario: Unless you are transiting an active MOA, military aircraft will mostly be either be high up (above 18k) on an IFR flight plan (saving gas) or down low (below 1500' or so) on VR low level route. In a MOA or on a VR route they can be fast and maneuvering but a call to the local FSS will reveal if the MOA or VR route is active - if so it's a good idea to avoid them!

If the mil jet is in the IFR system (intrument ride, for example), they will be fying pretty much the same profile as a bizjet, perhaps a bit faster (300 to 350 knots until configured for landing, for example). Those speeds give you time to see and avoid, and that is where I think the benefit of a PCAS warning is highly valuable.

As far as waiting for F-16s, etc to get TCAS or ADS-B: Forget it. Probably never happen, because military jets are not certified and don't have to comply with FARs - and the budget wouldn't support it. I would expect the transports to get 1090ES ADS-b for international flights.

Sad event, interesting discussion, food for thought.

Kirk
66

[Ramy[_2_]]

While it is a good idea to avoid MOA (although I understand this midair did not happen in MOA) the fact is that in the Great Basin we flying in MOAs on a regular basis as they occupy large portion of the soaring area. Avoiding the MOAs basically mean avoiding flying cross country in the Great Basin. I doubt pilots are talking to flight services, we are all on 123.30 all the time. I always believed that by flying with a transponder at least they know I am there and can avoid me, sounds like this is not the case.

Ramy

[Darryl Ramm]

Flying with a transponder in those MOA *is* a good idea,... and yes I'm especially thinking of Sevier MOA complex out towards Ely--pretty busy with F-16s out of Hill AFB, and with good radar coverage. But there are no guarantees anything will save your life. Communicating with the appropriate ATC facility can also help. You can always contact them, find out if there is something happening, decide to stay on frequency or tell them you need to leave the frequency. Newer radios with the ability to guard a second frequency are handy.

[Ron Gleason]

On Sunday, 12 July 2015 14:50:42 UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Flying with a transponder in those MOA *is* a good idea,... and yes I'm especially thinking of Sevier MOA complex out towards Ely--pretty busy with F-16s out of Hill AFB, and with good radar coverage. But there are no guarantees anything will save your life. Communicating with the appropriate ATC facility can also help. You can always contact them, find out if there is something happening, decide to stay on frequency or tell them you need to leave the frequency. Newer radios with the ability to guard a second frequency are handy.

The Sevier MOA's, A, B, C and D along with many others and restricted areas north of Ely and W/NW of Nephi are controlled by Clover Center, frequency 134.1 or you can call them at (801) 777-7575 before you fly to get a planned schedule of events

We had daily contact with them while flying out of Nephi late June and early July by telephone, Monday through Friday. Pilots also contacted them while in the air and were told the areas were either hot or cold and if they were hot they were told where and what altitude activity was at.

The folks at Clover center have been very friendly, approachable and are aware of the glider activity in the area. and YES they appreciate it when you have a transponder!

As Hill AFB gets the F35's, starting in September, I have been told we can expect more activity in all MOA's and restricted areas around the Utah and Nevada Test Range (UTTR) controlled by Clover

Ron Gleason

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 2:54:00 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 July 2015 14:50:42 UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > Flying with a transponder in those MOA *is* a good idea,... and yes I'm especially thinking of Sevier MOA complex out towards Ely--pretty busy with F-16s out of Hill AFB, and with good radar coverage. But there are no guarantees anything will save your life. Communicating with the appropriate ATC facility can also help. You can always contact them, find out if there is something happening, decide to stay on frequency or tell them you need to leave the frequency. Newer radios with the ability to guard a second frequency are handy.
>
> The Sevier MOA's, A, B, C and D along with many others and restricted areas north of Ely and W/NW of Nephi are controlled by Clover Center, frequency 134.1 or you can call them at (801) 777-7575 before you fly to get a planned schedule of events
>
> We had daily contact with them while flying out of Nephi late June and early July by telephone, Monday through Friday. Pilots also contacted them while in the air and were told the areas were either hot or cold and if they were hot they were told where and what altitude activity was at.
>
> The folks at Clover center have been very friendly, approachable and are aware of the glider activity in the area. and YES they appreciate it when you have a transponder!
>
> As Hill AFB gets the F35's, starting in September, I have been told we can expect more activity in all MOA's and restricted areas around the Utah and Nevada Test Range (UTTR) controlled by Clover
>
> Ron Gleason

Fantastic Ron. And great saftey work from the Nephi organizers as we would expect. :-)

The radar coverage is very good in that area, I'm not sure exactly how things are tied in to Clover but there is ASR radar (=high scan rate/approach type radar with SSR/transponder interrogators) sites at Trout Creek and Cedar Mountain area out in that MOA complex.

It is also worth bearing in mind in an emergency that you can contact folks like Clover and even in unclear on your position they may very well be able to find you on SSR even when well out in the boondocks. Use cautiously of course.

I've generally found military related ATC folks very approachable, especially in my case Travis RAPCON in California. Travis are very willing to provide flight following to gliders. It just takes folks a little preparation, learn how to ask for and cancel flight following, check in with a power pilot/instructor to run though this if needed. Travis AFB deal with a lot of their own heavy jet traffic and mixed/GA traffic into/out of the San Francisco Bay Area. A few phone calls helped explain to them how gliders operate and some limitations (and they had some folks on staff who kinda knew it already). In that case they really like gliders with transponders because of the Doppler scatter from power generating windmills really impacts their use of primary radar right where gliders will want to fly thought their airspace. And all those big C-5s flying from Travis are TCAS equipped... so again a very good reason to equip with a transponder if you fly in/near these sort of areas.

