Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

[Sean Fidler]

I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687

The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.

I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.

The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.

When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…

[Bruce Hoult]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 7:30:16 PM UTC+3, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687
>
> The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.
>
> I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.
>
> The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually.. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.
>
> When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…

Those of us in other countries marvel that gliders in the USA don't have transponders. And that you still fly 2-33s and think basic trainer Grobs are high performance, of course.

I'd have thought that within 3 or 5 or whatever miles of the airport (or more at higher altitudes) would be *precisely* where you should have the transponder turned on.

I guess another surprising thing is that they allow IFR flights into class G airspace. That's the place you should have a right to fly without a transponder and the big guys should be kept away.

[[email protected]]

We should just ban gliding. Between the horror of Elmira Death Hooks and causing spilled drinks on flying cattle cars gliding is just too dangerous for the modern world.

[Pete[_9_]]

Food for thought/outrage/discussion:

We all use and benefit from airlines without a doubt. However, they are in the business of making money to fly. They are flying big jets with poor visibility at high speeds with autopilot on. It's usually the jet hitting the object, not the otherway around. I feel it's their responsibility to pay for and develop technology to avoid gliders, ultralites, drones and birds WHEN OUTSIDE THE MODE C VEIL or BELOW 18,000 FT.

The FAA will continue to put the vicegrip down on recreational flying until it can't be done without a glass cockpit and a $150,000 machine if we are the scape goat for any near misses.

Reality is the airlines are creating the issue and making the $$ while doing it, they need to figure out how to avoid everyone else more effectively.

Instead, the professionals are relegating the task to mere mortal "private" pilots running a weekend club in the sticks to make sure the airline's operations are safer.

What do you trust more? The professionally maintained 757 and crew or the shared club transponder with the guy that sort of knows how to use it?
Until the 757 has the technology for object avoidance, there is nothing safe enough because the weak leaks in the the current model's safety chain are too weak.

For example, if I had a huge bus that I liked to drive 500 mph on the highway and I made money from this bus and then called you to say that you needed to spend $2,500 of your money to prevent my huge bus from hitting your car on the highway because I can't see you all that well, I think you would say "slow down and/or pay for the accident avoidance technology yourself.

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

Did you miss this from yesterday?
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/rec.aviation.soaring/drv1sFbYkPs

Or, are you just on a rant?

[Bruce Hoult]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 8:49:18 PM UTC+3, Pete wrote:
> Food for thought/outrage/discussion:
>
> We all use and benefit from airlines without a doubt. However, they are in the business of making money to fly. They are flying big jets with poor visibility at high speeds with autopilot on. It's usually the jet hitting the object, not the otherway around. I feel it's their responsibility to pay for and develop technology to avoid gliders, ultralites, drones and birds WHEN OUTSIDE THE MODE C VEIL or BELOW 18,000 FT.
>
> The FAA will continue to put the vicegrip down on recreational flying until it can't be done without a glass cockpit and a $150,000 machine if we are the scape goat for any near misses.
>
> Reality is the airlines are creating the issue and making the $$ while doing it, they need to figure out how to avoid everyone else more effectively..
>
> Instead, the professionals are relegating the task to mere mortal "private" pilots running a weekend club in the sticks to make sure the airline's operations are safer.
>
> What do you trust more? The professionally maintained 757 and crew or the shared club transponder with the guy that sort of knows how to use it?
> Until the 757 has the technology for object avoidance, there is nothing safe enough because the weak leaks in the the current model's safety chain are too weak.
>
> For example, if I had a huge bus that I liked to drive 500 mph on the highway and I made money from this bus and then called you to say that you needed to spend $2,500 of your money to prevent my huge bus from hitting your car on the highway because I can't see you all that well, I think you would say "slow down and/or pay for the accident avoidance technology yourself.

I'm not so sure. A shocking number of those airline pilots seem to have forgotten the most basic principles of flying.

Just one example:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a357/2156137/

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Pete wrote:
> Food for thought/outrage/discussion:
>
> We all use and benefit from airlines without a doubt. However, they are in the business of making money to fly. They are flying big jets with poor visibility at high speeds with autopilot on. It's usually the jet hitting the object, not the otherway around. I feel it's their responsibility to pay for and develop technology to avoid gliders, ultralites, drones and birds WHEN OUTSIDE THE MODE C VEIL or BELOW 18,000 FT.
>
> The FAA will continue to put the vicegrip down on recreational flying until it can't be done without a glass cockpit and a $150,000 machine if we are the scape goat for any near misses.
>
> Reality is the airlines are creating the issue and making the $$ while doing it, they need to figure out how to avoid everyone else more effectively..
>
> Instead, the professionals are relegating the task to mere mortal "private" pilots running a weekend club in the sticks to make sure the airline's operations are safer.
>
> What do you trust more? The professionally maintained 757 and crew or the shared club transponder with the guy that sort of knows how to use it?
> Until the 757 has the technology for object avoidance, there is nothing safe enough because the weak leaks in the the current model's safety chain are too weak.
>
> For example, if I had a huge bus that I liked to drive 500 mph on the highway and I made money from this bus and then called you to say that you needed to spend $2,500 of your money to prevent my huge bus from hitting your car on the highway because I can't see you all that well, I think you would say "slow down and/or pay for the accident avoidance technology yourself.

Yeah but a glider is pretty hard to miss when you can't see it, and at 250 knots or so you can't see it. I'm not sure why everyone is jumping right to ADSB, in this and most situations an old Mode C would have mad the encounter a non-issue. That said if the FAA allowed 199 type ADSB in gliders, I'd probably have one installed for next season. Requiring 250W and 145 gps sources fits the definition of perfection being the enemy of good enough.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:36:32 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> We should just ban gliding. Between the horror of Elmira Death Hooks and causing spilled drinks on flying cattle cars gliding is just too dangerous for the modern world.

I hope the rest of the gliding community in the USA has a more responsible and serious attitude to safety than your spilt drinks comment implies you do.

I have expected glider pilots were more responsible, but if attitudes about safety issues that affect airliners really are this flippant then the FAA needs remove glider transponder and ADS-B Out exemptions ASAP. To hell with all the operators that will harm that don't fly near busy airspace, lets regulate it because of irresponsible pilots and attitudes like you show.

We don't know exactly what happened here yet, don't know for sure if the glider had a working transponder or not, or how close the aircraft came, but this incident should be a reminder to the very real risk that gliders can pose to an airliner, and should remind us that transponders provide an effective safety net.

I notice the glider port where it looks you fly from is located between two VORs, maybe not airline traffic but I would expect lots of IFR traffic transiting there. I hope that operation/club is paying more attention to mid-air collision risk safety than it seems you do from these comments.

[[email protected]]

What about the hot air balloons, ultralights, antique airplanes, hanggliders, skydivers, drones, birds, and mountains?
It is our airspace too and we were there first. Airlines and motorplanes need to do a better job of avoiding all of the stuff in the sky. And if you guys start advocating for limiting my ability to fly without a transponder than I am going to start advocating to limit your flying regardless of how powerful a ball roasting beeper you put in your gliders.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 11:59:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> What about the hot air balloons, ultralights, antique airplanes, hanggliders, skydivers, drones, birds, and mountains?
> It is our airspace too and we were there first. Airlines and motorplanes need to do a better job of avoiding all of the stuff in the sky. And if you guys start advocating for limiting my ability to fly without a transponder than I am going to start advocating to limit your flying regardless of how powerful a ball roasting beeper you put in your gliders.

With that childish attitude you are a complete liability to the entire soaring community, not just from a safety viewpoint, but from the damage you will do the the impression of our sport. I sure hope the rest of the pilots who fly out of Post Mills Soaring Club have a much more responsible attitude about safety than you do. If not well, oh well thanks to your posts here, everybody, including the FAA, now knows what they might possibly be facing there. Lets hope it is nothing as bad as your attitude implies it might be.

[richard wilkening]

I fly airliners, power GA airplanes, and gliders so here are some observations from both worlds:

When flying no matter what/ where I'm looking for other traffic, more so "down low." Here in the Midwest that is 10,000' MSL. Gliders are by design small with little frontal area. It is hard to see them from very far off even when I'm also in a glider and know they're there. Even when ATC calls other airliner traffic at altitude, I sometimes resort to looking for contrails as the actual aircraft is no where to be seen- many times with a closure rate of 1,000 MPH. Sometimes we never do see them. Yes, we ARE looking.

Airline pilots are taught that the Flying Pilot does just that, and only that. If ATC assigns a different route, approach, or runway the Non Flying Pilot should be the one "heads down" inputting the change in "the box" while the Pilot Flying keeps flying, while also confirming the correctness of the change. I assume Flight Safety teaches GA jet drivers the same.

Back in the early 90s when Mode C transponders were first required in power planes to fly in ARSAs, I remember the complaining from GA pilots about the cost. I also remember a comment made that these same pilots had no problem dropping more money on fancy LORANs than what the transponders cost. But that was DIFFERENT. Look at the resistance to Flarm. I don't own a glider and I've never used one, but I feel almost naked flying without TCAS.

To me this is the same. Guys drool over the latest glide computer and the batteries to operate it, but complain about transponders and being required to install them.

Lastly, the comment about gliders and balloons being here first: 1) Balloons are generally easier to see due to their size; and 2) I guess you're right. So what? Are you willing to be dead right?

Should a glider and airliner crash killing many, it won't matter who was "right." Public outcry will be loud and swift. We won't like the results.

[[email protected]]

>
> With that childish attitude you are a complete liability to the entire soaring community, not just from a safety viewpoint, but from the damage you will do the the impression of our sport. I sure hope the rest of the pilots who fly out of Post Mills Soaring Club have a much more responsible attitude about safety than you do. If not well, oh well thanks to your posts here, everybody, including the FAA, now knows what they might possibly be facing there. Lets hope it is nothing as bad as your attitude implies it might be.

Amen, thermaling in an airway without providing ATC a clue is not nice, regardless of who was there first. The attitude reflects poorly on our community and invites oversight (see 91.13).

That said, the FAA is making it less likely the clue will be provided with the ADSB program. I have mode C + Flarm now. To move to ADSB 2020 will cost $4k. (1800 for the transponder + $1800 for the GPS + install)

The cost give me pause especially because the 2x cost premium for the certified GPS appears to net a system which emits state vectors which are less accurate than the Flarm. This issue could be greatly improved if ATC were to use ADSB emissions with COTS GPS and increased uncertainty spheres. We already routinely depend on the Flarm Brick GPS for close encounters. It would be neat if FAA could approve at least that specific receiver.

[[email protected]]

The CUUPP intersection has a cross between FL180 and 15000, CLSBY between 15000 and 13000. Every once in a while ZAU will drop you down to 9 or 7000 and hand you off to RFD approach. If you don't fly this arrival regularly there's no reason to expect 121 traffic at 7000.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 5:32:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> The CUUPP intersection has a cross between FL180 and 15000, CLSBY between 15000 and 13000. Every once in a while ZAU will drop you down to 9 or 7000 and hand you off to RFD approach. If you don't fly this arrival regularly there's no reason to expect 121 traffic at 7000.

Janesville Eight STAR has "Arrivals expect... 20 miles west of JVL at 13000, TEDDY at 7000" That puts those aircraft right in this area and altitude. While the B737 was clearly not flying that STAR it should set expectations that significant traffic can be in that area. And with possible holds potentially coming at you from any direction. How busy that STAR is in reality I have no idea. Anybody discussed that with local ATC? FAA folks have produced some very useful traffic density maps in other discussions about gliders and traffic safety (intersting to see both the clustering of traffic density and long tail of of outlyers of aircraft being everywhere).

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 11:59:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> What about the hot air balloons, ultralights, antique airplanes, hanggliders, skydivers, drones, birds, and mountains?
> It is our airspace too and we were there first. Airlines and motorplanes need to do a better job of avoiding all of the stuff in the sky. And if you guys start advocating for limiting my ability to fly without a transponder than I am going to start advocating to limit your flying regardless of how powerful a ball roasting beeper you put in your gliders.

All we need is one glider-airliner collision and you can fully expect to be grounded until ADSB is installed in your glider. Gliders came very close to loosing their exemption for Mode C due to the non-fatal collision between a biz jet and a glider near Reno. It will not be "us guys" limiting your ability to fly, it will be the FAA. The economic reality is that it matters not a whit who "was there first". Airline safety will take priority over any other consideration.

[Sean Fidler]

Indeed.

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 8:19:04 PM UTC-4, Richard Wilkening wrote:
> Look at the resistance to Flarm.

In the contest community (i.e. where Flarm makes sense), the equipage rate seems to be North of 80%, DESPITE the fact that Flarm is expensive, hard to set up & test, has customer service that is pretty much non-existent.

In high traffic corridors (NYC, Reno...) transponder installations are nearly universal among XC guys.

So... your premise that safety doesn't sell appears to be incorrect.

Going forward, the obvious thing to do is send a bottle of smart pills to the guys at the FAA that can pave the way to approval for a low cost VFR only TABS system for low cost VFR only aircraft. Safety is a much easier sell when the cost is reasonable and if the FAA were concerned with VFR **safety** they'd act on this obvious fact.

Oh and btw: the airliners can see me at 6 miles RIGHT NOW by adding flarm. Quit laughing, I'm serious. Send the serial output data to TCAS or whatever. I don't expect them to do this. The airlines, like the FAA, are more interested in having some powerless victim to blame when the **** hits the fact than they are in prevention.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Sean Fidler]

Near 100% personal responsibility (“trust us�) in high traffic areas? Come on! Apparently this was not the case in Chicago (see the near miss just last weekend) and I would immediately put a bet down to challenge that figure as “highly inaccurate� and, more importantly, utterly meaningless strategical (if a major accident was to occur). Bottom line: soaring currently has a significant safety culture problem. The outsider would see our recent political maneuvering (fighting the ADSB mandate under the SSA organization) as an aviation community that is trying to avoid safety in the name of a relatively small amount of money. Much of the gliding community is motivated by a culture which prides itself on keeping all aspects of the sport as absolutely cheap as possible. Some even enjoy trying to shame those with modern gliders as “the Rich,� etc. Most old timers seem to furiously hate any new technology and many of them have banded together in the SSA good old boys ranks. All of this is systemic and easily demonstrated. See Flarm. See ADSB. See contest trackers and safety trackers. See, for example, how long it takes to find pilots who have crashed in the trees at ridge contests (no Satelite tracker, poorly functioning ELTs, or no safety device at all...). Etc.

If you listen to some of the attitudes expressed on this thread alone, and especially similar attitudes over the years, you’re “100%� premise is disproven almost immediately. It’s those general “cheap before safety� attitudes that are the key problem. And, that is why, in my opinion, the FAA ADSB mandate was a good thing. The sport of soaring desperately needs some technology catch up and some minimum new standards. Small alterations or changes to the FAA ADSB mandate would have made sense but dropping it entirely will eventually prove to be a disaster, I fear. Again see Chicago last weekend.

I have not flown much this summer but have seen large airliners nearby several times (including Reno last week). It’s amazing how close we fly to them, and how often. We all know the truth here. The risk in having non ADSB (or even Transponder (for now, very old and outgoing tech)) equipped gliders in such constant proximity to airline traffic is unacceptably high. Furthermore, we do not need a major airline accident to have the same PR catastrophe. A fatal collision with a family flying along in their light private airplane will also due just fine for the politicians who will react swiftly to such an accident.

I’m happy to be on the record here and remain deeply concerned at the safety attitudes displayed here and elsewhere from the gliding community, rules committee, etc. I find it sad. I hope it changes.

[Sean Fidler]

Near 100% personal responsibility (“trust us�) in high traffic areas? Come on! Apparently, this was not the case in Chicago (see the near miss just last weekend), and I would immediately put a bet down to challenge that figure as “highly inaccurate� and, more importantly, utterly meaningless strategical (if a major accident was to occur). Bottom line: soaring has a significant safety culture problem. The outsider would see our recent political maneuvering (fighting the ADSB mandate under the SSA organization) as an aviation community that is trying to avoid safety in the name of a relatively small amount of money. Much of the gliding community appears motivated by a culture which prides itself on keeping all aspects of the sport as absolutely cheap as possible. Some even enjoy trying to shame those with modern gliders as “the Rich,� etc. Most old-timers seem too furiously hate any new technology, and many of them have banded together in the SSA good old boys ranks. All of this is systemic and easily demonstrated. See Flarm. See ADSB. See contest trackers and safety trackers. See, for example, how long it takes to find pilots who have crashed in the trees at ridge contests (no Satelite tracker, poorly functioning ELTs, or no safety device at all). Etc.