The USAF talk about "MACA" Mid Air Collision Avoidance" and RAPCONs and AFBs will have MACA programs, you can usually search their web sites or ask them about their MACA program or get information packets/presentations from them. They'll also often be wiling/wanting to present about MACA to clubs and pilot organizations. e.g. Here is a MACA packet from Hill AFB, don't know why it's on a BLM site, but it's the first one that Google found....

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/salt_lake_fo/fire/fire_management_documents/military_aircraft.Par.68949.File.dat/Military_Aircraft_Operations.pdf

Folks flying near MOA etc. airspace might want to look out for similar information/talk with those folks.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Just so we do not get too high on our horse, I recently became aware (and check 4 sale adds on W&W) many gliders DO NOT have power Flarm. One pilot was just asking about renting a unit for the Standard Class Nationals, as he was not ready to buy yet! When i was flying powered aircraft, I had an S-mode transponder and Sandel HSI which helped point out traffic, on many occasions I was glad and I paid the money At that time TCAS was about $30,000.. I am not a firm believer in the "Big Sky" theory, from personal experience swapping paint, and several Very near misses while both myself and the other aircraft were under positive control, twice at an airport, Santa Barbra and Torrence.

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 7:23:43 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> Indeed most GA never heard of PowerFlarm.
> The soaring community is obviously ahead of power pilots with collision avoidance technology, and the reason is that we took the matter in our own hands and did not wait for the FAA to protect us. It is too bad that most GA is still depending on See and Avoid when the technology exists for more than a decade!
>
> Ramy

[[email protected]]

I once, many years ago now, was flying in a small moa south east of phx on my way from turf to Wilcox. No transponder, no flarm no nothing, watching two A-10s flying and dog fighting looping and rolling ect getting closer and closer and called 66 on the radio asking how to let them know I am here. His answer surprised me but has stuck with me ever since. " Call Alburqurque ctr on 121.5 they can contact them" And although they (alb ctr) didn't ack my transmission within about 30 seconds they A10s disengaged and formed up and flew away toward Davis monthan afb. If I forgot to say thanks Kirk I just did now!

CH

[Ron Gleason]

On Sunday, 12 July 2015 17:13:26 UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 2:54:00 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
> > On Sunday, 12 July 2015 14:50:42 UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > Flying with a transponder in those MOA *is* a good idea,... and yes I'm especially thinking of Sevier MOA complex out towards Ely--pretty busy with F-16s out of Hill AFB, and with good radar coverage. But there are no guarantees anything will save your life. Communicating with the appropriate ATC facility can also help. You can always contact them, find out if there is something happening, decide to stay on frequency or tell them you need to leave the frequency. Newer radios with the ability to guard a second frequency are handy.
> >
> > The Sevier MOA's, A, B, C and D along with many others and restricted areas north of Ely and W/NW of Nephi are controlled by Clover Center, frequency 134.1 or you can call them at (801) 777-7575 before you fly to get a planned schedule of events
> >
> > We had daily contact with them while flying out of Nephi late June and early July by telephone, Monday through Friday. Pilots also contacted them while in the air and were told the areas were either hot or cold and if they were hot they were told where and what altitude activity was at.
> >
> > The folks at Clover center have been very friendly, approachable and are aware of the glider activity in the area. and YES they appreciate it when you have a transponder!
> >
> > As Hill AFB gets the F35's, starting in September, I have been told we can expect more activity in all MOA's and restricted areas around the Utah and Nevada Test Range (UTTR) controlled by Clover
> >
> > Ron Gleason
>
> Fantastic Ron. And great saftey work from the Nephi organizers as we would expect. :-)
>
> The radar coverage is very good in that area, I'm not sure exactly how things are tied in to Clover but there is ASR radar (=high scan rate/approach type radar with SSR/transponder interrogators) sites at Trout Creek and Cedar Mountain area out in that MOA complex.
>
> It is also worth bearing in mind in an emergency that you can contact folks like Clover and even in unclear on your position they may very well be able to find you on SSR even when well out in the boondocks. Use cautiously of course.
>
> I've generally found military related ATC folks very approachable, especially in my case Travis RAPCON in California. Travis are very willing to provide flight following to gliders. It just takes folks a little preparation, learn how to ask for and cancel flight following, check in with a power pilot/instructor to run though this if needed. Travis AFB deal with a lot of their own heavy jet traffic and mixed/GA traffic into/out of the San Francisco Bay Area. A few phone calls helped explain to them how gliders operate and some limitations (and they had some folks on staff who kinda knew it already). In that case they really like gliders with transponders because of the Doppler scatter from power generating windmills really impacts their use of primary radar right where gliders will want to fly thought their airspace. And all those big C-5s flying from Travis are TCAS equipped... so again a very good reason to equip with a transponder if you fly in/near these sort of areas.
>
> The USAF talk about "MACA" Mid Air Collision Avoidance" and RAPCONs and AFBs will have MACA programs, you can usually search their web sites or ask them about their MACA program or get information packets/presentations from them. They'll also often be wiling/wanting to present about MACA to clubs and pilot organizations. e.g. Here is a MACA packet from Hill AFB, don't know why it's on a BLM site, but it's the first one that Google found....
>
> http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/salt_lake_fo/fire/fire_management_documents/military_aircraft.Par.68949.File.dat/Military_Aircraft_Operations.pdf
>
> Folks flying near MOA etc. airspace might want to look out for similar information/talk with those folks.

I attended a MACA session where Clover Control, Hill AFB, SLCTracon and others presented. Struck up a conversation with Clover Center and took it from there.

They understand that we all the right to access air space and work to make it available to John Q public.

Ron Gleason

[Dan Marotta]

Interesting - and very good info! Logical, but I didn't think of it. I
will should the occasion ever arise in the future.

On a side note, did you spell the center's name according to the Duke of
Alburquerque intentionally or was that a typo?

On 7/12/2015 10:40 PM, wrote:
> I once, many years ago now, was flying in a small moa south east of phx on my way from turf to Wilcox. No transponder, no flarm no nothing, watching two A-10s flying and dog fighting looping and rolling ect getting closer and closer and called 66 on the radio asking how to let them know I am here. His answer surprised me but has stuck with me ever since. " Call Alburqurque ctr on 121.5 they can contact them" And although they (alb ctr) didn't ack my transmission within about 30 seconds they A10s disengaged and formed up and flew away toward Davis monthan afb. If I forgot to say thanks Kirk I just did now!
>
> CH

--
Dan Marotta

[Craig Reinholt]

The local Air National Guard (F-15's) safety officer came and gave a talk to us last fall. It was an excellent back and forth discussion and very illuminating for all parties.
MOA's came up. In a nutshell, they are very willing to tailor the airspace in a MOA around a glider if they know where we are (time, location, direction). They offered to place a "bubble" around our ships, set up a corridor in the MOA, keep above certain altitudes, etc. depending on what we were doing. Granted, this is a bit difficult with gliders, but the main takeaway was that they were very willing to work with us.
I suggest a similar meeting with your local ANG/Military contacts. It was very worthwhile for both parties.
The ANG safety officer also commented that the http://www.seeandavoid.org/ website is a great resource. They keep it current. Please use it.




> > http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/salt_lake_fo/fire/fire_management_documents/military_aircraft.Par.68949.File.dat/Military_Aircraft_Operations.pdf
> >
> > Folks flying near MOA etc. airspace might want to look out for similar information/talk with those folks.
>
> I attended a MACA session where Clover Control, Hill AFB, SLCTracon and others presented. Struck up a conversation with Clover Center and took it from there.
>
> They understand that we all the right to access air space and work to make it available to John Q public.
>
> Ron Gleason

[WaltWX[_2_]]

This South Carolina midair reminds me a lot of my incident last Oct 29, 2014 near Inyokern, CA and China Lake. While gliding off from the Sierras eastbound after a final flight of the season.. at 2800agl I hear the roar of a fighter. The Eurofighter (at least that's what I think it was) crossed over me 100ft vertical... zero horizontal southbound at perhaps 250kts. I very well could have become a statistic and news story myself... "WX" in a Discus 2A

Quickly, I checked my PowerFlarm for the jet's transponder PCAS signal and found... NOTHING! At the time my glider was not transponder equipped.

Minutes before, I'd contacted Joshua Approach to check on a small piece of restricted airspace being crossed that is normally closed. It was "cold" this time, so I switched off frequency. The problem was... I had errantly grazed the larger R2505 restricted area by 1/4mile and noted at the incident time I was just leaving it. The encounter occurred 5nm SW of China lake just outside the tower Class D. So, my decision was to not communicate with FAA approach control and report the near midair.... instead, ruminate on this for a few days.

Two decisions came out of this encounter: 1) write up my NASA safety form and submit it (it was acknowledged months later by NASA) 2) Install a Mode S transponder (Trig T22 - now installed 2015 flying season). I don't know if having a transponder would have helped... but it might have... especially if I'd stayed on frequency with Joshua Approach. I already know that fighters have no TCAS and rarely use their radar for aircraft collision advisories.

Considering the cash I have on hand just sitting there for retirement... it seemed like a very good idea to install the transponder for my own self preservation... and the preservation of the sport of soaring.

Walt Rogers WX

[Squeaky]

;906391'] I already know that fighters have no TCAS and rarely use their radar for aircraft collision advisories.


Walt Rogers WX

Ummm, as an ex-fighter guy, we extensively used our air-to-air radar to enhance see and avoid looking for possible threats from aircraft flying VFR. As Kirk has pointed out, we also used to interrogate Mode three 1200 squawks looking for traffic that might not be displayed on our pulsed Doppler radars due to the velocity notch around zero groundspeed.

Now, in a MOA, restricted area or warning area where we might be using the radar for other more tactical application, looking for possible traffic was not a priority. But yeah, once flying to and from? That radar is a major source of situation awareness of opposing traffic.

Now to this specific incident, given the description of a broadside impact, and given the slow speed of a C150 on climb out, it is highly unlikely this aircraft would have appeared on the fighter radar, it would have been considered in the "ground clutter" and not displayed. And while flying under ATC, practicing instrument procedures, the Pilot may have been less than vigilant in his see and avoid responsibilities. That said, a C150 appearing as a non moving spot on the canopy (definition of collision course) doesn't catch the eye movement or size wise until very late...

Squeaky
USFA 83

[Dan Marotta]

Takes me back to the mid-70s, while "defending the northern skies
against Godless communists", on target/intercept missions north of the
Arctic Circle, the target aircraft would turn off his transponder
(strangle parrot :-D ), dispense chaff and jam the radio frequency in an
attempt to avoid detection or escape intercept. Maybe this was the case
in your incident and nobody saw you. Or maybe he just buzzed you to let
you know you weren't supposed to be there.

A couple of years ago a friend and I were skirting the White Sands
Missile Range impact area (R-5107, outside of it, of course) in a
two-seater when we noted a low flying F-16 and a high flying F-15 which
appeared to be checking us out. They were both inside the boundary, we
were outside. As we continued south, we saw the exhaust trail of a
missile going up and arching over into a descent. About halfway down,
the trail ended and we saw no more. Good reason to avoid some areas!