If you listen to some of the attitudes expressed on this thread alone, and especially similar opinions over the years, your “100%� premise is disproven almost immediately. It’s those general “cheap before safety� attitudes that are the fundamental problem. And, that is why, in my opinion, the FAA ADS-B mandate was a good thing. The sport of soaring desperately needs some technology "catch up" and some minimum new standards. Small alterations or changes to the FAA ADS-B mandate would have made sense, but entirely dropping the mandate will eventually prove to be a disaster, I fear. Again see Chicago last weekend.

I have not flown much this summer but have seen large airliners nearby several times (including SE of Reno airspace last week, well outside of class C, at around 12,000 MSL). It’s amazing how close we fly to them, and how often. We all know the truth here. The risk in having non-ADSB (or even Transponder) equipped gliders in such constant proximity to airline traffic is unacceptably high to our sport. Furthermore, we do not need a major airline accident to have the same PR catastrophe. A fatal collision with a family flying along in their light private airplane will also do just fine for the politicians who will react swiftly to such an accident.

I’m happy to be on the record here and remain highly concerned at the safety attitudes displayed here and elsewhere from the gliding community, rules committee, etc. I find it sad. I hope it changes.

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 10:33:09 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 8:19:04 PM UTC-4, Richard Wilkening wrote:
> > Look at the resistance to Flarm.
>
> In the contest community (i.e. where Flarm makes sense), the equipage rate seems to be North of 80%, DESPITE the fact that Flarm is expensive, hard to set up & test, has customer service that is pretty much non-existent.
>
> In high traffic corridors (NYC, Reno...) transponder installations are nearly universal among XC guys.
>
> So... your premise that safety doesn't sell appears to be incorrect.
>
> Going forward, the obvious thing to do is send a bottle of smart pills to the guys at the FAA that can pave the way to approval for a low cost VFR only TABS system for low cost VFR only aircraft. Safety is a much easier sell when the cost is reasonable and if the FAA were concerned with VFR **safety** they'd act on this obvious fact.
>
> Oh and btw: the airliners can see me at 6 miles RIGHT NOW by adding flarm.. Quit laughing, I'm serious. Send the serial output data to TCAS or whatever. I don't expect them to do this. The airlines, like the FAA, are more interested in having some powerless victim to blame when the **** hits the fact than they are in prevention.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

[Sean Fidler]

Near 100% personal responsibility (“trust us�) in high traffic areas? Come on! Apparently, this was not the case in Chicago last weekend (see the near miss of a glider by a United 737). I would immediately put a bet down to challenge that "near" 100% figure as “highly inaccurate� and, more importantly, utterly meaningless regarding strategic positioning for our sport (if a major accident was to occur).

Bottom line: soaring has a significant safety culture problem. The outsider would see our recent political maneuvering (fighting the ADSB mandate under the SSA organization) as an aviation community that is trying to avoid safety in the name of a relatively small amount of money. Much of the gliding community appears motivated by a culture which prides itself on keeping all aspects of the sport as cheap as possible. Most old-timers seem to despise any new technology, of any sort, often furiously, and many of them have now banded together in the SSA good old boys ranks in a constant crusade to prevent any new technologies successful adoption. All of this has been systemic, consistent and is easily demonstrable. See Flarm. See ADSB. See contest tracking and satellite safety trackers. See mobile phones. See weather. See, for example, consider how long it can take to find a pilot who crashes in the trees at ridge contests (often with no Satellite tracker, an inadequate or non-functioning ELT, or no location device at all). Etc.

If you listen to some of the attitudes expressed on this thread (or the parallel one here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.aviation.soaring/drv1sFbYkPs) alone, and especially similar opinions on RAS over the years, your “100%� premise is disproven almost immediately. It’s those general “cheap before safety� attitudes that are the fundamental problem. And, that is why, in my opinion, the FAA ADS-B mandate was a good thing. The sport of soaring needs important technology "catch up" and some minimum new safety standards moving forward in regards to electronic collision safety and general aircraft. Small alterations or changes to the FAA ADS-B mandate for gliders would have made sense, but dropping the FAA ADS-B mandate entirely may eventually prove to be a total disaster, I fear. Again, see Chicago last weekend and the near miss of a glider by a 737. See the numerous other collisions and near misses.

I have not flown that much this summer, but I have still witnessed a significant number of commercial airliners nearby (including SE of Reno airspace last week, well outside of class C, at around 12,000 MSL, with a transponder on). It’s amazing how close we glider pilots fly to commercial traffic, even in rural locations, and how often. Most of us tend to loiter near and under clouds, where visual detection becomes significantly limited or just plain impossible. We all know the truth here. The risk of having non-ADSB (or even transponder) equipped gliders in such constant proximity to airline traffic is unacceptably high to our sport. Furthermore, we do not need a major airline accident to have the same PR catastrophe for the sport of gliding. A fatal collision with a family flying along in their light private airplane will also do just fine for the politicians who undoubtedly will react swiftly to preventing future accidents and calming public concern.

I’m happy to be on the record here and remain highly concerned about the safety attitudes displayed both here and elsewhere from the gliding community, rules committee, etc. I find it disappointing. I hope it changes.


On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 10:33:09 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 8:19:04 PM UTC-4, Richard Wilkening wrote:
> > Look at the resistance to Flarm.
>
> In the contest community (i.e. where Flarm makes sense), the equipage rate seems to be North of 80%, DESPITE the fact that Flarm is expensive, hard to set up & test, has customer service that is pretty much non-existent.
>
> In high traffic corridors (NYC, Reno...) transponder installations are nearly universal among XC guys.
>
> So... your premise that safety doesn't sell appears to be incorrect.
>
> Going forward, the obvious thing to do is send a bottle of smart pills to the guys at the FAA that can pave the way to approval for a low cost VFR only TABS system for low cost VFR only aircraft. Safety is a much easier sell when the cost is reasonable and if the FAA were concerned with VFR **safety** they'd act on this obvious fact.
>
> Oh and btw: the airliners can see me at 6 miles RIGHT NOW by adding flarm.. Quit laughing, I'm serious. Send the serial output data to TCAS or whatever. I don't expect them to do this. The airlines, like the FAA, are more interested in having some powerless victim to blame when the **** hits the fact than they are in prevention.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

[firsys]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687
>
> The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.
>
> I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.
>
> The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually.. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.
>
> When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…

In flying out of a small private airport (cyrp) and finding that
some of the aircraft do not see me, I am installing a 10W LED strobe.
In the next week or so , I shall get reports of how useful this is as an alert.

Glad to see the "near miss" (= collision) is being replaced with
close encounter , or near collision!

John Firth

[[email protected]]

Hey Darryl, PMSC exists the the USA and still supports people and pilots constitutional rights on free speech . Don't freakin squeeze my fellow club member. That's as arrogant as it gets. You want a solution? It begins with lowing the cost of Flarm. I can't afford another $1600 toy either. We don't all ow 100plus k gliders.

That's is the solution. GA participation is in decline and some of that is cost. Get the cost down and pilots will buy.

Dennis DC

[Tango Eight]

Hey Sean:

You quoted my message and while you appear to be replying to someone... it doesn't seem to be me. Hope you can sort that out!

best,
Evan

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 12:55:45 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Near 100% personal responsibility (“trust us�) in high traffic areas? Come on! Apparently, this was not the case in Chicago last weekend (see the near miss of a glider by a United 737). I would immediately put a bet down to challenge that "near" 100% figure as “highly inaccurate� and, more importantly, utterly meaningless regarding strategic positioning for our sport (if a major accident was to occur).
>
> Bottom line: soaring has a significant safety culture problem. The outsider would see our recent political maneuvering (fighting the ADSB mandate under the SSA organization) as an aviation community that is trying to avoid safety in the name of a relatively small amount of money. Much of the gliding community appears motivated by a culture which prides itself on keeping all aspects of the sport as cheap as possible. Most old-timers seem to despise any new technology, of any sort, often furiously, and many of them have now banded together in the SSA good old boys ranks in a constant crusade to prevent any new technologies successful adoption. All of this has been systemic, consistent and is easily demonstrable. See Flarm. See ADSB. See contest tracking and satellite safety trackers. See mobile phones. See weather. See, for example, consider how long it can take to find a pilot who crashes in the trees at ridge contests (often with no Satellite tracker, an inadequate or non-functioning ELT, or no location device at all). Etc.
>
> If you listen to some of the attitudes expressed on this thread (or the parallel one here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.aviation.soaring/drv1sFbYkPs) alone, and especially similar opinions on RAS over the years, your “100%� premise is disproven almost immediately. It’s those general “cheap before safety� attitudes that are the fundamental problem. And, that is why, in my opinion, the FAA ADS-B mandate was a good thing. The sport of soaring needs important technology "catch up" and some minimum new safety standards moving forward in regards to electronic collision safety and general aircraft. Small alterations or changes to the FAA ADS-B mandate for gliders would have made sense, but dropping the FAA ADS-B mandate entirely may eventually prove to be a total disaster, I fear. Again, see Chicago last weekend and the near miss of a glider by a 737. See the numerous other collisions and near misses.
>
> I have not flown that much this summer, but I have still witnessed a significant number of commercial airliners nearby (including SE of Reno airspace last week, well outside of class C, at around 12,000 MSL, with a transponder on). It’s amazing how close we glider pilots fly to commercial traffic, even in rural locations, and how often. Most of us tend to loiter near and under clouds, where visual detection becomes significantly limited or just plain impossible. We all know the truth here. The risk of having non-ADSB (or even transponder) equipped gliders in such constant proximity to airline traffic is unacceptably high to our sport. Furthermore, we do not need a major airline accident to have the same PR catastrophe for the sport of gliding. A fatal collision with a family flying along in their light private airplane will also do just fine for the politicians who undoubtedly will react swiftly to preventing future accidents and calming public concern.
>
> I’m happy to be on the record here and remain highly concerned about the safety attitudes displayed both here and elsewhere from the gliding community, rules committee, etc. I find it disappointing. I hope it changes.
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 10:33:09 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 8:19:04 PM UTC-4, Richard Wilkening wrote:
> > > Look at the resistance to Flarm.
> >
> > In the contest community (i.e. where Flarm makes sense), the equipage rate seems to be North of 80%, DESPITE the fact that Flarm is expensive, hard to set up & test, has customer service that is pretty much non-existent.
> >
> > In high traffic corridors (NYC, Reno...) transponder installations are nearly universal among XC guys.
> >
> > So... your premise that safety doesn't sell appears to be incorrect.
> >
> > Going forward, the obvious thing to do is send a bottle of smart pills to the guys at the FAA that can pave the way to approval for a low cost VFR only TABS system for low cost VFR only aircraft. Safety is a much easier sell when the cost is reasonable and if the FAA were concerned with VFR **safety** they'd act on this obvious fact.
> >
> > Oh and btw: the airliners can see me at 6 miles RIGHT NOW by adding flarm. Quit laughing, I'm serious. Send the serial output data to TCAS or whatever. I don't expect them to do this. The airlines, like the FAA, are more interested in having some powerless victim to blame when the **** hits the fact than they are in prevention.
> >
> > best,
> > Evan Ludeman / T8

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 11:48:09 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Hey Darryl, PMSC exists the the USA and still supports people and pilots constitutional rights on free speech . Don't freakin squeeze my fellow club member. That's as arrogant as it gets. You want a solution? It begins with lowing the cost of Flarm. I can't afford another $1600 toy either. We don't all ow 100plus k gliders.
>
> That's is the solution. GA participation is in decline and some of that is cost. Get the cost down and pilots will buy.
>
> Dennis DC

Are you posting on behalf of Caddo Mills Soaring Club or as a individual?

He had his free speech... and it's a pile of absolutely childish crap, and dangerous overall to this sport. So I'll use my free speech to point that out however the hell I want. And if that does not suit you can go pound dirt..

I don't understand what FLARM has to do with any of this, I would have hoped you would be should be thinking about transponders in this context. I really hope you are not that confused, and I hope that confusion extends to the rest of Caddo Mills Soaring Club? The common issue I seem to be hearing from that direction is some serious chip on your shoulders about cost of doing anything. Well even if there is no hard justification for needing transponder and ADS-B Out carriage in the area of your club you might have that rammed down your throat if gliders lose the transponder and ADS-B Out carriage exemption. And that will well be helped along by childish public posts by your members displaying a worrying safety attitude. What do FAA and NTSB staff reading this forum think when they see someone mouthing off about "spilt drinks" when we just had an apparent near miss between an airliner and a glider.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 11:48:09 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Hey Darryl, PMSC exists the the USA and still supports people and pilots constitutional rights on free speech . Don't freakin squeeze my fellow club member. That's as arrogant as it gets. You want a solution? It begins with lowing the cost of Flarm. I can't afford another $1600 toy either. We don't all ow 100plus k gliders.
>
> That's is the solution. GA participation is in decline and some of that is cost. Get the cost down and pilots will buy.
>
> Dennis DC

Are you posting as a representative of Post Mills Soaring Club (PMSC)? The club agrees with the posts trivializing this as "spilt drinks"?

Gregg has his free speech right and posted a bunch of childish dangers crap and I used my free speech right and replied. If you don't like that you can go pound sand.

FLARM? FLARM is not the issue here, its transponder carriage near busy airspace. I am concerned that you are still confused by that, and concerned that confusion may also extend to the rest of the Post Mill Soaring Club (again are you posting on behalf of the club?).

What do you think representatives of the FAA and NTSB reading this public forum think when they see asinine comments about 'spilt drinks" when discussing what seems like a serious NMAC incident involving an airliner?

Costs are going to get real quickly for your club if the transponder and ADS-B out exemptions are removed. Something I used to hope is not needed, but right now, just in this r.a.s. thread alone, the combination of childish attitudes and confusion between FLARM and transponder worries me that the glider community in the USA may not be responsible enough to be trusted with voluntary Transponder (and in future ADS-B Out) use.

[[email protected]]

I am post for myself and and backing a club member from from an arrogabt asshole like you. There a many ways you can have a discussion, but you tried to squeeze him. Where I come from we protect our friends. The day that you tmy face and we will see what gets pounded. Have a discussion, present your case and understand both sides.

The issue is not resistance it's cost. No one wants to be part of causing a accident. Get the cost down

Dennis
DC

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 1:07:09 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> I am post for myself and and backing a club member from from an arrogabt asshole like you. There a many ways you can have a discussion, but you tried to squeeze him. Where I come from we protect our friends. The day that you tmy face and we will see what gets pounded. Have a discussion, present your case and understand both sides.
>
> The issue is not resistance it's cost. No one wants to be part of causing a accident. Get the cost down
>
> Dennis
> DC

So how do you personally feel about trivializing an NMAC with an airliner as "spilt drinks".

The issue _seems_ very much resistance to cost, you keep mentioning it. If Post Mills Soaring Club (PSMC) can develop low cost soaring, that's great. If you can fly safely in areas where transponders don't make sense that is great as well. I hope folks that understand the safety issues are invoked in making those transponder/no-transponder decisions.

Pilots who post such extreme alarming safety related statements on a public forum invite examination of their own safety related behavior, and if they fly with a club, of the operation of that club. I had no idea about PSMC until these post got me giving it a quick look. Straight off the bat I see it is located close between two VORs, and there will be IFR traffic overhead going into Burlington, and the club conduct wave flights, etc.. What percentage of the Post Mills glider Club fleet is transponder equipped? Of the gliders which conduct higher flights in Wave? Does PMSC have local cooperation/procedures with ATC etc? I have no idea, please let us know--that might completely change the impression of your club so far given by one of your members.