On 7/13/2015 4:27 PM, WaltWX wrote:
> This South Carolina midair reminds me a lot of my incident last Oct 29, 2014 near Inyokern, CA and China Lake. While gliding off from the Sierras eastbound after a final flight of the season.. at 2800agl I hear the roar of a fighter. The Eurofighter (at least that's what I think it was) crossed over me 100ft vertical... zero horizontal southbound at perhaps 250kts. I very well could have become a statistic and news story myself... "WX" in a Discus 2A
>
> Quickly, I checked my PowerFlarm for the jet's transponder PCAS signal and found... NOTHING! At the time my glider was not transponder equipped.
>
> Minutes before, I'd contacted Joshua Approach to check on a small piece of restricted airspace being crossed that is normally closed. It was "cold" this time, so I switched off frequency. The problem was... I had errantly grazed the larger R2505 restricted area by 1/4mile and noted at the incident time I was just leaving it. The encounter occurred 5nm SW of China lake just outside the tower Class D. So, my decision was to not communicate with FAA approach control and report the near midair.... instead, ruminate on this for a few days.
>
> Two decisions came out of this encounter: 1) write up my NASA safety form and submit it (it was acknowledged months later by NASA) 2) Install a Mode S transponder (Trig T22 - now installed 2015 flying season). I don't know if having a transponder would have helped... but it might have... especially if I'd stayed on frequency with Joshua Approach. I already know that fighters have no TCAS and rarely use their radar for aircraft collision advisories.
>
> Considering the cash I have on hand just sitting there for retirement... it seemed like a very good idea to install the transponder for my own self preservation... and the preservation of the sport of soaring.
>
> Walt Rogers WX

--
Dan Marotta

[kirk.stant]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 1:43:02 PM UTC-5, Squeaky wrote:

> Now to this specific incident, given the description of a broadside
> impact, and given the slow speed of a C150 on climb out, it is highly
> unlikely this aircraft would have appeared on the fighter radar, it
> would have been considered in the "ground clutter" and not displayed.
> And while flying under ATC, practicing instrument procedures, the Pilot
> may have been less than vigilant in his see and avoid responsibilities.
> That said, a C150 appearing as a non moving spot on the canopy
> (definition of collision course) doesn't catch the eye movement or size
> wise until very late...

Yeah, that was what I was thinking - Cessna in the notch so no or late radar contact and/or the Viper driver heads down looking at an approach plate or changing freqs.

At least in family model fighters you can have one guy working the systems to clear your flight path while the other guy does his IFR thing - I'm surprised a bit that they didn't use a D model with an IP (or handy Lt) in the pit to look at the radar and out the window. Or even a two-ship so the wingman could do the lookout.

Maybe we need to put smoke generators on all planes - that would get your attention!

Kirk
'74

[John Carlyle]

We don't need smoke generators - just replace all these fancy new fighters with F-4s... <grin>

-John, Q3

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 5:10:12 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> Maybe we need to put smoke generators on all planes - that would get your attention!

[kirk.stant]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 5:13:17 PM UTC-5, John Carlyle wrote:
> We don't need smoke generators - just replace all these fancy new fighters with F-4s... <grin>
>
> -John, Q3
>
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 5:10:12 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> > Maybe we need to put smoke generators on all planes - that would get your attention!

Yeah baby! Diesel jets with steam-powered radars! Rhinos rule & Phantoms Phorever.

F-4s were steampunk before steampunk even existed!

Kirk
66

[WaltWX[_2_]]

Squeaky,

Very encouraged to hear about your active use of radar for VFR and Mode three
1200 squawks. So having a Mode S transponder on a glider does assist avoiding collisions with fighter aircraft. Does that include 1202 squawks, as that's how my tranponder will be set most of the time?

Walt Rogers WX

[WaltWX[_2_]]

If the FAA could only assure the gliding and GA community that equipping with transponders and ADS-B would provide avoidance of midair collisions, perhaps there would be more acceptance. Even with a transponder, aircraft collide with each other. TCAS on airliners (mostly) is the only system that seems to assure a resolution to collisions.

GA that predominantly fly VFR and gliders would gain the most from Nextgen improvements by preventing midair collisions.

It seems that FAA's main thrust with Nextgen (adding a second tracking ADS-B system) is for THEIR BENEFIT to control traffic under postive control (IFR or VFR Advisories radar tracking). That is the premise and main policy motivating this change to transponders everywhere and ADS-B.

BTW, I do have empathy for those wishing to stay in gliding at the lowest cost, raising their family and educating their children. Adding transponders and ADS-B doesn't seem to have a sufficient cost benefit. My particular financial position allows me to add that equipment.

Walt Rogers WX

Walt Rogers WX

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 1:11:49 AM UTC-4, WaltWX wrote:
> If the FAA could only assure the gliding and GA community that equipping with transponders and ADS-B would provide avoidance of midair collisions, perhaps there would be more acceptance. Even with a transponder, aircraft collide with each other. TCAS on airliners (mostly) is the only system that seems to assure a resolution to collisions.
>
> GA that predominantly fly VFR and gliders would gain the most from Nextgen improvements by preventing midair collisions.
>
> It seems that FAA's main thrust with Nextgen (adding a second tracking ADS-B system) is for THEIR BENEFIT to control traffic under postive control (IFR or VFR Advisories radar tracking). That is the premise and main policy motivating this change to transponders everywhere and ADS-B.
>
> BTW, I do have empathy for those wishing to stay in gliding at the lowest cost, raising their family and educating their children. Adding transponders and ADS-B doesn't seem to have a sufficient cost benefit. My particular financial position allows me to add that equipment.
>
> Walt Rogers WX
>
> Walt Rogers WX

FAA's thrust is driven by 2 things:
1- Homeland security wants all(flying) weapons to be tracked.
2- Laying ground work for coming infestation of drones.
Conspiracy theorist
UH

[Squeaky]

;906453']Squeaky,

Very encouraged to hear about your active use of radar for VFR and Mode three
1200 squawks. So having a Mode S transponder on a glider does assist avoiding collisions with fighter aircraft. Does that include 1202 squawks, as that's how my tranponder will be set most of the time?

Walt Rogers WX

Ahhh... We can only interrogate one code at any time. 1200 Is what we always looked for in transit or when we were on an MTR. The 1202 Squawk came out after I retired, and I doubt it is looked for much.

That would imply meeting up with local bases and letting them know where you fly and suggest they check 1202 in those areas. For example, Bermuda High might tell Shaw AFB they are nearby when the F-16's are flying along Vr 87 and Vr 88...

[kirk.stant]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 7:43:08 AM UTC-5, Squeaky wrote:
> 'WaltWX[_2_ Wrote:
> > ;906453']Squeaky,
> >
> > Very encouraged to hear about your active use of radar for VFR and Mode
> > three
> > 1200 squawks. So having a Mode S transponder on a glider does assist
> > avoiding collisions with fighter aircraft. Does that include 1202
> > squawks, as that's how my tranponder will be set most of the time?
> >
> > Walt Rogers WX
>
> Ahhh... We can only interrogate one code at any time. 1200 Is what we
> always looked for in transit or when we were on an MTR. The 1202 Squawk
> came out after I retired, and I doubt it is looked for much.
>
> That would imply meeting up with local bases and letting them know where
> you fly and suggest they check 1202 in those areas. For example,
> Bermuda High might tell Shaw AFB they are nearby when the F-16's are
> flying along Vr 87 and Vr 88...
>

The current fighters that I work on (F-15Es and F-15Cs) have interrogators that can interrogate either Modes (1,2,3, or 4) or specific codes. So when looking for civilian traffic, they would search Mode 3 and get anyone with their civilian transponder turned on. If they wanted to look specifically for gliders (say during a contest in a MOA?), they could look for Mode 3 Code 1202. These systems give a range and bearing but no altitude, but by correlating to a radar hit you get a real good idea of where other aircraft are..

I would imagine the systems in F-16s and F-18s are similar.

A-10s, unfortunately, don't have interrogators or radar. Eyeballs only!

Kirk
66

[[email protected]]

> BTW, I do have empathy for those wishing to stay in gliding at the lowest cost, raising their family and educating their children. Adding transponders and ADS-B doesn't seem to have a sufficient cost benefit. My particular financial position allows me to add that equipment.
>
> Walt Rogers WX

Thanks, Walt, for injecting a note of realism. There will always be ways to improve safety by spending more money, whether by buying another gadget or--farther out on the spectrum--flying an Open Class glider because 22m is the minimum wingspan to carry all the batteries and electronics.

I'm the pilot that one poster referred to somewhat incredulously as wanting to borrow/rent a PowerFLARM for the Standard Class Nationals because I hadn't made up my mind about purchase. Perhaps an explanation is in order apart from having two daughters in very expensive colleges in a post-divorce, pre-retirement environment. :)

Yes, not nearly all the U.S. glider fleet is PowerFLARM equipped. I suspect more competition gliders are but there's at least one that's not. :)

I'm well aware of the potential for a midair collision with power traffic and gliders. I've had a handful of close calls with both since I started flying 50 years ago, although only one that might have been prevented with FLARM onboard (almost being run over from behind by a GA airplane headed into the same local airport for which I was on final glide into the sun).

I'm no expert but in reading through the discussion above, short of the F-16 carrying TCAS, it doesn't sound like any of the current equipment would have prevented this collision.

I was out of flying for a few years so I missed the initial "spirited" debate over FLARM. My impression from the RAS sidelines was that the SSA Rule Committee made an excellent call (as they usually do), resisting pressure to move too fast to mandate it given the state of the technology, the availability of production units, and cost/benefit. I suspect they will revisit that decision again.

When I re-entered the competition arena last fall, it was at a smallish regional (NR4) where I didn't think PowerFLARM would be necessary. Yes, I'm headed to Elmira next week. No, I haven't made a buying decision. Thanks to the generosity of Bill Nockles, I installed a loaner portable PowerFLARM and flew with it last weekend. My impressions ranged from "wow, that's neat" to "that's great, I never would have noticed that airliner (flying 10,000' over me)", to "that guy is getting awfully close" to "I'm spending a lot of time watching yet another TV screen".

Summary after one flight: FLARM is a nice addition to the cockpit but doesn't confer immunity from collision with anyone or obviate the need to keep looking around. It also provides some tactical info on nearby gliders that changes the game in small but significant ways.

If I stay in soaring, I'll almost certainly buy a PowerFLARM unit, I'm just not sure when or which one. But that's close to $2,000. Adding a transponder would be another $2,000 or so.

In that event, I would love to upgrade my flight computer (LNAV, GPS-NAV, GNII) and that could add another $2,000-$4,000.

Say $7,000 just to "refresh" my avionics. But I can get a very nice glider for not much more than that, albeit not with the performance of my ASW 24. One person's "for that modest amount, I don't know why anyone wouldn't make the investment in safety" is another person's dealbreaker. Yes, I know we're talking about other people's safety, too, not just one individual.

I've been a safety advocate for decades. I've given safety talks to discuss the six-point harness I have in my ship; the ELT I installed WAY back when; the way I've secured heavy objects in/around the cockpit to preclude fracturing my skull in a crash (having lost two very dear people to that in separate accidents); the rear view mirror I installed for gaggles; the canopy wire deflector cage I paid extra to have Schleicher install; the large drinking water system that helps insure I won't get dehydrated; and the pilot relief system to deal with all the water I drink. I selected my ASW 24 over the more popular Discus many years ago because of Gerhard Waibel's safety cockpit design.

Safety is very important to me. But there are no absolutes in life. Even maintaining life itself is subject to balancing medical capabilities with quality of life. It may sound harsh to some, but safety must be subject to the same cost/benefit analysis as anything else, and that includes weighing the impact that watching a TV screen or relaxing your see-and-avoid vigilence because FLARM is "protecting" you will have. It also admittedly involves weighing the impact that a midair between a glider and an airliner could have on innocent passengers and on our sport.