[[email protected]]

PMSC operates in accordance with all applicable CFRs. Personally if anyone asks the gov't to increase the burden of law on myself and my friends then I will ask the gov't to increase the burden on them. Fair is fair and all in the name of safety. If mandating ADSB for gliders is worth it, because safety for airliners, then so must banning gliding for the safety of airliners. Think of the children flying in airliners, we can't trust collision avoidance to the pittance of battery power in a glider. Pittance of power, no redundancy, and to top it off often owner designed and maintained electrical systems. *shudder* If banning gliding saves one child then it is worth it. Bend the knee in the name of safety often enough and eventually you will not be able to get off the ground.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 3:31:46 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> PMSC operates in accordance with all applicable CFRs. Personally if anyone asks the gov't to increase the burden of law on myself and my friends then I will ask the gov't to increase the burden on them. Fair is fair and all in the name of safety. If mandating ADSB for gliders is worth it, because safety for airliners, then so must banning gliding for the safety of airliners. Think of the children flying in airliners, we can't trust collision avoidance to the pittance of battery power in a glider. Pittance of power, no redundancy, and to top it off often owner designed and maintained electrical systems. *shudder* If banning gliding saves one child then it is worth it. Bend the knee in the name of safety often enough and eventually you will not be able to get off the ground.

You are an utter idiot.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687
>
> The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.
>
> I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.
>
> The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually.. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.
>
> When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…

Pere,

That is an excellent analogy and I could not agree more. Unfortunately, the political weight of any discussion these days will have the clout of the safety of passengers as having foremost weight in the discussion of what ensues after a collision with an airliner carrying passengers. The days of open cockpit daredevil biplanes flown in the yesteryears of aviation history are long gone in terms of requirements for safety. It is incumbent on glider pilots to show concern in real action, that is, outfitting gliders soaring cross country to outfit their gliders with electronic means of warnings and alerts. Does that mean even a 2-33 flying patterns at a local airport for training purposes need install a transponder? No, but others who go cross country should. The least costly way I know of alerting others is purchasing a transponder, about the same price as a radio. I always turn my on when flying. It may be my right to fly without it, but that wont mitigate the disaster of hundreds of lives lost if there was a collision.

[Tom BravoMike]

Break, break! ... Let's change the subject: It was a very hot weather in the Midwest last few days, wasn't it?

(...)>
> You are an utter idiot.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687
>
> The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.
>
> I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.
>
> The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually.. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.
>
> When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…



On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687
>
> The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.
>
> I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.
>
> The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually.. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.
>
> When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…



On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687
>
> The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.
>
> I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.
>
> The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually.. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.
>
> When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…

Did anyone happen to notice that this pilot was registered in NL, according to OLC. Not an excuse or reason, I can see some "foreigner" visiting and 'drifts' into or near Class B airspace outside of ORD. Not being local may not have realized his error. He may still not have realized it as of today, unless the FAA has been knocking at his door or the owners door.

I had an AA MD-88 about run me over about 10 to 15 miles from DAY at 4000-4500 feet agl. What happened to the inverted wedding cake parameters?

[[email protected]]

>The least costly way I know of alerting others is purchasing a transponder, about the same price as a radio.

It looks to me like this gold plated system's cost is about 4x the cost of a radio, and that makes me grumpy. (Or perhaps it could be ARG (Age Related Grumpy, or both.) ;-)

I'm also grumpy because this is about 10% the cost of the glider. If the airlines, with more political clout, had to pay 10% for ADSB, ADSB would be much different.

But my grumps aside, this thread is actually useful because it made me think that except for battery issues, my reasons for grumpy are no more compelling than the rest of the GA community. These days, the battery issues are not so bad. For a glider with lithium, a 4 hour flight is a no brainer. I can see 6 or 8 without much trouble. 12 may be a head scratcher, but hey, I'm an engineer and if I get to where I need it, I bet I can figure out a way.

In other words, I'm to the state where I think there should not be a glider exemption for gliders flying where airlines are likely to be. I think this even though it will cost me a small fortune to buy a system which is way more complicated that is necessary for the task at hand.

I say this because I don't see any other reliable way to provide separation between my cross country butt and an airline. An interesting question is are there other reasonable, reliable separation rules which might work for non-cross country flights?

Perhaps if within a published distance (5nm?) of a glider symbol on the chart and below cloudbase, other traffic won't depend on electronic means for traffic separation. Such a compromise is bad because it raises the bar for cross country, but at least it might provide a safe glider exemption for how many gliders are actually used. (Some GA might benefit from the same separation plan?)

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 5:53:39 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687
> >
> > The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.
> >
> > I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.
> >
> > The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.
> >
> > When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687
> >
> > The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.
> >
> > I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.
> >
> > The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.
> >
> > When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687
> >
> > The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.
> >
> > I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.
> >
> > The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.
> >
> > When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…
>
> Did anyone happen to notice that this pilot was registered in NL, according to OLC. Not an excuse or reason, I can see some "foreigner" visiting and 'drifts' into or near Class B airspace outside of ORD. Not being local may not have realized his error. He may still not have realized it as of today, unless the FAA has been knocking at his door or the owners door.
>
> I had an AA MD-88 about run me over about 10 to 15 miles from DAY at 4000-4500 feet agl. What happened to the inverted wedding cake parameters?

Do you have a transponder? Any idea if a TCAS RA was triggered from that incident?

--

In this case the pilot is experienced in the USA, and flying a US registered glider. OLC registration stuff will not have anything to do with this, and just wanted to try to clarify that issue now. (And I have no idea if the glider even actually has a transponder or not, I don't want to leap to any assumptions about what actually happened, we will know all over time.) The best thing right now is everybody is OK.

And to avoid any other confusion, this has nothing to do with drifting into or near Class B airspace, this incident occurred about 54 nm from O'Hare airport. 24 nm from the edge of the Mode C veil, and a bit under 20 nm for so from the edge of Class B. The overall glider flight was away from that Class B airspace not towards it. The reason for pointing out this again, is so we recognize how much traffic including fast jets and airliners are operating in Class E airspace, as you clearly are with your wedding cake concern..

If nothing else I hope this incident encourage folks to be aware of what is happening where they fly. Do things like look up locations of navaids, and airways and SID and STAR procedures, maybe have that discussion with ATC staff to get questions answered and open up a dialogue and address any concerns. And use all that to make a decision wether transponder carriage is justified or not.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:30:16 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687
>
> The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.
>
> I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.
>
> The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually.. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.
>
> When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…

I will adopt ADS-B into my glider when it becomes economical to do so. I cannot justify spending 3-4 thousand dollars on my $12,000 Libelle. Until then I will use the see and avoid method and continue to monitor different frequencies when flying through that particular airspace. Just my thoughts.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 6:20:45 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >The least costly way I know of alerting others is purchasing a transponder, about the same price as a radio.
>
> It looks to me like this gold plated system's cost is about 4x the cost of a radio, and that makes me grumpy. (Or perhaps it could be ARG (Age Related Grumpy, or both.) ;-)
>
> I'm also grumpy because this is about 10% the cost of the glider. If the airlines, with more political clout, had to pay 10% for ADSB, ADSB would be much different.
>
> But my grumps aside, this thread is actually useful because it made me think that except for battery issues, my reasons for grumpy are no more compelling than the rest of the GA community. These days, the battery issues are not so bad. For a glider with lithium, a 4 hour flight is a no brainer. I can see 6 or 8 without much trouble. 12 may be a head scratcher, but hey, I'm an engineer and if I get to where I need it, I bet I can figure out a way.
>
> In other words, I'm to the state where I think there should not be a glider exemption for gliders flying where airlines are likely to be. I think this even though it will cost me a small fortune to buy a system which is way more complicated that is necessary for the task at hand.
>
> I say this because I don't see any other reliable way to provide separation between my cross country butt and an airline. An interesting question is are there other reasonable, reliable separation rules which might work for non-cross country flights?
>
> Perhaps if within a published distance (5nm?) of a glider symbol on the chart and below cloudbase, other traffic won't depend on electronic means for traffic separation. Such a compromise is bad because it raises the bar for cross country, but at least it might provide a safe glider exemption for how many gliders are actually used. (Some GA might benefit from the same separation plan?)

Trig TT22 is around $2k plus installation.

I'm thinking most radios are around $1,300 to $1,500 plus installation. A good comparison point BTW since radios are an important safety option.

So I don't agree with 4X for a transponder, maybe closer to 1.5X-2X all up, being aware as well that individual installation costs can always vary signifcantly.

If we have to install 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out then sure, that might be in the 4X range. The silliness there is so much of the safety benefit, certainly vs airliners and fast jets, is obtained with just a transponder. I would hope voluntary use of transponders would help to prevent potential incidents and accidents that are likely to remove both the transponder and ADS-B out exemptions.

If it was not for the possibility of ADS-B Out becoming required in gliders I'd be suggesting pilots who fly in/near busy traffic areas and who want to use a transponder look to pick up cheaper used Mode C units. That may still make sense if you find one cheap, but you won't have a ADS-B Out upgrade path if gliders lose their ADS-B Out exemption.

[[email protected]]

Exactly and the only practical approach to take. What inside s transponder makes it so expensive? Most of the time in gliding it's that the market is so small, free market principals have no effect.

Dennis
DC

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 6:29:12 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:30:16 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687
> >
> > The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.
> >
> > I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.
> >
> > The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.
> >
> > When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…
>
> I will adopt ADS-B into my glider when it becomes economical to do so. I cannot justify spending 3-4 thousand dollars on my $12,000 Libelle. Until then I will use the see and avoid method and continue to monitor different frequencies when flying through that particular airspace. Just my thoughts.

I'm not sure why you are discussing ADS-B Out and $3k-$4k costs?

Price of a state of the art transponder is ~$2k or so (plus installation, but the altitude encoder is included) for a Trig TT22.

Of course $2k or so is still a significant cost, but lets keep it real and not pile on ADS-B costs when discussing what are really transponder issues.

In an airliner (or many fast jets) vs glider scenario TCAS provides a wonderful traffic awareness and collision avoidance tool to that other aircraft, and only relies in the "threat" aircraft having a transponder (Mode C or S) . ATC also can see and will continue to see gliders equipped with transponders on SSR in critical busy airspaces, especially that Class E airspace hiding airliners and fast jets.

[[email protected]]

100 years of American soaring how many high speed airplane/glider midairs have there been? There was the bizjet/ASG29 over Minden, any others? Convince the gov't there is a need for transponders in gliders so airliners can avoid us(gliders have the right of way) and I'll tell them how the transponders will be powered by 12 dollar batteries soldered in by amateurs (in a rush before the first tow, ah screw it, no time to solder friends are launching, we'll just twist wires together and tape) lolz.
If the justification is separation with airliners then you need equipment with the same reliability and redundancy of airliners. If you don't have equal equipment it isn't about safety, it is about feelings. And that is gay..

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 9:29:12 PM UTC-4, wrote:

>> I cannot justify spending 3-4 thousand dollars on my $12,000 Libelle.

I have Trig TT21 in a nice 18 year old medium performance glider. Here's how I justify the cost.

The utility/value of a $2000 transponder is the same whether it is installed in a glider worth $10,000 or $100,000. Amortized over 10 years, it costs me ~$200 a year, a small fraction of what I spend on flying each year. Cost of a mid-air collision is priceless.

If the eventual buyer of my used glider does not want to pay the depreciated value of my transponder, I could pull it out, sell it used, put it in my new ship or put it in a club glider. Or maybe I'll just kiss it goodbye and feel good that the new owner is flying with a transponder.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 6:49:18 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Exactly and the only practical approach to take. What inside s transponder makes it so expensive? Most of the time in gliding it's that the market is so small, free market principals have no effect.
>
> Dennis
> DC

Transponders have a fairly impressive amount of electronics, firmware and RF engineering in them. It used to be (1970s-1990s) seen to be obscenely expensive to deliver Mode S capabilities (much more expensive than Mode C). That maybe helped push decisions to develop dual-link ADS-B in the USA which ultimately complicated things... and I suspect slowed overall ADS-B Out adoption and helped increased costs.

One significant thing that happened with transponders in the 1990s is modern FPGAs allowed vendors to shrink lots of hardware complexity and reduce costs. A Mode S transponder is a complex piece of kit, its emulating old Mode A and C transponders, delivers impressive 25' altitude resolution, is able to transmit aircraft data, able to receive legacy TIS-A traffic data, and do ADS-B Out data as well. That you can buy one for as little a $2k is pretty amazing.

FPGA helped greatly reduce costs but so much of the costs are regulatory and compliance related. Look at the long list of RTCA and TSO specs that a transponder like a TT-22 meets. It's interesting to ask manufacturers what it would cost to ship an empty box--it's a serious fraction of the price of one of these transponders.

There is no way that a transponder could ever be built just for the gliding community. The development costs would never be recovered. Luckily Trig and other manufactures happen to make a general purpose transponder in a small form factor and low power consumption that is useful for us.

---

And for folks that don't know me or why I'm so interested (or pig headed) about transponders, ADS-B, FLARM etc. I've got a background in microwave engineering and research and technology. And was already interested in this stuff, and got much more interested in it after one day flying out of Minden in a Duo Discus on our way back to the airport when the Hawker 800 and ASG29 mid-air occurred. We knew after a short while that Hawker was down OK but they had not yet located the glider pilot. We assumed the worse and thought he was dead, and remember tieing down the Duo next to his crew who were waiting for news. Since that time I have also lost a friend in a glider-towplane mid-air collision. This stuff gets real very quick.

Some of the responses to events like the Hawker mid-air was am increasing focus on the possibility of mythical cheap UAT technology that seemed to me very unlikely to eventuate, and did not, and even if it had would have been totally incompatible with TCAS so should have been a nonstarter. Unfortunately for some years the discussion of mythical UAT products helped encourage some pilots to wait for future ware, and discouraged some adoption of transponders where they were really needed. That UAT fixation also worked in ways to not encourage FLARM availability in the USA. I spent a fair amount of time trying to correct ideas about how this UAT futureware will fix problems and magically cost so little, etc.

Close encounters with airliners and fast jets and gliders happen much more than people think. Monday is another. A few years after the Hawker midair we had a close encounter between an airliner and a (transponder less) glider in the same frigging Carson Valley area. Maybe just to show their seriousness about that issue the FAA turned up to interview the pilot with FBI special agents in tow. There have been multiple close encounters with fast jets including the jet of the owner of the Examiner publishing company, that got the glider community bad press in his publications for a few years. There have been other non-airline or fast jet mid-air collisions with gliders over the last decade or two, a glider on tow in Colorado with a Cirrus, a towplane and glider in California, and multiple glider on glider mid-air collisions in contests. Hopefully PowerFLARM is the right tool for those later cases and PowerFLARM adoption seems to have helped.

Ultimately the development of TABS was a nice direction, fully compatible with TCAS, some of that was inspired by the early low cost UAT ideas, some encouraged by FLARM, some by other low-power Mode S initiatives, it combines Mode S and 1090ES out with lower cost GPS technology. But the FAA frustratingly left it dangling with no adoption path for certified gliders. And a sword dangling over our heads that if any (experimental gliders) adopts TABS and then gliders lose the ADS-B out exemption affected pilots may have to throw out say the TN72 GPS and replace it with a TN70. A really crazy idea, if this is ever going to be usable and affordable the FAA has to help kick start TABS adoption and help the way for pilots willing to pay to install it now and start to get costs down for everybody. For disclosure I provided some small help to vendors providing input on the development of the TSO-C199/TABS standard. But again TABS and ADS-B Out is getting far ahead here, the real issue in the context of this thread is transponder adoption in busy traffic areas.

And some of my personal close encounters....

Thermalling a few miles from the Panoche VOR, with transponder. As I come around a C152 comes right through my thermal circle at my altitude, came head on out of nowhere, and blended well into the cloudy background. Flying inbound to the VOR. Student may have had a hood on. That convinced me to buy a Xaon PCAS. Which over the years helped provide several useful warning like...

Thermalling in the Mendocino mountains, transponder and PCAS. Several gliders hanging around for a friendly contest start. I get a PCAS alert at close altitude, looking like crazy and see him, coming over a hundred feet or so above me is a DC-7 fire bomber. I assume he did not see me at all and just let him go over.