Thanks, again, to all who responded to my original request, including Noelle Mayes, who offered to rent a portable PowerFLARM for a very modest amount.. I'm happy I'll have one at Elmira. I'm also happy I wasn't forced to buy it or a transponder.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 12:11:49 AM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
> If the FAA could only assure the gliding and GA community that equipping with transponders and ADS-B would provide avoidance of midair collisions, perhaps there would be more acceptance. Even with a transponder, aircraft collide with each other. TCAS on airliners (mostly) is the only system that seems to assure a resolution to collisions.
>
> GA that predominantly fly VFR and gliders would gain the most from Nextgen improvements by preventing midair collisions.
>
> It seems that FAA's main thrust with Nextgen (adding a second tracking ADS-B system) is for THEIR BENEFIT to control traffic under postive control (IFR or VFR Advisories radar tracking). That is the premise and main policy motivating this change to transponders everywhere and ADS-B.
>
> BTW, I do have empathy for those wishing to stay in gliding at the lowest cost, raising their family and educating their children. Adding transponders and ADS-B doesn't seem to have a sufficient cost benefit. My particular financial position allows me to add that equipment.
>
> Walt Rogers WX
>
> Walt Rogers WX

Walt:

You've hit the nail on the head. The FAA wants us to spend all this money, but then they don't use the data. Right now, under the FAA rules, ATC can watch an airliner heading straight for a transponder equipped VFR aircraft and not even give the airliner a traffic advisory, much less a minor course deviation to avoid a potential collision. Everybody is putting their trust in eyeballs and TCAS.

Eyeballs don't work when you are dealing with jet traffic. TCAS also is useless when you have Military jets, who are exempt from ALL the rules, flying around at 400+ knots 500' above the ground without TCAS or ADS-B, and maybe not even an operating transponder.

Before we have any more FAA mandates, we should insist that all Military jets be equipped with TCAS and ADS-B just like everyone else, and that ATC (both civilian and military) provide active separation services for all IFR aircraft under their control to avoid any transponder or ADS-B OUT equipped VFR aircraft that are visible on their radar screens.

Once everyone (including Military jets) are ADS-B OUT equipped, we will have an environment where low cost ADS-B IN systems can provide very accurate collision warnings to VFR pilots, so we can actively stay out of harms way.

[kirk.stant]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 11:58:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
> You've hit the nail on the head. The FAA wants us to spend all this money, but then they don't use the data. Right now, under the FAA rules, ATC can watch an airliner heading straight for a transponder equipped VFR aircraft and not even give the airliner a traffic advisory, much less a minor course deviation to avoid a potential collision. Everybody is putting their trust in eyeballs and TCAS.
>

Care to provide a cite for that statement? Ever heard of flight following - or even used it?

> Eyeballs don't work when you are dealing with jet traffic. TCAS also is useless when you have Military jets, who are exempt from ALL the rules, flying around at 400+ knots 500' above the ground without TCAS or ADS-B, and maybe not even an operating transponder.
>

Wow - so much BS in one paragraph, I'm impressed!. First, if you can't see an airliner coming towards you and avoid it, you should ground yourself (and not drive, either). Even F-16s are visible in plenty of time to avoid if you are actively looking. The real problem is the human eye and brain are not very good at the sustained task of visual lookout for ANYTHING. Second, since TCAS detects transponders, and ALL military aircraft are required to have their transponders ON when operating in joint civilian/military use airspace, TCAS is totally compatible with military jets (and many of the military transports have it also). Third, military aviation has even MORE restrictive rules than civilians, and military aviation is required to comply with civilian rules to the maximum possible when in joint use airspace. The only exception is speed, since some jets need to be above the 250 knot max airspeed limit down low - but that doesn't mean they are blasting around anywhere they want. VR and IR low level routes, along with MOA's, are other areas where some military flying will be fast and low - BUT THAT IS ALL TIGHTLY CONTROLLED AND SCHEDULED, AND YOU CAN FIND OUT WHERE IT IS HAPPENING BY CALLING THE LOCAL FSS! And finally, what military jet doesn't have an operating transponder? Again, ALL mil aircraft (including most UAVs) have transponders. Sure, it could fail inflight, but if it was broken before takeoff, that flight would not go until it was fixed - BECAUSE IT'S REQUIRED BY MILITARY RULES!

> Before we have any more FAA mandates, we should insist that all Military jets be equipped with TCAS and ADS-B just like everyone else, and that ATC (both civilian and military) provide active separation services for all IFR aircraft under their control to avoid any transponder or ADS-B OUT equipped VFR aircraft that are visible on their radar screens.
>

More BS. Do you actually do ANY research before putting out this drivel?

> Once everyone (including Military jets) are ADS-B OUT equipped, we will have an environment where low cost ADS-B IN systems can provide very accurate collision warnings to VFR pilots, so we can actively stay out of harms way.

Total, absolute BS. The time delay inherent with the ADS-B system, and the poor coverage at low altitude, makes it pretty useless as a collision avoidance system for military jets. Who, by the way, have a much better system (air-to-air radar, JTIDS, interrogators).

Will any military aircraft ever get ADS-B? Sure, airlifters and transports will probably get 1090ES so they can use international airspace. Fighters? probably not - unless it's a software upgrade to existing Mode-S transponders they now carry.

As usual, Mike, you are totally clueless.