And then there is are times where it all just works, like with Travis approach, transitioning their very busy airspace on flight following, controllers being fantastic and routing traffic and asking me if I have all the C5s on final visual. Uh yes I do (and they all have TCAS II). Or talking to Reno approach (now NOCAL) and being transponder equipped in the Carson valley and hearing and seeing B737 routed safely around you. That is a great feeling.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 9/26/2017 5:20 PM:
> That said, the FAA is making it less likely the clue will be provided with the ADSB program. I have mode C + Flarm now. To move to ADSB 2020 will cost $4k. (1800 for the transponder + $1800 for the GPS + install)

$1800 for the GPS seems unrealistic, given I can make the Dynon Skyview with trig
transponder in my Phoenix 2020 compliant for only $500 for the GPS.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 9:50:41 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote on 9/26/2017 5:20 PM:
> > That said, the FAA is making it less likely the clue will be provided with the ADSB program. I have mode C + Flarm now. To move to ADSB 2020 will cost $4k. (1800 for the transponder + $1800 for the GPS + install)
>
> $1800 for the GPS seems unrealistic, given I can make the Dynon Skyview with trig
> transponder in my Phoenix 2020 compliant for only $500 for the GPS.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
>
> http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

Eric

I think the cost estimates here are reasonable if the glider is certified, if experimental its going to be less. And the category is not made clear.

If the glider is certified, the only GPS he can practically use to meet 2020 carriage requirements with a TT22 transponder is the Trig TN70 which is ~$2,000 with wiring harness, plus the cost of antenna, plus installation. Plus a TT-22 which is $2000-$2,200 plus installation.

If you are looking at the Dynon SV-GPS-2020 GPS Receiver/Antenna it is a "meet performance requirement of TSO-C145" device, not actually TSO-C145 and cannot be used in a certified aircraft. Your Phoenix is light-sports and does not need to use TSO'ed avionics, so you are fine. On the evolutionary ladder it offers benefits between the TN72 (TSO-C199, but not "meets TSO-C145") and TN70 (full actual TSO-C145). I am not sure but that Dynon SV-GPS-2020 GPS Receiver/Antenna may not work with standard trig TT22 transponders. If it did then I'd be more tempted to use that than the TN72 TABS GPS because the Dynon SV-GPS-2020 would provide 2020 ADS-B Out compliance if gliders ever lost the ADS-B Out exception. Whereas with todays lack of any regulations about TABS the TN72 would not.... (that is just messed up, as I've already mentioned in this thread).

The Trig TN72 is currently priced at ~$350+$300 antenna, a bit above the Dynon GPS 9with integral antenna) at $590.

it may be the low aggressive price (for a meets TSO-C145 devices) on the Dynon SV-GPS-2020 may in part be because Dynon wanted to provide users of the previous generation similar GPS receivers a low-cost upgrade path since the FAA changes with ADS-B compatibility in 2016 affected those older GPS receiver based systems (they would no longer trigger ADS-B ground services). Either way it's a great price and I hope we can hear how it goes for you if you install in your Phoenix.

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

Here is a thought, curious what others think.

How about a 2 tier certification for these systems?
First, and least expensive, is "day only VFR". This would be made up of COTS GPS units and "performs like" transmitters.
Second, and more expensive, Day/night and IFR certified.

The first type is likely what is currently allowed in US experimental. You don't really need the precision since it just gives a heads up and the visibility is good enough to allow you to find the potential conflict aircraft. These units may also have a max height restriction......comments on this?

The second type NEEDS the precision since visibility may be next to "0" so you need the precision.

Yes, it means the FAA will need to make changes. Then again, we now have a sport recreation pilot certificate that has similar restrictions.

If the FAA agrees (possibly with nudging from AOPA, SSA and others), it may make adoption that much more likely.

Thoughts?

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 4:40:10 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> So how do you personally feel about trivializing an NMAC with an airliner as "spilt drinks".
>
> The issue _seems_ very much resistance to cost, you keep mentioning it. If Post Mills Soaring Club (PSMC) can develop low cost soaring, that's great.. If you can fly safely in areas where transponders don't make sense that is great as well. I hope folks that understand the safety issues are invoked in making those transponder/no-transponder decisions.
>
> Pilots who post such extreme alarming safety related statements on a public forum invite examination of their own safety related behavior, and if they fly with a club, of the operation of that club. I had no idea about PSMC until these post got me giving it a quick look. Straight off the bat I see it is located close between two VORs, and there will be IFR traffic overhead going into Burlington, and the club conduct wave flights, etc.. What percentage of the Post Mills glider Club fleet is transponder equipped? Of the gliders which conduct higher flights in Wave? Does PMSC have local cooperation/procedures with ATC etc? I have no idea, please let us know--that might completely change the impression of your club so far given by one of your members.

Hi Darryl,

Neither of those two guys speak for the club (and neither, for that matter, do I). Both seem to be afflicted with keyboard induced ODD. Neither, in person, seems inclined to trivialize a near accident with hundreds of potential fatalities.

Post Mills is about as podunk as remains in the lower 48. Burlington is a complete non-factor (big rocks East of Burlington might have something to do with this) and fast traffic in/out of Montpelier and Lebanon is modest (I see 'em on PowerFlarm). Transponders would be a complete waste of resources in our club fleet. They would be interrogated only very rarely. Transponders would not be a total waste for our XC guys but I'd personally rather see them spend their money on PowerFlarm first.

Wave soaring with atc implications chiefly occurs at Mt Washington and we have an excellent working relationship with Boston Center that allows us a 10 NM radius window to support our wave camp operations.

As far as potential for conflicts with fast jets, the real risk for us is military. And here, there is no help. They don't use ADS-B, they don't have TCAS. This is a much bigger beef, a much more dangerous trivial attitude, than some smartass on r.a.s.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Don Grillo[_2_]]

A little background about the Class B at O’Hare and how it works.

I have been flying airliners out of O’Hare for 31 years. I also fly gliders in the Chicagoland area. I live 23 miles due west of runway 10C at O’Hare. The Class B Airspace that extends west over my house ranges from 10000 ft down to 4000 ft. With an elevation of 890 feet, that puts airliners on approach to 10C at 3110 ft AGL over my house, 23 miles from touchdown. In VFR conditions, (like it was last Monday), Chicago ATC will descend aircraft to the lowest altitude possible and ask the pilot if he has the airport in site. If the pilot acknowledges he has the airport in sight, ATC will clear him for a visual approach. If the pilot accepts the visual approach, this relieves the controller from providing separation and traffic advisories. The pilot is on his own and can maneuver his aircraft as he/she wishes to landing.

Mondays weather at KRFD (Rockford, which is south of Beloit and Janesville) was reporting between 8000 and 9500 scattered clouds in mid afternoon. (An excellent soaring day for the Midwest in September).

Now let’s look at the Janesville 8 Arrival into O’Hare. It shows an “Expect clearance to cross� 30 miles northwest of the Janesville VOR at 13000 ft. The next crossing altitude is the Teddy intersection (22 miles southeast of the Janesville VOR) at 7000 ft. That 7000 ft crossing is 42 miles from ORD.

HOWEVER!, this aircraft was not on the Janesville arrival. This a/c was receiving vectors from ATC (in my opinion). Looking at the flightaware track of this flight, it came from the north, over Wisconsin heading south, west of Janesville, then made a slight left turn towards Beloit Wi. The aircraft now at 10000 ft made a left 360 degree turn followed by a right 270 which put it on a heading of 110. The airliner was given a clearance to descend while still west of South Beloit. The trace shows it at 9000 ft west of South Beloit descending at 1000ft/m. At 8000 feet the airliner was approximately 1 mile southwest of the Beloit gliderport. The a/c leveled off 7 miles north of Poplar Grove Airport at 7000 feet, 57 miles from ORD, well outside the Class B airspace. It then flew 22 miles at 7000ft to Woodstock Illinois before turning south and then east into O’Hare.

What we don’t know is why this a/c made the turns near Beloit. If, for example, is was for a traffic advisory, ATC would have just given the a/c one or two course direction turns to get out of the way of the traffic. Were the 360 and 270 turns for spacing into O’Hare? The ATC voice tapes and data trace will reveal why.

Why was this a/c given a clearance to descend to 7000 feet so far from ORD?

In my opinion and with none of us knowing all the facts, there is a good chance we will find their was some controller error in this situation.

Ref: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL246/history/20170925/1604Z/CYVR/KORD/tracklog

F2

[Dan Marotta]

I just got a reply from Trig regarding my query on a TN70 installation
to go along with my TT22 in my (certificated) Stemme. Their reply said
that I could use a TN72 in a TABS installation. For the extra money, I
think I'll go ahead with the TN70 out of concern that they misunderstood
that the Stemme is certificated or that TABS won't give me the
situational awareness that I want or that the glider exemption will one
day disappear.

On 9/27/2017 7:43 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 6:20:45 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> The least costly way I know of alerting others is purchasing a transponder, about the same price as a radio.
>> It looks to me like this gold plated system's cost is about 4x the cost of a radio, and that makes me grumpy. (Or perhaps it could be ARG (Age Related Grumpy, or both.) ;-)
>>
>> I'm also grumpy because this is about 10% the cost of the glider. If the airlines, with more political clout, had to pay 10% for ADSB, ADSB would be much different.
>>
>> But my grumps aside, this thread is actually useful because it made me think that except for battery issues, my reasons for grumpy are no more compelling than the rest of the GA community. These days, the battery issues are not so bad. For a glider with lithium, a 4 hour flight is a no brainer. I can see 6 or 8 without much trouble. 12 may be a head scratcher, but hey, I'm an engineer and if I get to where I need it, I bet I can figure out a way.
>>
>> In other words, I'm to the state where I think there should not be a glider exemption for gliders flying where airlines are likely to be. I think this even though it will cost me a small fortune to buy a system which is way more complicated that is necessary for the task at hand.
>>
>> I say this because I don't see any other reliable way to provide separation between my cross country butt and an airline. An interesting question is are there other reasonable, reliable separation rules which might work for non-cross country flights?
>>
>> Perhaps if within a published distance (5nm?) of a glider symbol on the chart and below cloudbase, other traffic won't depend on electronic means for traffic separation. Such a compromise is bad because it raises the bar for cross country, but at least it might provide a safe glider exemption for how many gliders are actually used. (Some GA might benefit from the same separation plan?)
> Trig TT22 is around $2k plus installation.
>
> I'm thinking most radios are around $1,300 to $1,500 plus installation. A good comparison point BTW since radios are an important safety option.
>
> So I don't agree with 4X for a transponder, maybe closer to 1.5X-2X all up, being aware as well that individual installation costs can always vary signifcantly.
>
> If we have to install 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out then sure, that might be in the 4X range. The silliness there is so much of the safety benefit, certainly vs airliners and fast jets, is obtained with just a transponder. I would hope voluntary use of transponders would help to prevent potential incidents and accidents that are likely to remove both the transponder and ADS-B out exemptions.
>
> If it was not for the possibility of ADS-B Out becoming required in gliders I'd be suggesting pilots who fly in/near busy traffic areas and who want to use a transponder look to pick up cheaper used Mode C units. That may still make sense if you find one cheap, but you won't have a ADS-B Out upgrade path if gliders lose their ADS-B Out exemption.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Darryl Ramm]

This is essentially what you have with TABS. A simpler GPS for ADS-B approval able to be based on COTS GPS but not to meet the 2020 Mandate. This is all an old discussion that has been gone over here before. You are wasting effort trying to reinvent the wheel. Time would likely be better spend understanding more what today’s technical options really are and working to improve those and regulations around them.

You can’t just have any old COTS GPS connected up to some ADS-B Out systems and have others see them without lots of potential issues. For the system to work both IFR aircraft and ATC needs to “see� VFR aircraft and trust their ADS-B Out GPS is working and accurate (both for not false positive threats or negative notice of real threats). The current situation where the ADS-B ground infrastructure and IFR ADS-B In system ignore SIL=0 (is true COTS GPS) is because of concern about what GPS source issues could dobtontge system.

FLARM for example manages their system by using specific GPS chipsets and lots of knowledge. FLARM is *not* COTS. You cannot just connect any old GPS received to a FLARM, for good reason.

The development of TSO-C199/TABS was specifically to allow COTS type GPS sources to be used in ADS-B Out systems. To reduce costs, by simplifying some requirements and providing simpler approval processes for devices. A whole slew of organizations including TRIG, FLARM, MITRE, the SSA, and the FAA has input into TSO-C199/TABS. It is a five deal and early products like the TN72 exist. But the FAA never delivered things like regulations to allow installation in certified gliders. Issues like seeking a solution for that are where it would be more useful for the glider community to invest effort.

And again for the airliner scenario here, ADS-B is a red-herring. Stick a transponder in the glider, problem solved.

[Dan Marotta]

Since I now have a PowerFLARM portable and "see" among other things
ADS-B traffic, I would like to see useful data about that traffic. The
PF portable display is abysmal but I get a really nice B-52 shaped icon
on my ClearNav display showing it's relative position and direction,
while there's a climb/level flight/descent icon, there's nothing about
altitude.Â* For that, I have to go back to the PF display to see its
relative altitude, but the PF only displays the relative altitude of the
nearest sensed aircraft.Â* "Fine", you might say, but of what value is
knowing that there's an airliner 2,000' above me and only 0.1 miles
away, when there's a glider at my altitude and 0.15 miles away?Â* But
then I could reach across the cockpit (side-by-side two seater) and
fumble with the Streak/XCSoar which will give me all the information if
I can push all the buttons to select the aircraft of interest on a small
touch screen while still flying the glider and looking outside.

Maybe a feature request to ClearNav will get a software update to show
relative altitude of ADS-B targets will get a positive result.

On 9/27/2017 9:36 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 6:49:18 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> Exactly and the only practical approach to take. What inside s transponder makes it so expensive? Most of the time in gliding it's that the market is so small, free market principals have no effect.
>>
>> Dennis
>> DC
> Transponders have a fairly impressive amount of electronics, firmware and RF engineering in them. It used to be (1970s-1990s) seen to be obscenely expensive to deliver Mode S capabilities (much more expensive than Mode C). That maybe helped push decisions to develop dual-link ADS-B in the USA which ultimately complicated things... and I suspect slowed overall ADS-B Out adoption and helped increased costs.
>
> One significant thing that happened with transponders in the 1990s is modern FPGAs allowed vendors to shrink lots of hardware complexity and reduce costs. A Mode S transponder is a complex piece of kit, its emulating old Mode A and C transponders, delivers impressive 25' altitude resolution, is able to transmit aircraft data, able to receive legacy TIS-A traffic data, and do ADS-B Out data as well. That you can buy one for as little a $2k is pretty amazing.
>
> FPGA helped greatly reduce costs but so much of the costs are regulatory and compliance related. Look at the long list of RTCA and TSO specs that a transponder like a TT-22 meets. It's interesting to ask manufacturers what it would cost to ship an empty box--it's a serious fraction of the price of one of these transponders.
>
> There is no way that a transponder could ever be built just for the gliding community. The development costs would never be recovered. Luckily Trig and other manufactures happen to make a general purpose transponder in a small form factor and low power consumption that is useful for us.
>
> ---
>
> And for folks that don't know me or why I'm so interested (or pig headed) about transponders, ADS-B, FLARM etc. I've got a background in microwave engineering and research and technology. And was already interested in this stuff, and got much more interested in it after one day flying out of Minden in a Duo Discus on our way back to the airport when the Hawker 800 and ASG29 mid-air occurred. We knew after a short while that Hawker was down OK but they had not yet located the glider pilot. We assumed the worse and thought he was dead, and remember tieing down the Duo next to his crew who were waiting for news. Since that time I have also lost a friend in a glider-towplane mid-air collision. This stuff gets real very quick.
>
> Some of the responses to events like the Hawker mid-air was am increasing focus on the possibility of mythical cheap UAT technology that seemed to me very unlikely to eventuate, and did not, and even if it had would have been totally incompatible with TCAS so should have been a nonstarter. Unfortunately for some years the discussion of mythical UAT products helped encourage some pilots to wait for future ware, and discouraged some adoption of transponders where they were really needed. That UAT fixation also worked in ways to not encourage FLARM availability in the USA. I spent a fair amount of time trying to correct ideas about how this UAT futureware will fix problems and magically cost so little, etc.
>
> Close encounters with airliners and fast jets and gliders happen much more than people think. Monday is another. A few years after the Hawker midair we had a close encounter between an airliner and a (transponder less) glider in the same frigging Carson Valley area. Maybe just to show their seriousness about that issue the FAA turned up to interview the pilot with FBI special agents in tow. There have been multiple close encounters with fast jets including the jet of the owner of the Examiner publishing company, that got the glider community bad press in his publications for a few years. There have been other non-airline or fast jet mid-air collisions with gliders over the last decade or two, a glider on tow in Colorado with a Cirrus, a towplane and glider in California, and multiple glider on glider mid-air collisions in contests. Hopefully PowerFLARM is the right tool for those later cases and PowerFLARM adoption seems to have helped.
>
> Ultimately the development of TABS was a nice direction, fully compatible with TCAS, some of that was inspired by the early low cost UAT ideas, some encouraged by FLARM, some by other low-power Mode S initiatives, it combines Mode S and 1090ES out with lower cost GPS technology. But the FAA frustratingly left it dangling with no adoption path for certified gliders. And a sword dangling over our heads that if any (experimental gliders) adopts TABS and then gliders lose the ADS-B out exemption affected pilots may have to throw out say the TN72 GPS and replace it with a TN70. A really crazy idea, if this is ever going to be usable and affordable the FAA has to help kick start TABS adoption and help the way for pilots willing to pay to install it now and start to get costs down for everybody. For disclosure I provided some small help to vendors providing input on the development of the TSO-C199/TABS standard. But again TABS and ADS-B Out is getting far ahead here, the real issue in the context of this thread is transponder adoption in busy traffic areas.
>
> And some of my personal close encounters....
>
> Thermalling a few miles from the Panoche VOR, with transponder. As I come around a C152 comes right through my thermal circle at my altitude, came head on out of nowhere, and blended well into the cloudy background. Flying inbound to the VOR. Student may have had a hood on. That convinced me to buy a Xaon PCAS. Which over the years helped provide several useful warning like...
>
> Thermalling in the Mendocino mountains, transponder and PCAS. Several gliders hanging around for a friendly contest start. I get a PCAS alert at close altitude, looking like crazy and see him, coming over a hundred feet or so above me is a DC-7 fire bomber. I assume he did not see me at all and just let him go over.
>
> And then there is are times where it all just works, like with Travis approach, transitioning their very busy airspace on flight following, controllers being fantastic and routing traffic and asking me if I have all the C5s on final visual. Uh yes I do (and they all have TCAS II). Or talking to Reno approach (now NOCAL) and being transponder equipped in the Carson valley and hearing and seeing B737 routed safely around you. That is a great feeling.

--
Dan, 5J

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Thanks Don: I know one flight into O'Hare on a United flight we descended to 12,000 ft 50 miles out "Looking for a smoother ride". I was nervous as hell we were in the realm of GA aircraft, I would have much preferred to stay in Class A or above 15,000 ft at least for as long as possible.

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 9:20:13 AM UTC-7, Don Grillo wrote:
> A little background about the Class B at O’Hare and how it works.
>
> I have been flying airliners out of O’Hare for 31 years. I also fly gliders in the Chicagoland area. I live 23 miles due west of runway 10C at O’Hare. The Class B Airspace that extends west over my house ranges from 10000 ft down to 4000 ft. With an elevation of 890 feet, that puts airliners on approach to 10C at 3110 ft AGL over my house, 23 miles from touchdown. In VFR conditions, (like it was last Monday), Chicago ATC will descend aircraft to the lowest altitude possible and ask the pilot if he has the airport in site. If the pilot acknowledges he has the airport in sight, ATC will clear him for a visual approach. If the pilot accepts the visual approach, this relieves the controller from providing separation and traffic advisories. The pilot is on his own and can maneuver his aircraft as he/she wishes to landing.
>
> Mondays weather at KRFD (Rockford, which is south of Beloit and Janesville) was reporting between 8000 and 9500 scattered clouds in mid afternoon. (An excellent soaring day for the Midwest in September).
>
> Now let’s look at the Janesville 8 Arrival into O’Hare. It shows an “Expect clearance to cross� 30 miles northwest of the Janesville VOR at 13000 ft. The next crossing altitude is the Teddy intersection (22 miles southeast of the Janesville VOR) at 7000 ft. That 7000 ft crossing is 42 miles from ORD.
>
> HOWEVER!, this aircraft was not on the Janesville arrival. This a/c was receiving vectors from ATC (in my opinion). Looking at the flightaware track of this flight, it came from the north, over Wisconsin heading south, west of Janesville, then made a slight left turn towards Beloit Wi. The aircraft now at 10000 ft made a left 360 degree turn followed by a right 270 which put it on a heading of 110. The airliner was given a clearance to descend while still west of South Beloit. The trace shows it at 9000 ft west of South Beloit descending at 1000ft/m. At 8000 feet the airliner was approximately 1 mile southwest of the Beloit gliderport. The a/c leveled off 7 miles north of Poplar Grove Airport at 7000 feet, 57 miles from ORD, well outside the Class B airspace. It then flew 22 miles at 7000ft to Woodstock Illinois before turning south and then east into O’Hare.
>
> What we don’t know is why this a/c made the turns near Beloit. If, for example, is was for a traffic advisory, ATC would have just given the a/c one or two course direction turns to get out of the way of the traffic. Were the 360 and 270 turns for spacing into O’Hare? The ATC voice tapes and data trace will reveal why.
>
> Why was this a/c given a clearance to descend to 7000 feet so far from ORD?
>
> In my opinion and with none of us knowing all the facts, there is a good chance we will find their was some controller error in this situation.
>
> Ref: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL246/history/20170925/1604Z/CYVR/KORD/tracklog
>
> F2

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

I will "assume" this is a reply to my earlier post?

If so, thanks.

FAA does not seem to like making things easy. Basic regs are "easy", the exceptions are killer though.....

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

I have a Dynon Skyview System with the SV-GPS-2020 GPS source installed in my Phoenix Motorglider. Having a full blown ADS~B IN / OUT system is eye opening. It’s astounding how much traffic there is that you never see visually.

We keep talking about airliners. At least as big a threat to gliders is other GA traffic, particularly when you are near airports. One of the closest calls I have had was landing a glider at a small rural airport, and while on the base leg discovering a helicopter hovering just off the arrival end of the runway. Turns out that the helio pilots were so engrossed in a BFR that they never heard my calls on the CTAF frequency and only realized I was in the area when I landed in the grass right next to them.

If we had universal ADS-B deployment on all aircraft, including gliders, balloons, drones, etc. we would all be a lot better off. It’s frustrating that the FAA has an attitude that they would rather not see COTS GPS at all rather than face the inconvenience of routing aircraft around a false position. It’s a bummer that Trig hasn’t been able to get the TN72 OKed for installation in a certified glider. Given this latest incident in Chicago, the SSA and AOPA should make it their top prriority to get the FAA to relax their standards for this kind of equipment.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 8:17:06 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 4:40:10 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > So how do you personally feel about trivializing an NMAC with an airliner as "spilt drinks".
> >
> > The issue _seems_ very much resistance to cost, you keep mentioning it. If Post Mills Soaring Club (PSMC) can develop low cost soaring, that's great. If you can fly safely in areas where transponders don't make sense that is great as well. I hope folks that understand the safety issues are invoked in making those transponder/no-transponder decisions.
> >
> > Pilots who post such extreme alarming safety related statements on a public forum invite examination of their own safety related behavior, and if they fly with a club, of the operation of that club. I had no idea about PSMC until these post got me giving it a quick look. Straight off the bat I see it is located close between two VORs, and there will be IFR traffic overhead going into Burlington, and the club conduct wave flights, etc.. What percentage of the Post Mills glider Club fleet is transponder equipped? Of the gliders which conduct higher flights in Wave? Does PMSC have local cooperation/procedures with ATC etc? I have no idea, please let us know--that might completely change the impression of your club so far given by one of your members.
>
> Hi Darryl,
>
> Neither of those two guys speak for the club (and neither, for that matter, do I). Both seem to be afflicted with keyboard induced ODD. Neither, in person, seems inclined to trivialize a near accident with hundreds of potential fatalities.
>
> Post Mills is about as podunk as remains in the lower 48. Burlington is a complete non-factor (big rocks East of Burlington might have something to do with this) and fast traffic in/out of Montpelier and Lebanon is modest (I see 'em on PowerFlarm). Transponders would be a complete waste of resources in our club fleet. They would be interrogated only very rarely. Transponders would not be a total waste for our XC guys but I'd personally rather see them spend their money on PowerFlarm first.
>
> Wave soaring with atc implications chiefly occurs at Mt Washington and we have an excellent working relationship with Boston Center that allows us a 10 NM radius window to support our wave camp operations.
>
> As far as potential for conflicts with fast jets, the real risk for us is military. And here, there is no help. They don't use ADS-B, they don't have TCAS. This is a much bigger beef, a much more dangerous trivial attitude, than some smartass on r.a.s.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan, if folks like you are involved in that area I feel much more comfortable that safety risks are understood and managed. I hope glider pilots can evaluate risks and work to reduce them, but the crazy comments about the seriousness of an airliner NMAC just raised immediate concerns.

---

You may be way ahead of me here already, but I'll just mention that fighter jets may have IFF interrogators and may be able to see transponder equipped gliders, without being actual TCAS. Not all military jets have IFF interrogators. Military controllers (or Boston center) may be able to see transponder equipped aircraft, at least at higher altitudes and the military pilots may be checking with them for traffic. It may be worth having that discussion with folks to see. In many of the busy California and Great Basin MOAs being transponder equipped is very effective to let military SSR radar see you.

[Tango Eight]

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 4:20:54 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 8:17:06 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 4:40:10 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > So how do you personally feel about trivializing an NMAC with an airliner as "spilt drinks".
> > >
> > > The issue _seems_ very much resistance to cost, you keep mentioning it. If Post Mills Soaring Club (PSMC) can develop low cost soaring, that's great. If you can fly safely in areas where transponders don't make sense that is great as well. I hope folks that understand the safety issues are invoked in making those transponder/no-transponder decisions.
> > >
> > > Pilots who post such extreme alarming safety related statements on a public forum invite examination of their own safety related behavior, and if they fly with a club, of the operation of that club. I had no idea about PSMC until these post got me giving it a quick look. Straight off the bat I see it is located close between two VORs, and there will be IFR traffic overhead going into Burlington, and the club conduct wave flights, etc.. What percentage of the Post Mills glider Club fleet is transponder equipped? Of the gliders which conduct higher flights in Wave? Does PMSC have local cooperation/procedures with ATC etc? I have no idea, please let us know--that might completely change the impression of your club so far given by one of your members.
> >
> > Hi Darryl,
> >
> > Neither of those two guys speak for the club (and neither, for that matter, do I). Both seem to be afflicted with keyboard induced ODD. Neither, in person, seems inclined to trivialize a near accident with hundreds of potential fatalities.
> >
> > Post Mills is about as podunk as remains in the lower 48. Burlington is a complete non-factor (big rocks East of Burlington might have something to do with this) and fast traffic in/out of Montpelier and Lebanon is modest (I see 'em on PowerFlarm). Transponders would be a complete waste of resources in our club fleet. They would be interrogated only very rarely. Transponders would not be a total waste for our XC guys but I'd personally rather see them spend their money on PowerFlarm first.
> >
> > Wave soaring with atc implications chiefly occurs at Mt Washington and we have an excellent working relationship with Boston Center that allows us a 10 NM radius window to support our wave camp operations.
> >
> > As far as potential for conflicts with fast jets, the real risk for us is military. And here, there is no help. They don't use ADS-B, they don't have TCAS. This is a much bigger beef, a much more dangerous trivial attitude, than some smartass on r.a.s.
> >
> > best,
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Evan, if folks like you are involved in that area I feel much more comfortable that safety risks are understood and managed. I hope glider pilots can evaluate risks and work to reduce them, but the crazy comments about the seriousness of an airliner NMAC just raised immediate concerns.
>
> ---
>
> You may be way ahead of me here already, but I'll just mention that fighter jets may have IFF interrogators and may be able to see transponder equipped gliders, without being actual TCAS. Not all military jets have IFF interrogators. Military controllers (or Boston center) may be able to see transponder equipped aircraft, at least at higher altitudes and the military pilots may be checking with them for traffic. It may be worth having that discussion with folks to see. In many of the busy California and Great Basin MOAs being transponder equipped is very effective to let military SSR radar see you.

That's a good tip on IFF. We had some guys attend an Air Guard open house a couple of years ago (I wasn't able to make it) and while our pilots met their pilots and our guys learned a few things about their operations (moderately concerning), iirc the conclusion was that we had no ready option to make ourselves visible to each other. It's about time to renew those contacts anyway, so we can ask.

They need to at least be aware of the fact that on nice Summer afternoons there are going to be bunches of gliders on the Whites & Greens and at most ten percent are transponder equipped. I think they get this. It's been a couple of years since I last heard fighter traffic in the Whites on a soarable day.


best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

Has anyone played with stratux http://stratux.me/ in a glider? Any idea if it will display on one of the open source flight computers, Tophat or XCsoar or?

[Dan Marotta]

I played with Stratux for a while and then passed it on to another
glider pilot.Â* I got it second hand from a glider pilot, as well.

The system I had consisted of a separate box, two antennae, a power
cable, and a display device.Â* I found that it provided great visibility
of ADS-B targets and weather overlayed on a map background.Â* It was
quite interesting to sit in my living room with the Stratux box in the
window sill and watch traffic in the pattern at Santa Fe, about 40 air
miles away.Â* I could follow them from arrival, down wind, base, and
about half way down final before they dropped below coverage of the
tower on Sandia Peak.Â* I was very excited to try it in flight, but...

The three cables running across the glare shield and Velcro mounted
antennae coming loose from their mounts (certificated aircraft so it was
a portable rather than permanent installation), were always a
distraction.Â* I never had a decent sunlight readable screen to display
it on.Â* I planned to run Avare on my Streak along with XCSoar and simply
switch between the two.Â* A split screen would have been better but the
Streak neither supports split screen nor the interface program required
to read the data from Stratux, therefore I ran it on a Nexus 7 which was
useless if the sun was out.

Bottom line:Â* If you have a sunlight readable screen and an OS which
runs the program, it's a lot of fun and provides good information. The
down side is figuring a way to have it mounted so that you can give it a
glance now and then without futzing with another display floating around
the cockpit.Â* It looks really nice when run on, say, Avare on a big
screen mounted to the yoke of a power plane.

One more thing - it is a power hog and I had a lot of trouble finding a
USB cable which supported the amperage requirement. Without the current,
the radios will not lock on.

On 9/29/2017 8:39 AM, wrote:
> Has anyone played with stratux http://stratux.me/ in a glider? Any idea if it will display on one of the open source flight computers, Tophat or XCsoar or?

--
Dan, 5J

[kinsell]

I've built Stratux devices and used them in my living room, but not
flown with them. Hard to find room for another tablet. But very
impressive what it can do.

If I were going to fly with one, I'd probably use a Uavionix Scout (was
Pingbuddy 3). Much more compact, and they have low power receivers that
reduces the battery draw considerably. Only downside is no internal
GPS, they rely on what's inside the tablet.


On 09/29/2017 10:35 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I played with Stratux for a while and then passed it on to another
> glider pilot.Â* I got it second hand from a glider pilot, as well.
>
> The system I had consisted of a separate box, two antennae, a power
> cable, and a display device.Â* I found that it provided great visibility
> of ADS-B targets and weather overlayed on a map background.Â* It was
> quite interesting to sit in my living room with the Stratux box in the
> window sill and watch traffic in the pattern at Santa Fe, about 40 air
> miles away.Â* I could follow them from arrival, down wind, base, and
> about half way down final before they dropped below coverage of the
> tower on Sandia Peak.Â* I was very excited to try it in flight, but...
>
> The three cables running across the glare shield and Velcro mounted
> antennae coming loose from their mounts (certificated aircraft so it was
> a portable rather than permanent installation), were always a
> distraction.Â* I never had a decent sunlight readable screen to display
> it on.Â* I planned to run Avare on my Streak along with XCSoar and simply
> switch between the two.Â* A split screen would have been better but the
> Streak neither supports split screen nor the interface program required
> to read the data from Stratux, therefore I ran it on a Nexus 7 which was
> useless if the sun was out.
>
> Bottom line:Â* If you have a sunlight readable screen and an OS which
> runs the program, it's a lot of fun and provides good information. The
> down side is figuring a way to have it mounted so that you can give it a
> glance now and then without futzing with another display floating around
> the cockpit.Â* It looks really nice when run on, say, Avare on a big
> screen mounted to the yoke of a power plane.
>
> One more thing - it is a power hog and I had a lot of trouble finding a
> USB cable which supported the amperage requirement. Without the current,
> the radios will not lock on.
>
> On 9/29/2017 8:39 AM, wrote:
>> Has anyone played with stratux http://stratux.me/ in a glider?Â* Any
>> idea if it will display on one of the open source flight computers,
>> Tophat or XCsoar or?
>

[kinsell]

Looks like the Scout has been hardwired to only work with Foreflight.
That's a pity.