Kirk
66

[WaltWX[_2_]]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 9:58:46 AM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:

>
> Walt:
>
> You've hit the nail on the head. The FAA wants us to spend all this money, but then they don't use the data. Right now, under the FAA rules, ATC can watch an airliner heading straight for a transponder equipped VFR aircraft and not even give the airliner a traffic advisory, much less a minor course deviation to avoid a potential collision. Everybody is putting their trust in eyeballs and TCAS.
>
> Eyeballs don't work when you are dealing with jet traffic. TCAS also is useless when you have Military jets, who are exempt from ALL the rules, flying around at 400+ knots 500' above the ground without TCAS or ADS-B, and maybe not even an operating transponder.
>
> Before we have any more FAA mandates, we should insist that all Military jets be equipped with TCAS and ADS-B just like everyone else, and that ATC (both civilian and military) provide active separation services for all IFR aircraft under their control to avoid any transponder or ADS-B OUT equipped VFR aircraft that are visible on their radar screens.
>

Mike, I agree with you and on practically all of that. Kirk... I'm sorry... my eyeballs simply can't see (although my ears "heard one") a fighter jet crossing my path or coming up from behind.

ATC has all that data from transponders and in the future ADS-B. They could easily provide collision advisory servic if IT WERE A PRIORITY ... which it isn't (BTW... asking for radar VFR flight following isn't a practical solution). SSA in their argument against the transponder mandate should point this out. No transponders or ADS-B should be mandated for gliders until FAA provides a safety service for collision avoidance. I worked in the ARTCC (ZLA) as a meteorologist for 30yrs and looked over the shoulder of air traffic controllers. Sure, it's a burden to call collision advisories to non IFR traffic. But, with further automation... that's the point of Nextgen... a robotic voice COULD call the traffic on VHF sector frequencies or alarm the air traffic controller to broadcast these collision avoidance advisories.

BTW, Mike... I'm not on your side w.r.t equipping ADS-B on gliders. I'm definitely on the side of PowerFlarm with Daryl and Andy Blackburn...augmented by a Mode S (Trig) transponder. However, if FAA lowered the requirements for a certified GPS (lowered cost), and we could hook up our existing GPS's to the Trig... I'd be in favor of that.

Walt Rogers WX

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 1:24:31 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 11:58:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> >
> > You've hit the nail on the head. The FAA wants us to spend all this money, but then they don't use the data. Right now, under the FAA rules, ATC can watch an airliner heading straight for a transponder equipped VFR aircraft and not even give the airliner a traffic advisory, much less a minor course deviation to avoid a potential collision. Everybody is putting their trust in eyeballs and TCAS.
> >
>
> Care to provide a cite for that statement? Ever heard of flight following - or even used it?
>
> > Eyeballs don't work when you are dealing with jet traffic. TCAS also is useless when you have Military jets, who are exempt from ALL the rules, flying around at 400+ knots 500' above the ground without TCAS or ADS-B, and maybe not even an operating transponder.
> >
>
> Wow - so much BS in one paragraph, I'm impressed!. First, if you can't see an airliner coming towards you and avoid it, you should ground yourself (and not drive, either). Even F-16s are visible in plenty of time to avoid if you are actively looking. The real problem is the human eye and brain are not very good at the sustained task of visual lookout for ANYTHING. Second, since TCAS detects transponders, and ALL military aircraft are required to have their transponders ON when operating in joint civilian/military use airspace, TCAS is totally compatible with military jets (and many of the military transports have it also). Third, military aviation has even MORE restrictive rules than civilians, and military aviation is required to comply with civilian rules to the maximum possible when in joint use airspace. The only exception is speed, since some jets need to be above the 250 knot max airspeed limit down low - but that doesn't mean they are blasting around anywhere they want. VR and IR low level routes, along with MOA's, are other areas where some military flying will be fast and low - BUT THAT IS ALL TIGHTLY CONTROLLED AND SCHEDULED, AND YOU CAN FIND OUT WHERE IT IS HAPPENING BY CALLING THE LOCAL FSS! And finally, what military jet doesn't have an operating transponder? Again, ALL mil aircraft (including most UAVs) have transponders. Sure, it could fail inflight, but if it was broken before takeoff, that flight would not go until it was fixed - BECAUSE IT'S REQUIRED BY MILITARY RULES!
>
> > Before we have any more FAA mandates, we should insist that all Military jets be equipped with TCAS and ADS-B just like everyone else, and that ATC (both civilian and military) provide active separation services for all IFR aircraft under their control to avoid any transponder or ADS-B OUT equipped VFR aircraft that are visible on their radar screens.
> >
>
> More BS. Do you actually do ANY research before putting out this drivel?
>
> > Once everyone (including Military jets) are ADS-B OUT equipped, we will have an environment where low cost ADS-B IN systems can provide very accurate collision warnings to VFR pilots, so we can actively stay out of harms way.
>
> Total, absolute BS. The time delay inherent with the ADS-B system, and the poor coverage at low altitude, makes it pretty useless as a collision avoidance system for military jets. Who, by the way, have a much better system (air-to-air radar, JTIDS, interrogators).
>
> Will any military aircraft ever get ADS-B? Sure, airlifters and transports will probably get 1090ES so they can use international airspace. Fighters? probably not - unless it's a software upgrade to existing Mode-S transponders they now carry.
>
> As usual, Mike, you are totally clueless.
>
> Kirk
> 66

Kirk:

Maybe YOU should do a little more research before you start flaming people. Please explain to me how I'm suppose to visually see and a avoid a jet that is approaching me from behind at 250 knots?

You might also want to study up on how ADS-B works. All ADS-B OUT (both UAT and 1090ES) equipped aircraft transmit their position once every second. Any aircraft with an ADS-B IN receiver of the same flavor that is in the area will immediately receive this data directly without any time delays.

If an aircraft has a single frequency ADS-B IN receiver, and the conflicting aircraft is transmitting ADS-B OUT on a different frequency, an ADS-B ground station is required to translate the ADS-B OUT transmission to the other frequency. This introduces a 1-2 second delay into the process, which for most aircraft, which are trying to avoid each other by comfortable margins, is not significant. This delay obviously is a problem for gliders flying in close proximity in a gaggle.