On 09/29/2017 11:51 AM, kinsell wrote:
> I've built Stratux devices and used them in my living room, but not
> flown with them.Â* Hard to find room for another tablet.Â* But very
> impressive what it can do.
>
> If I were going to fly with one, I'd probably use a Uavionix Scout (was
> Pingbuddy 3).Â* Much more compact, and they have low power receivers that
> reduces the battery draw considerably.Â* Only downside is no internal
> GPS, they rely on what's inside the tablet.
>
>
> On 09/29/2017 10:35 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> I played with Stratux for a while and then passed it on to another
>> glider pilot.Â* I got it second hand from a glider pilot, as well.
>>
>> The system I had consisted of a separate box, two antennae, a power
>> cable, and a display device.Â* I found that it provided great
>> visibility of ADS-B targets and weather overlayed on a map
>> background.Â* It was quite interesting to sit in my living room with
>> the Stratux box in the window sill and watch traffic in the pattern at
>> Santa Fe, about 40 air miles away.Â* I could follow them from arrival,
>> down wind, base, and about half way down final before they dropped
>> below coverage of the tower on Sandia Peak.Â* I was very excited to try
>> it in flight, but...
>>
>> The three cables running across the glare shield and Velcro mounted
>> antennae coming loose from their mounts (certificated aircraft so it
>> was a portable rather than permanent installation), were always a
>> distraction.Â* I never had a decent sunlight readable screen to display
>> it on.Â* I planned to run Avare on my Streak along with XCSoar and
>> simply switch between the two.Â* A split screen would have been better
>> but the Streak neither supports split screen nor the interface program
>> required to read the data from Stratux, therefore I ran it on a Nexus
>> 7 which was useless if the sun was out.
>>
>> Bottom line:Â* If you have a sunlight readable screen and an OS which
>> runs the program, it's a lot of fun and provides good information. The
>> down side is figuring a way to have it mounted so that you can give it
>> a glance now and then without futzing with another display floating
>> around the cockpit.Â* It looks really nice when run on, say, Avare on a
>> big screen mounted to the yoke of a power plane.
>>
>> One more thing - it is a power hog and I had a lot of trouble finding
>> a USB cable which supported the amperage requirement. Without the
>> current, the radios will not lock on.
>>
>> On 9/29/2017 8:39 AM, wrote:
>>> Has anyone played with stratux http://stratux.me/ in a glider?Â* Any
>>> idea if it will display on one of the open source flight computers,
>>> Tophat or XCsoar or?
>>
>

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Darryl Ramm wrote on 9/27/2017 10:39 PM:
> t may be the low aggressive price (for a meets TSO-C145 devices) on the Dynon SV-GPS-2020 may in part be because Dynon wanted to provide users of the previous generation similar GPS receivers a low-cost upgrade path since the FAA changes with ADS-B compatibility in 2016 affected those older GPS receiver based systems (they would no longer trigger ADS-B ground services). Either way it's a great price and I hope we can hear how it goes for you if you install in your Phoenix.

A few Phoenix owners have installed SV-GPS-2020, and are apparently happy with it.
I'll likely do that eventually; currently, I'm waiting for my SV-ADSB-472 Dual
Band receiver. The early adopters appear to like it a lot.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 12:51:48 PM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
> I have a Dynon Skyview System with the SV-GPS-2020 GPS source installed in my Phoenix Motorglider. Having a full blown ADS~B IN / OUT system is eye opening. It’s astounding how much traffic there is that you never see visually.
>
> We keep talking about airliners. At least as big a threat to gliders is other GA traffic, particularly when you are near airports. One of the closest calls I have had was landing a glider at a small rural airport, and while on the base leg discovering a helicopter hovering just off the arrival end of the runway. Turns out that the helio pilots were so engrossed in a BFR that they never heard my calls on the CTAF frequency and only realized I was in the area when I landed in the grass right next to them.
>
> If we had universal ADS-B deployment on all aircraft, including gliders, balloons, drones, etc. we would all be a lot better off. It’s frustrating that the FAA has an attitude that they would rather not see COTS GPS at all rather than face the inconvenience of routing aircraft around a false position. It’s a bummer that Trig hasn’t been able to get the TN72 OKed for installation in a certified glider. Given this latest incident in Chicago, the SSA and AOPA should make it their top prriority to get the FAA to relax their standards for this kind of equipment.

The focus here was in airliners because of what happened in Chicago, not to ignore other issues.

Please be careful not to call the TN72 a "COTS GPS", it is not, it's a precision TSO-C199 GPS source for ADS-B Out. TSO-C199 devices might be based on consumer GPS technology, but are far from some untrusted COTS GPS that average freddie might just connect up to something. We need to be careful not to give anybody that impression we are talking about use of COTS GPS.

Mike I am as frustrated as you are about the TN72 situation. It's not 100% clear what the situation is for use in certified gliders. I have said in the past it's likely no go, based on inputs from other as well, but I am going back working over this again and reaching out to FSDOs and others in the FAA, and Trig and their US distributor, and working with SSA folks. We'll see where this goes.

It would be great to hear from any glider owners who have had discussions with FAA staff on a TN72 install in a certified or experimental glider (email me: ).

[mic pilot]

It seems like this incident took place near teddy intersection at approx. 7000 msl? That’s just a really bad place flying if you’re not talking to ATC, with or without a transponder. Teddy is major point on the arrival and anyone that’s flown into ORD has heard of it.
The flight aware track is deceiving because the jet does a few turns over Janesville at 10000msl but that’s not where the conflict took place. It was SE of JVL at 7000msl when the jet had to climb to miss an aircraft..

As glider pilots we really need to know where the jet traffic is and not go there unless you're in contact with ATC. Look up all the major airports you fly near on Airnav.com, read about the runways, and especially the STAR arrivals, also frequencies, and phone numbers are helpful. You can download free copies of the STARS. Knowing what runways they are using based on winds the day of your flight can help.
Then on your flights, if the lift takes you near a busy intersection at the altitude used, call ATC. If you’re well below the traffic, maybe just listen? However, know that if you have a transponder and don’t call, you are causing a lot of chatter on a busy frequency. They will all be trying to figure out what you’re doing.

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:13:57 PM UTC-4, mic pilot wrote:
> It seems like this incident took place near teddy intersection at approx. 7000 msl? That’s just a really bad place flying if you’re not talking to ATC, with or without a transponder. Teddy is major point on the arrival and anyone that’s flown into ORD has heard of it.
> The flight aware track is deceiving because the jet does a few turns over Janesville at 10000msl but that’s not where the conflict took place. It was SE of JVL at 7000msl when the jet had to climb to miss an aircraft.
>
> As glider pilots we really need to know where the jet traffic is and not go there unless you're in contact with ATC. Look up all the major airports you fly near on Airnav.com, read about the runways, and especially the STAR arrivals, also frequencies, and phone numbers are helpful. You can download free copies of the STARS. Knowing what runways they are using based on winds the day of your flight can help.
> Then on your flights, if the lift takes you near a busy intersection at the altitude used, call ATC. If you’re well below the traffic, maybe just listen? However, know that if you have a transponder and don’t call, you are causing a lot of chatter on a busy frequency. They will all be trying to figure out what you’re doing.

Hi Mic,

Wellllllll... since a lot of this is all new to me it's a cinch that it's new to many, if not most glider pilots. Never heard of a STAR until this discussion. Didn't know you could get free copies :-).

This would be a good opportunity for some knowledgeable glider + airline pilot or glider pilot + ATC guy to do an article or two. Let me be first to provide such encouragement.

But I really have to wonder about the wisdom of bringing big iron down below 8000 that far out of class B in VFR conditions. Actually, I don't "wonder" at all, I think it's unconscionably stupid. Feel free to give me a reason to change my mind.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Bruce Hoult]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:24:48 PM UTC+3, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:13:57 PM UTC-4, mic pilot wrote:
> > It seems like this incident took place near teddy intersection at approx. 7000 msl? That’s just a really bad place flying if you’re not talking to ATC, with or without a transponder. Teddy is major point on the arrival and anyone that’s flown into ORD has heard of it.
> > The flight aware track is deceiving because the jet does a few turns over Janesville at 10000msl but that’s not where the conflict took place. It was SE of JVL at 7000msl when the jet had to climb to miss an aircraft.
> >
> > As glider pilots we really need to know where the jet traffic is and not go there unless you're in contact with ATC. Look up all the major airports you fly near on Airnav.com, read about the runways, and especially the STAR arrivals, also frequencies, and phone numbers are helpful. You can download free copies of the STARS. Knowing what runways they are using based on winds the day of your flight can help.
> > Then on your flights, if the lift takes you near a busy intersection at the altitude used, call ATC. If you’re well below the traffic, maybe just listen? However, know that if you have a transponder and don’t call, you are causing a lot of chatter on a busy frequency. They will all be trying to figure out what you’re doing.
>
> Hi Mic,
>
> Wellllllll... since a lot of this is all new to me it's a cinch that it's new to many, if not most glider pilots. Never heard of a STAR until this discussion. Didn't know you could get free copies :-).
>
> This would be a good opportunity for some knowledgeable glider + airline pilot or glider pilot + ATC guy to do an article or two. Let me be first to provide such encouragement.
>
> But I really have to wonder about the wisdom of bringing big iron down below 8000 that far out of class B in VFR conditions. Actually, I don't "wonder" at all, I think it's unconscionably stupid. Feel free to give me a reason to change my mind.

It seems very strange to me too. Especially in the USA where (last I heard) it's still legal to float around in a Tiger Moth without an electrical system, let alone a radio.

In New Zealand, even quite small towns such as Napier (60k), Gisborne (36k), New Plymouth (57k) have controlled airspace around them, and as far as I know commercial IFR flights are kept entirely out of uncontrolled airpace.

https://skyvector.com/?ll=-38.585102563097955,175.58020021765563&chart=301&zoom=9

Smaller towns with scheduled service such as Taupo (24k), Kerikeri (7k) don't.

Whangarei (56k) is I think the only anomaly of being relatively large but without controlled airspace. (or maybe Gisborne is the anomaly)

[Ron Gleason]

On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 07:24:48 UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:13:57 PM UTC-4, mic pilot wrote:
> > It seems like this incident took place near teddy intersection at approx. 7000 msl? That’s just a really bad place flying if you’re not talking to ATC, with or without a transponder. Teddy is major point on the arrival and anyone that’s flown into ORD has heard of it.
> > The flight aware track is deceiving because the jet does a few turns over Janesville at 10000msl but that’s not where the conflict took place. It was SE of JVL at 7000msl when the jet had to climb to miss an aircraft.
> >
> > As glider pilots we really need to know where the jet traffic is and not go there unless you're in contact with ATC. Look up all the major airports you fly near on Airnav.com, read about the runways, and especially the STAR arrivals, also frequencies, and phone numbers are helpful. You can download free copies of the STARS. Knowing what runways they are using based on winds the day of your flight can help.
> > Then on your flights, if the lift takes you near a busy intersection at the altitude used, call ATC. If you’re well below the traffic, maybe just listen? However, know that if you have a transponder and don’t call, you are causing a lot of chatter on a busy frequency. They will all be trying to figure out what you’re doing.
>
> Hi Mic,
>
> Wellllllll... since a lot of this is all new to me it's a cinch that it's new to many, if not most glider pilots. Never heard of a STAR until this discussion. Didn't know you could get free copies :-).
>
> This would be a good opportunity for some knowledgeable glider + airline pilot or glider pilot + ATC guy to do an article or two. Let me be first to provide such encouragement.
>
> But I really have to wonder about the wisdom of bringing big iron down below 8000 that far out of class B in VFR conditions. Actually, I don't "wonder" at all, I think it's unconscionably stupid. Feel free to give me a reason to change my mind.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan, here in Northern and Central Utah we have built a great relationship with the folks at Salt Lake Center, commercial, and Clover Center, military, over the last 3-4 years. We are fortunate to have a number of commercial pilots within the ranks of the club and one retired ATC pilot.

I flew out of the Minden NV and Truckee CA airports a couple of summers ago and was impressed with the documented procedures they have established with the Northern CA ATC for traffic going into and out of Reno NV. We used their documents, with permission, as templates and sat down with the folks at Salt Lake Air Traffic Control.

On the club web site http://utahsoaring.org/ we have provided three documents for all pilots (you can follow the links from the main page of the web site or use the links below)

Talking to Air Traffic Control - http://utahsoaring.org/Documents/SLC%20ATC/Talking%20to%20Air%20Traffic%20Control.pdf this document reviews the "lingo" that best to use when speaking with ATC

Flow Maps:

SLC North http://utahsoaring.org/Documents/SLC%20ATC/Glider%20N%20Plate.pdf
SLC South http://utahsoaring.org/Documents/SLC%20ATC/Glider%20S%20Plate.pdf

These maps are designed to be printed and kept in glider cockpits for quick reference. They were developed by the folks at SLC ATC


Recommended Communication Procedures For Flying Gliders - http://utahsoaring.org/Documents/SLC%20ATC/USA%20Comm%20Doc%20Rev%201.pdf

This document is lengthy but reviews all the airports currently used in Northern and Central UT by the club for soaring operations, procedures, communications and a link to SkyVector for all the STAR (arrival) and RD (departure) routes.

I would encourage you and your club to contact and meet with the appropriate ATC personal and discuss soaring activities, locations and procedures. I am sure you will be welcomed.

If you would like some contact information for the personal in SLC to provide to your local ATC folks, contact me directly and I will be happy to share.

Ron Gleason


PS - I will encourage the pilot that is retired ATC to provide an article to soaring magazine

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 9:24:48 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:13:57 PM UTC-4, mic pilot wrote:
> > It seems like this incident took place near teddy intersection at approx. 7000 msl? That’s just a really bad place flying if you’re not talking to ATC, with or without a transponder. Teddy is major point on the arrival and anyone that’s flown into ORD has heard of it.
> > The flight aware track is deceiving because the jet does a few turns over Janesville at 10000msl but that’s not where the conflict took place. It was SE of JVL at 7000msl when the jet had to climb to miss an aircraft.
> >
> > As glider pilots we really need to know where the jet traffic is and not go there unless you're in contact with ATC. Look up all the major airports you fly near on Airnav.com, read about the runways, and especially the STAR arrivals, also frequencies, and phone numbers are helpful. You can download free copies of the STARS. Knowing what runways they are using based on winds the day of your flight can help.
> > Then on your flights, if the lift takes you near a busy intersection at the altitude used, call ATC. If you’re well below the traffic, maybe just listen? However, know that if you have a transponder and don’t call, you are causing a lot of chatter on a busy frequency. They will all be trying to figure out what you’re doing.
>
> Hi Mic,
>
> Wellllllll... since a lot of this is all new to me it's a cinch that it's new to many, if not most glider pilots. Never heard of a STAR until this discussion. Didn't know you could get free copies :-).
>
> This would be a good opportunity for some knowledgeable glider + airline pilot or glider pilot + ATC guy to do an article or two. Let me be first to provide such encouragement.
>
> But I really have to wonder about the wisdom of bringing big iron down below 8000 that far out of class B in VFR conditions. Actually, I don't "wonder" at all, I think it's unconscionably stupid. Feel free to give me a reason to change my mind.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

At our operation in the Hudson valley of New York we have been dealing with this situation for many years. Heavies come over us at about 7000 feet, sometimes about 6000 feet, more than 40 miles from their destination at Newark.
I recently got a phone call from a man at Boston Center(they control this airspace)in response to a reported conflict in our area between a jet and a glider. Not characterized as a near miss(hit?).
He asked if we know about the jets flying overhead.
I said yes.
I described how we know of them and what we do to avoid conflict.
It turns out that the conflict was near a VOR about 10 miles away and happened on a day we were not flying. We avoid the area of the VOR. I explained this and why.
He then asked how many gliders we would have in the air, stating his assumption that it would be 3 or 4.
When I explained that it could be 5 to 20 at altitudes of surface to the top of the convective layer, and could commonly be 6000 to 7000 feet, he got very quiet.
Next he asked how many had transponders. I told him about 20%.
Response was "Oh".
I asked why they are so low 40 miles out and got no explanation.
The take away for me was:
1)ATC does not know we are there, even though charts depict our activity.
2) They wrongly assume everybody has a transponder.
3)They do not take the time to make themselves aware of avoidable conflict.
4)We have to make ourselves aware of the conflict conditions and avoid those places.
FWIW
UH

[Ron Gleason]

On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:04:27 UTC-6, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 07:24:48 UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:13:57 PM UTC-4, mic pilot wrote:
> > > It seems like this incident took place near teddy intersection at approx. 7000 msl? That’s just a really bad place flying if you’re not talking to ATC, with or without a transponder. Teddy is major point on the arrival and anyone that’s flown into ORD has heard of it..
> > > The flight aware track is deceiving because the jet does a few turns over Janesville at 10000msl but that’s not where the conflict took place. It was SE of JVL at 7000msl when the jet had to climb to miss an aircraft.
> > >
> > > As glider pilots we really need to know where the jet traffic is and not go there unless you're in contact with ATC. Look up all the major airports you fly near on Airnav.com, read about the runways, and especially the STAR arrivals, also frequencies, and phone numbers are helpful. You can download free copies of the STARS. Knowing what runways they are using based on winds the day of your flight can help.
> > > Then on your flights, if the lift takes you near a busy intersection at the altitude used, call ATC. If you’re well below the traffic, maybe just listen? However, know that if you have a transponder and don’t call, you are causing a lot of chatter on a busy frequency. They will all be trying to figure out what you’re doing.
> >
> > Hi Mic,
> >
> > Wellllllll... since a lot of this is all new to me it's a cinch that it's new to many, if not most glider pilots. Never heard of a STAR until this discussion. Didn't know you could get free copies :-).
> >
> > This would be a good opportunity for some knowledgeable glider + airline pilot or glider pilot + ATC guy to do an article or two. Let me be first to provide such encouragement.
> >
> > But I really have to wonder about the wisdom of bringing big iron down below 8000 that far out of class B in VFR conditions. Actually, I don't "wonder" at all, I think it's unconscionably stupid. Feel free to give me a reason to change my mind.
> >
> > best,
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Evan, here in Northern and Central Utah we have built a great relationship with the folks at Salt Lake Center, commercial, and Clover Center, military, over the last 3-4 years. We are fortunate to have a number of commercial pilots within the ranks of the club and one retired ATC pilot.
>
> I flew out of the Minden NV and Truckee CA airports a couple of summers ago and was impressed with the documented procedures they have established with the Northern CA ATC for traffic going into and out of Reno NV. We used their documents, with permission, as templates and sat down with the folks at Salt Lake Air Traffic Control.
>
> On the club web site http://utahsoaring.org/ we have provided three documents for all pilots (you can follow the links from the main page of the web site or use the links below)
>
> Talking to Air Traffic Control - http://utahsoaring.org/Documents/SLC%20ATC/Talking%20to%20Air%20Traffic%20Control.pdf this document reviews the "lingo" that best to use when speaking with ATC
>
> Flow Maps:
>
> SLC North http://utahsoaring.org/Documents/SLC%20ATC/Glider%20N%20Plate.pdf
> SLC South http://utahsoaring.org/Documents/SLC%20ATC/Glider%20S%20Plate.pdf
>
> These maps are designed to be printed and kept in glider cockpits for quick reference. They were developed by the folks at SLC ATC
>
>
> Recommended Communication Procedures For Flying Gliders - http://utahsoaring.org/Documents/SLC%20ATC/USA%20Comm%20Doc%20Rev%201.pdf
>
> This document is lengthy but reviews all the airports currently used in Northern and Central UT by the club for soaring operations, procedures, communications and a link to SkyVector for all the STAR (arrival) and RD (departure) routes.
>
> I would encourage you and your club to contact and meet with the appropriate ATC personal and discuss soaring activities, locations and procedures. I am sure you will be welcomed.
>
> If you would like some contact information for the personal in SLC to provide to your local ATC folks, contact me directly and I will be happy to share.
>
> Ron Gleason
>
>
> PS - I will encourage the pilot that is retired ATC to provide an article to soaring magazine

One other note, all instructors within the club review these procedures with their students when appropriate. During the spring checkouts, all pilots must get a checkout to utilize club gliders, a review is done and the club sponsors 1-3 winter meetings and we review the procedures, ask questions and some years we role play and have a complete simulated radio discussion between ATC and the glider. The folks from SLC ATC have come to the winter meetings, answered questions, taken feedback and most importantly put a face to voice on the radio.

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 11:04:27 AM UTC-4, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 07:24:48 UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:13:57 PM UTC-4, mic pilot wrote:
> > > It seems like this incident took place near teddy intersection at approx. 7000 msl? That’s just a really bad place flying if you’re not talking to ATC, with or without a transponder. Teddy is major point on the arrival and anyone that’s flown into ORD has heard of it..
> > > The flight aware track is deceiving because the jet does a few turns over Janesville at 10000msl but that’s not where the conflict took place. It was SE of JVL at 7000msl when the jet had to climb to miss an aircraft.
> > >
> > > As glider pilots we really need to know where the jet traffic is and not go there unless you're in contact with ATC. Look up all the major airports you fly near on Airnav.com, read about the runways, and especially the STAR arrivals, also frequencies, and phone numbers are helpful. You can download free copies of the STARS. Knowing what runways they are using based on winds the day of your flight can help.
> > > Then on your flights, if the lift takes you near a busy intersection at the altitude used, call ATC. If you’re well below the traffic, maybe just listen? However, know that if you have a transponder and don’t call, you are causing a lot of chatter on a busy frequency. They will all be trying to figure out what you’re doing.
> >
> > Hi Mic,
> >
> > Wellllllll... since a lot of this is all new to me it's a cinch that it's new to many, if not most glider pilots. Never heard of a STAR until this discussion. Didn't know you could get free copies :-).
> >
> > This would be a good opportunity for some knowledgeable glider + airline pilot or glider pilot + ATC guy to do an article or two. Let me be first to provide such encouragement.
> >
> > But I really have to wonder about the wisdom of bringing big iron down below 8000 that far out of class B in VFR conditions. Actually, I don't "wonder" at all, I think it's unconscionably stupid. Feel free to give me a reason to change my mind.
> >
> > best,
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Evan, here in Northern and Central Utah we have built a great relationship with the folks at Salt Lake Center, commercial, and Clover Center, military, over the last 3-4 years. We are fortunate to have a number of commercial pilots within the ranks of the club and one retired ATC pilot.
>
> I flew out of the Minden NV and Truckee CA airports a couple of summers ago and was impressed with the documented procedures they have established with the Northern CA ATC for traffic going into and out of Reno NV. We used their documents, with permission, as templates and sat down with the folks at Salt Lake Air Traffic Control.
>
> On the club web site http://utahsoaring.org/ we have provided three documents for all pilots (you can follow the links from the main page of the web site or use the links below)
>
> Talking to Air Traffic Control - http://utahsoaring.org/Documents/SLC%20ATC/Talking%20to%20Air%20Traffic%20Control.pdf this document reviews the "lingo" that best to use when speaking with ATC
>
> Flow Maps:
>
> SLC North http://utahsoaring.org/Documents/SLC%20ATC/Glider%20N%20Plate.pdf
> SLC South http://utahsoaring.org/Documents/SLC%20ATC/Glider%20S%20Plate.pdf
>
> These maps are designed to be printed and kept in glider cockpits for quick reference. They were developed by the folks at SLC ATC
>
>
> Recommended Communication Procedures For Flying Gliders - http://utahsoaring.org/Documents/SLC%20ATC/USA%20Comm%20Doc%20Rev%201.pdf
>
> This document is lengthy but reviews all the airports currently used in Northern and Central UT by the club for soaring operations, procedures, communications and a link to SkyVector for all the STAR (arrival) and RD (departure) routes.
>
> I would encourage you and your club to contact and meet with the appropriate ATC personal and discuss soaring activities, locations and procedures. I am sure you will be welcomed.
>
> If you would like some contact information for the personal in SLC to provide to your local ATC folks, contact me directly and I will be happy to share.
>
> Ron Gleason
>
>
> PS - I will encourage the pilot that is retired ATC to provide an article to soaring magazine

Hi Ron,

Great stuff, thank you for sharing!

We don't have this issue at my home club, but I travel... I'm quite interested in learning this stuff and raising awareness.

best,
Evan

[kinsell]

On 10/02/2017 03:13 PM, mic pilot wrote:
> It seems like this incident took place near teddy intersection at approx. 7000 msl? That’s just a really bad place flying if you’re not talking to ATC, with or without a transponder. Teddy is major point on the arrival and anyone that’s flown into ORD has heard of it.
> The flight aware track is deceiving because the jet does a few turns over Janesville at 10000msl but that’s not where the conflict took place. It was SE of JVL at 7000msl when the jet had to climb to miss an aircraft.
>
> As glider pilots we really need to know where the jet traffic is and not go there unless you're in contact with ATC. Look up all the major airports you fly near on Airnav.com, read about the runways, and especially the STAR arrivals, also frequencies, and phone numbers are helpful. You can download free copies of the STARS. Knowing what runways they are using based on winds the day of your flight can help.
> Then on your flights, if the lift takes you near a busy intersection at the altitude used, call ATC. If you’re well below the traffic, maybe just listen? However, know that if you have a transponder and don’t call, you are causing a lot of chatter on a busy frequency. They will all be trying to figure out what you’re doing.
>

So I've seen the conflict described as taking place 43 nautical out at
6800 msl. That's not a wedding cake, that's a friggin pancake! Apart
from the traffic issues, you've got increased fuel burn down low, and
noise abatement issues. I'd sure like to hear who decided running
airliners that low was a good idea.

I live slightly farther away from a major international airport, and
both the arrivals and departures are a whole lot higher than that, even
accounting for a 5000 ft delta in airport elevations.

I agree with your recommendations, but getting a transponder installed
has got to be at the top of a list, and using it whenever in the air.
It's amazing how many people think they can guess when they need to turn
it on. Funny thing about accidents, you never see them coming.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

It is really frustrating that for the most part, both the flying and non-flying public/lawmakers/administrators/controllers and even fellow aviators, have little to no understanding of how glider operate and what they can do. During the 18 meter nationals the CD had multiple calls with local Air Force Base, during one such call the CD was asked is the gliders could just stay within 5 miles of Uvalde, and I know the Air Force has gliders.


On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 8:04:57 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 9:24:48 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:13:57 PM UTC-4, mic pilot wrote:
> > > It seems like this incident took place near teddy intersection at approx. 7000 msl? That’s just a really bad place flying if you’re not talking to ATC, with or without a transponder. Teddy is major point on the arrival and anyone that’s flown into ORD has heard of it..
> > > The flight aware track is deceiving because the jet does a few turns over Janesville at 10000msl but that’s not where the conflict took place. It was SE of JVL at 7000msl when the jet had to climb to miss an aircraft.
> > >
> > > As glider pilots we really need to know where the jet traffic is and not go there unless you're in contact with ATC. Look up all the major airports you fly near on Airnav.com, read about the runways, and especially the STAR arrivals, also frequencies, and phone numbers are helpful. You can download free copies of the STARS. Knowing what runways they are using based on winds the day of your flight can help.
> > > Then on your flights, if the lift takes you near a busy intersection at the altitude used, call ATC. If you’re well below the traffic, maybe just listen? However, know that if you have a transponder and don’t call, you are causing a lot of chatter on a busy frequency. They will all be trying to figure out what you’re doing.
> >
> > Hi Mic,
> >
> > Wellllllll... since a lot of this is all new to me it's a cinch that it's new to many, if not most glider pilots. Never heard of a STAR until this discussion. Didn't know you could get free copies :-).
> >
> > This would be a good opportunity for some knowledgeable glider + airline pilot or glider pilot + ATC guy to do an article or two. Let me be first to provide such encouragement.
> >
> > But I really have to wonder about the wisdom of bringing big iron down below 8000 that far out of class B in VFR conditions. Actually, I don't "wonder" at all, I think it's unconscionably stupid. Feel free to give me a reason to change my mind.
> >
> > best,
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> At our operation in the Hudson valley of New York we have been dealing with this situation for many years. Heavies come over us at about 7000 feet, sometimes about 6000 feet, more than 40 miles from their destination at Newark.
> I recently got a phone call from a man at Boston Center(they control this airspace)in response to a reported conflict in our area between a jet and a glider. Not characterized as a near miss(hit?).
> He asked if we know about the jets flying overhead.
> I said yes.
> I described how we know of them and what we do to avoid conflict.
> It turns out that the conflict was near a VOR about 10 miles away and happened on a day we were not flying. We avoid the area of the VOR. I explained this and why.
> He then asked how many gliders we would have in the air, stating his assumption that it would be 3 or 4.
> When I explained that it could be 5 to 20 at altitudes of surface to the top of the convective layer, and could commonly be 6000 to 7000 feet, he got very quiet.
> Next he asked how many had transponders. I told him about 20%.
> Response was "Oh".
> I asked why they are so low 40 miles out and got no explanation.
> The take away for me was:
> 1)ATC does not know we are there, even though charts depict our activity.
> 2) They wrongly assume everybody has a transponder.
> 3)They do not take the time to make themselves aware of avoidable conflict.

[Ron Gleason]

On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 10:27:54 UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> It is really frustrating that for the most part, both the flying and non-flying public/lawmakers/administrators/controllers and even fellow aviators, have little to no understanding of how glider operate and what they can do. During the 18 meter nationals the CD had multiple calls with local Air Force Base, during one such call the CD was asked is the gliders could just stay within 5 miles of Uvalde, and I know the Air Force has gliders.
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 8:04:57 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 9:24:48 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:13:57 PM UTC-4, mic pilot wrote:
> > > > It seems like this incident took place near teddy intersection at approx. 7000 msl? That’s just a really bad place flying if you’re not talking to ATC, with or without a transponder. Teddy is major point on the arrival and anyone that’s flown into ORD has heard of it.
> > > > The flight aware track is deceiving because the jet does a few turns over Janesville at 10000msl but that’s not where the conflict took place. It was SE of JVL at 7000msl when the jet had to climb to miss an aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > As glider pilots we really need to know where the jet traffic is and not go there unless you're in contact with ATC. Look up all the major airports you fly near on Airnav.com, read about the runways, and especially the STAR arrivals, also frequencies, and phone numbers are helpful. You can download free copies of the STARS. Knowing what runways they are using based on winds the day of your flight can help.
> > > > Then on your flights, if the lift takes you near a busy intersection at the altitude used, call ATC. If you’re well below the traffic, maybe just listen? However, know that if you have a transponder and don’t call, you are causing a lot of chatter on a busy frequency. They will all be trying to figure out what you’re doing.
> > >
> > > Hi Mic,
> > >
> > > Wellllllll... since a lot of this is all new to me it's a cinch that it's new to many, if not most glider pilots. Never heard of a STAR until this discussion. Didn't know you could get free copies :-).
> > >
> > > This would be a good opportunity for some knowledgeable glider + airline pilot or glider pilot + ATC guy to do an article or two. Let me be first to provide such encouragement.
> > >
> > > But I really have to wonder about the wisdom of bringing big iron down below 8000 that far out of class B in VFR conditions. Actually, I don't "wonder" at all, I think it's unconscionably stupid. Feel free to give me a reason to change my mind.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Evan Ludeman / T8
> >
> > At our operation in the Hudson valley of New York we have been dealing with this situation for many years. Heavies come over us at about 7000 feet, sometimes about 6000 feet, more than 40 miles from their destination at Newark.
> > I recently got a phone call from a man at Boston Center(they control this airspace)in response to a reported conflict in our area between a jet and a glider. Not characterized as a near miss(hit?).
> > He asked if we know about the jets flying overhead.
> > I said yes.
> > I described how we know of them and what we do to avoid conflict.
> > It turns out that the conflict was near a VOR about 10 miles away and happened on a day we were not flying. We avoid the area of the VOR. I explained this and why.
> > He then asked how many gliders we would have in the air, stating his assumption that it would be 3 or 4.
> > When I explained that it could be 5 to 20 at altitudes of surface to the top of the convective layer, and could commonly be 6000 to 7000 feet, he got very quiet.
> > Next he asked how many had transponders. I told him about 20%.
> > Response was "Oh".
> > I asked why they are so low 40 miles out and got no explanation.
> > The take away for me was:
> > 1)ATC does not know we are there, even though charts depict our activity.
> > 2) They wrongly assume everybody has a transponder.
> > 3)They do not take the time to make themselves aware of avoidable conflict.
> > 4)We have to make ourselves aware of the conflict conditions and avoid those places.
> > FWIW
> > UH

Johnathan I hear what you are saying but it is easy for the clubs and contest organizers to reach out and build awareness. Here in Northern Utah we work very close with SLC ATC, the folks at Clover Center for the MOA's and Restricted areas and Denver ATC during the Nephi contests/events.