A bigger problem is that if either aircraft is out of range of an ADS-B ground station (which can occur in remote areas at low elevations), the two ADS-B aircraft will not see each other. The simple solution to this is to install dual frequency ADS-B IN receivers. The current price delta between single and dual frequency receivers is so small (<$200), that it doesn't make any sense to buy a single frequency ADS-B receiver, and I suspect that these units will disappear from the market in the not too distant future.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Keep in mind that you need to be ADS-B OUT equipped to reliably see any traffic data (both TIS-B and ADS-R) that is being transmitted by ADS-B ground stations.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 9:34:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
/snip/


> I'm no expert but in reading through the discussion above, short of the F-16 carrying TCAS, it doesn't sound like any of the current equipment would have prevented this collision.

TCAS is certainly impressive and proven technology, but I don't think you can claim that an F-16 with TCAS would have "prevented" this collision. We don't know the important details about how/why the collision happened. AFAIK it is still not clear if the Cessna 150 transponder was actually operating--was it actually turned it on? Was the encoder reading the correct altitude? Was the Transponder correctly set to Mode-C/S (not Mode A aka "ON" on many transponders... then a TCAS would not "see" the Cessna at all). Did the F-16 have its radar on/in what mode? IFF interrogator on?/in what mode? (I am pretty sure the BAE IFF/Transponder in the F-16C is capable of interrogating Mode 3C/S so can receive back target altitude if in the appropriate mode, but I have no clue what is actually displayed to the pilot in what mode). I could go on for paragraphs more with questions, there are many questions about equipment, ATC and the pilots working correctly. Some answers to which would imply having a full TCAS-II in the F-16 would would not have helped.

There was a horrible accident and some kind of failure that absolutely needs to be understood, and I want to wait to see that finding, but I suspect this may just be a case where the aircraft were suitably equipped and bad still bad things happened and bolting yet more technology on may not necessarily be the right way to move forward...

> Summary after one flight: FLARM is a nice addition to the cockpit but doesn't confer immunity from collision with anyone or obviate the need to keep looking around. It also provides some tactical info on nearby gliders that changes the game in small but significant ways.

FLARM was *never* intended to reduce the importance of visual lookout. I don't think (and hope that) anybody who flies with FLARM has the expectation that it confers any "immunity". It is a supplement/enhancement to make up for the inherent and serious problems in visual avoidance especially with gliders. Interestingly the whole development of FLARM started by looking for ways to reduce mid-air glider collision risk, including high-visibility marking, etc.

No technology (including TCAS) can provide immunity from collision risks. Nobody should be expecting that, and describing any saftey related product as not *perfect* is really not a useful way to think about saftey. It needs to be a more nuanced discussion about risks, technology benefits, effectiveness and costs. An area that has been well covered for FLARM. including Andy Blackburn's article in Soaring Magazine last year.

I understand you pain on the cost of all this, and we've got to be careful moving forward, with PowerFLARM, Transponders, ADS-B and maybe TABS all offering different capabilities, some being fairly clearly useful in some cases but just bolting in more and more technology does not necessarily keep providing a useful improvement in saftey, let alone saftey value for money. Especially as some of this stuff just becomes incompatible/risks overloading/distracting the pilot or just confusing owners/pilots on what the actual capabilities of all these technology boxes are...

Great to see you got offers for PowerFLARM loan/rentals for your contest.

[Greg Delp]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 11:39:38 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 9:34:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
>
> TCAS is certainly impressive and proven technology, but I don't think you can claim that an F-16 with TCAS would have "prevented" this collision. We don't know the important details about how/why the collision happened. AFAIK it is still not clear if the Cessna 150 transponder was actually operating--was it actually turned it on? Was the encoder reading the correct altitude? Was the Transponder correctly set to Mode-C/S (not Mode A aka "ON" on many transponders... then a TCAS would not "see" the Cessna at all).


Just a slight correction. TCAS does indeed see mode A transponder returns. It obviously can not see the altitude of said transponder as there is no mode C altitude information being interrogated. So the TCAS will display the target range and bearing information and if there is a potential collision it will issue a TA or Traffic Alert audio warning and the target turns yellow. Since TCAS needs the altitude information in order to compute a climb or descent escape maneuver or RA Resolution Advisory, TCAS will not provide that as it would if the target were mode C equipped and operating. So the pilots eyeballs are the only defense. This is often frustrating as you can be flying in the flight levels and be get a TA warning for non mode C traffic in a airport traffic pattern 10,000' plus below. That said I'd much rather get the warnings and drive the pilots eyes outside and in the direction of the threat to scan all close altitudes than not know about it. Cheers.

[Squeaky]

Couple of points. As Kirk pointed out, and he is correct, IFF interrogators in fighters do not provide altitude information, only bearing and range. This system is also manual and needs to be activated to interrogate.

The military follows the rules more than many might think or want to believe. The only times they do not is when their TO's (POH) states the speed requirements, and they have a waiver. Also as mentioned, speed limits do not apply when they operate within the confines of MOAs, restricted airspace, warning areas or MTR routes. However, fighters must schedule MTR routes, and local FSSs are aware of the scheduled use of these routes.

As to ADS-B, working in DoD Acquisitions, I can tell you the USAF is trying to comply with this new requirement for all aircraft. However, an FAA mandate does not provide any funding, just like it doesn't for you either if they mandate transponder use for gliders. Trying to fund solutions for the military community is very problematic in the current budget environment, but the goal is to make it happen, it will just take a lot longer in the current budget climate if the military wants to keep its eroding capabilities over providing warnings to civilians while flying in the US for training missions.

[[email protected]]

FWIW, Garmin just announced the GPS-20A, a TABS-compliant non-certified ADS-B WAAS position source for $845 ($1225 with antenna and install kit). Whether or not we end up up having to deal with the ADS-B mandate, we really should be pushing the FAA hard to allow TABS equipment to be installed in certified gliders.

Marc