We make them aware of the events and each day we send tasks sheets and other information to let know where we will be and when. If we are tasking through MOA's the folks at Clover will move activities if there are any. Yes, we check TFR's, NOTAM's and call them first thing in the morning before we decide to task through that area.

The folks at SLC will keep the jets higher for the arrival corridor that passes directly over the area west of the airport and the commonly used for start cylinders.

We have a direct number to ATC to let them know the exact time we start launching and we call them at the end of the contest day. It works well and adds minimal workload for the ground ops person.

The communication goes both ways. During the 2016 Nationals I got a call from ATC to let us know that a NOTAM was just filed for a temporary jump zone at one the airports along the task we had called. We were able to inform the pilots to be aware if they had to use that airport.

Should all be aware of us? Of course but they are not and building the awareness is easy and quite enlightening.

We also make sure they have the link to the SSA tracking site and they have really enjoyed watching along!

[Magnetar]

Interesting read of all comments/replies.

I flew in France near Paris where we have inbound/outbound traffic from three major airports:
_Paris Charles de Gaulle (LFPG) - 50km away
_Paris Orly (LFPO) - 40km away
_Pars Le Bourget (LFPB) - 40km away

We were operating under a Class A airspace with strict restrictions in terms of altitude. Basically, we could not fly above 760m MSL (2500ft) above the airport, then 1060m MSL (3500ft) 10km away and so on... So we sat down with the DGAC (french FAA) and local ATC and managed to discuss operational processes with which we could extend our max altitude on days we were flying..

Basically, each pilot was supposed to have 5 sectional charts of the region depending on the wind conditions in LFPG/LFPO and whether the derogation was active or not. Our club would call LFPO each morning to activate our "zones" and LFPO would then make sure airliners (like an A380) would stay in Class A airspace. Should the wind condition changed, LFPO would call the club and let us know that the zones would then change in 10-15min. The club would then inform us of the change via the radio.

All pilots had to sign an mutual understanding agreement where we acknowledged those rules and would be held responsible if we would break them. Our chief pilot would then check flights if any suspicion of airspace breach was raised.

Although it was still limiting our ability to fly away quickly, this mutual understanding between ATC and us created a safe place where we would fly safely. Because we had FLARM installed in all airplanes, it provided another security to ATC as he could track us and make sure we would abide by those rules.

The key is always to establish a relationship with ATC where clear navigation rules can be agreed upon for safe flying. Utah Soaring seems to take that even to the next level by providing ATC guidelines and checks/reviews for its pilots. An example to follow for the rest of the community!

On a side note, I flew DL149 yesterday to KEWR: we started our approach 45min before touchdown and spent 1/2h at/below 6,000ft while we could have flown higher, faster, cleaner to intercept the approach on runway 04R. What a waste of time, fuel and money! It is a busy airspace but still there is a GIGANTIC room for improvement/efficiency gains/flight optimization here

Replay on Flightradar24 speaks for itself.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl149#f12e3ce

Fly safe!

[Ramy[_2_]]

It is great that clubs and individuals form relationship with ATC and voluntarily follow procedures, use transponders etc. but the system is only as strong as its weakest link. As long as folks allow themselves to fly without transponders at busy areas, a bad accident may happen.
We didn't hear until now if this midair was avoided thanks to see and avoid or the glider had a transponder which triggered a TCAS alert which saved the day. Will be good to know, and we should know by now.

Ramy

[Wit Wisniewski]

I question the safety culture at the FAA and the airline operators. They do not appear to be minimizing the risk of collision. Do they need to send transport aircraft so much into airspace with VFR traffic that they know exists, is hard to see, and has unknown and unpredictable location? The faster traffic doesn't even have the right of way.

The inverted wedding cakes enable Class A traffic to steeply descend into the Class B or C with minimal transition of airspace containing unknown hazards. Instead, lots of approaches are made fast and shallow.

I expect the FAA and the operators to know that see-and-avoid can't be relied upon when the closing speed is high due to limitations of human eyesight.. High closing speeds hamper detection for both the fast and slow aircraft.

Wouldn't we have a safer environment if the FAA secured more practical technology for the 'little guy'?

I appreciate discussion of GA safety culture, but it is the fast traffic that causes a serious hazard to us and themselves. Gliders and little single engine aircraft don't collide "with" fast traffic, as the reports say. The fast traffic collides INTO the slow traffic. Shouldn't the burden of ensuring safety through technology and procedure be on them?

Wit

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

One would think the Airline Pilots Association would be all over the safety issue of early let downs into general aviation altitudes 40 miles out from the airport.

[Sean Fidler]

It’s utter fantasy to think that it is possible, or even practical, for major Bravo airspace ATC to keep all of their large commercial traffic only inside or above Bravo airspace. The Bravo airspace would need to be much larger. Watch FlightAware for just 5 minutes someday. Commercial traffic is not staying above or inside the Bravo or Charlie (not even close) and hasn’t been happening for 30 years, I suspect. We need to focus on reality and behaving as grown-ups, not fantasies or tales of the “little guys plight.� When these commercial airports get stacked up, which is increasingly often, the risk of collision with dark traffic (no transponder, no ADS-B) is unacceptably high. But the same high risk occurs even at small regional airports in not busy periods for a variety of reasons. I see airliners going into/out of Lansing, Grand Rapids and Flint (Michigan) when flying out of very rural Ionia all the time. I find this extremely concerning (perhaps more of a safety risk that Bravo airspace). If nothing changes, eventually (today, next year...) the glider/airliner accident will happen. The damage from that disaster will be far more costly for the sport of gliding then the cost of the complaints from childish “I’ll hold my breathe before buying a transponder� types who refuse to admit the safety risk. A safety risk primarily caused by the fact that the vast majority of US sailplanes are carrying zero safety equipment (ADS-B or Transponder) despite flying cross country, near major airspace or at high altitude. I vote for improving safety for everyone involved (gliders, private traffic, commercial traffic, ATC, FAA, airline passengers) and for being a sport led by honest, responsible grown-ups.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 10/4/2017 7:29 AM, Wit Wisniewski wrote:
> I question the safety culture at the FAA and the airline operators. They do
> not appear to be minimizing the risk of collision. Do they need to send
> transport aircraft so much into airspace with VFR traffic that they know
> exists, is hard to see, and has unknown and unpredictable location? The
> faster traffic doesn't even have the right of way.
>
> The inverted wedding cakes enable Class A traffic to steeply descend into
> the Class B or C with minimal transition of airspace containing unknown
> hazards. Instead, lots of approaches are made fast and shallow.
>
> I expect the FAA and the operators to know that see-and-avoid can't be
> relied upon when the closing speed is high due to limitations of human
> eyesight. High closing speeds hamper detection for both the fast and slow
> aircraft.
>
> Wouldn't we have a safer environment if the FAA secured more practical
> technology for the 'little guy'?
>
> I appreciate discussion of GA safety culture, but it is the fast traffic
> that causes a serious hazard to us and themselves. Gliders and little
> single engine aircraft don't collide "with" fast traffic, as the reports
> say. The fast traffic collides INTO the slow traffic. Shouldn't the burden
> of ensuring safety through technology and procedure be on them?

Absolutely! But since the (1955?) airliner collision over the Grand Canyon
brought us "controlled airspace," the steady progression has been to throw
huge amounts of money into technology (e.g. radars, transponders, control
infrastructure, etc.) in conjunction with ever-increasing-in-scope/complexity
airspace grabs/segmentation until (IHMO) ever since "the inverted wedding cake
airspace grab" it seems as though the FAA has - in effect (though not
lip-service PR) - thrown up its hands in the "What more can we *possibly* do?"
mode, while continuing to shovel gobs of (public and private) money (e.g. [the
never-implemented] microwave landing system, ADSB) "at aviation safety."

When their actions (and inactions) post wedding-cake-grab are examined with a
cold, rational, eye, my working conclusion is unavoidably "the little guy"
(i.e. non-corporate GA) has only reluctantly been "included" via some
(reluctant) "waiving actions" in conjunction with generally unpublicized,
rarely-discussed, FAA actions seemingly having the unavoidable
likely-over-time result of killing non-corporate GA by a thousand
cuts...*including* putting the onus of failure to detect and avoid on *GA*
come the day we all dread, the day "the Beloit incident" becomes the "Glider
rams airliner! Hundreds Killed!!!" The FAA's own contributions will be ignored
in "the rush to improved public safety."

Call it (many other phrases are easily imagined) "unconscionable," lying,
"disconnected safety awareness," complacency, wishful-thinking, etc., but the
FAA's *actions* when it comes to "doing their best" to: a) maintain
airline/non-corporate GA separation; b) live up to their public words
justifying "the inverted wedding cake airspace grab" (which was effectively,
the next-to-most-recent "major step" on the airspace front, re-naming not
being counted); c) publicize their "generally unknown to non-IFR-segements of
non-corporate GA" operating steps (e.g. STARs, SIDs, below 10,000' arrivals
into the *sides* of inverted wedding cakes, etc.), are arguably seemingly
intended to "help" result in an eventual public outcry that will simply insist
on making non-corporate GA go away entirely and forever.

I wouldn't call their actions a "conspiracy" or anything, because that implies
considerably more intelligence, active planning, and individual culpability
than I'm guessing actually has existed through the years, but the reality is
today's "public discussion" effectively puts "all the onus" on non-corporate
GA for "continued airline anti-collision safety," when in fact the FAA
continues to be a(n apparently) willing, active, contributor by
apparently-negligent support of - distressingly routine, in my
rocky-mountain-west-centric observational experience - arrival status-quos
involving early descents of commercial passenger airliners into "see and avoid
airspace." Much of that - at least in the Denver area - is *above* the 10k'
250-knot speed-limited altitude.

Technology is a powerful tool, but like any tool, those used without
"associated intelligence" generally have easily predictable dangerous
side-effects. Put me in the category that's of the opinion that "today's
airspace operating realities" are an example of "technology used unwisely."

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[[email protected]]

You know what would be safer than ball roasters? Teaching glider pilots how to call ATC. Bunch of snowflakes that think installing a beeper so the world can avoid them is the way to go, so shortsighted. Transponder returns flying sailplane profiles without ATC radio contact are either going to make a big stink(everyone with incockpit traffic says they can't believe how much is out there, wait until the airlines can see how many gliders are out there) or the atypical transponder returns will be ignored. Never forget how good the human brain is at ignoring things that don't make immediate sense. Wonder if the software filters lowspeed transponder returns same as lowspeed radar returns?
I have a better safety idea, let's just cut our nuts off before frying them and ask the FAA to limit all glider activity to <10,000' Safety first. If the FAA won't do it maybe the newly crowned private airspace overlords will. As the Minden collision proves, glider pilots can't be trusted to run transponders. No one in the community honestly believes a glider pilot is going to land early because he doesn't have enough battery power to run his transponder to the end of the flight.

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

OK, my take....

Having spoken to ATC guys up,and down the east coast of the US (I supported equipment for airports and ATC) as well as a number of "heavy iron drivers".... the pilots and their company want them high and fast as long as possible, why? Fuel economy.

ATC wants them below 10k' so they are below the 250kt limit. This is to handle busy airspace and help with workload.

I feel the current US bills on ATC are airline centric.

Pilots want to be higher.
Commercial airlines want to be higher due to costs.
Most GA (gliders included) want heavy iron higher to stay away.

If ATC followed the US "wedding cake", most issues go away......most.

Yes, you still have private jets (small number) and corporate or "undetermined" in the mix, but rather small numbers.

Hoping these pilots make a comment, but I believe they will agree. "Stay high for fuel, slam dunk to a landing". Good on costs, less "crap" to avoid.
At minimum, stay above Cu cloudbase, unless wave is happening, a bit less to avoid, especially on a weekend/long weekend.

My unedumacated $0.02

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 5:21:37 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:

> ATC wants them below 10k' so they are below the 250kt limit. This is to handle busy airspace and help with workload.

Interested to know if this can be confirmed.

-T8

[Bruce Hoult]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 2:05:08 PM UTC+3, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 5:21:37 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
>
> > ATC wants them below 10k' so they are below the 250kt limit. This is to handle busy airspace and help with workload.
>
> Interested to know if this can be confirmed.

It doesn't make sense to me.

Workload might be proportional to the number of aircraft per hour (which doesn't change), or to the number of aircraft in the air in your sector (in which case get them on the ground ASAP is better than having them pootling around under 250 knots).

The controller's displays all show where the plane is now and will be in 2 minutes (or whatever) anyway, so speed should be irrelevant.

[Ramy[_2_]]

I stopped reading after "bunch of snowflakes" as it is now clear we dealing with a clueless troll. Glad I don't need to share the air with him.

Ramy

[Paul Agnew]

If ATC needs me at 250kts, regardless of altitude, they simply issue a clearance for whatever speed they need to fit their flow. They don't descend me below 10k for the benefit of the 250kt below 10k rule.

Paul A.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 9:49:06 PM UTC+3, Paul Agnew wrote:
> If ATC needs me at 250kts, regardless of altitude, they simply issue a clearance for whatever speed they need to fit their flow. They don't descend me below 10k for the benefit of the 250kt below 10k rule.

Hmm. If you stall clean at 130 you probably don't ever want to see less than 170 indicated. At 18k ft that would be about 240 true. So you could do 250 if asked. But not if you were at 30k ft.

[[email protected]]

The 250 limit is "indicated air speed" not true air speed. The airliner was probably doing ~300 knots at the time of the encounter.

[[email protected]]

Mostly correct. I want to stay high not just because of the fuel consumption and potential traffic issues, but also because the ride is better for me and the passengers up high. Many of the approach control frequencies are separated by altitude. The final approach controller is normally responsible for the airspace up to 10K. Thus, the guy or gal that has to get everyone lined up properly before turning things over to the tower, is that "10k and below" person. The ironic thing, is that the busier the airspace and airport is, the sooner we get forced down into the airspace we do not want to fly in so they can coordinate.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 10:12:39 PM UTC+3, wrote:
> The 250 limit is "indicated air speed" not true air speed. The airliner was probably doing ~300 knots at the time of the encounter.

Well that's weird, because a B737 or A320 or whatever cruising at Mach 0.78 at 35000 ft only has an IAS/EAS of 250 knots *anyway*, even though the TAS is 450.

So unless they go faster on descent the 250 limit is pretty much meaningless.

[jfitch]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 2:14:21 PM UTC-7, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 10:12:39 PM UTC+3, wrote:
> > The 250 limit is "indicated air speed" not true air speed. The airliner was probably doing ~300 knots at the time of the encounter.
>
> Well that's weird, because a B737 or A320 or whatever cruising at Mach 0.78 at 35000 ft only has an IAS/EAS of 250 knots *anyway*, even though the TAS is 450.
>
> So unless they go faster on descent the 250 limit is pretty much meaningless.

Doesn't seem like you thought about that one much. There is no speed limit at 35000 so it is already meaningless. By the altitude that it becomes meaningful, it is meaningful.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 12:35:12 AM UTC+3, jfitch wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 2:14:21 PM UTC-7, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 10:12:39 PM UTC+3, wrote:
> > > The 250 limit is "indicated air speed" not true air speed. The airliner was probably doing ~300 knots at the time of the encounter.
> >
> > Well that's weird, because a B737 or A320 or whatever cruising at Mach 0.78 at 35000 ft only has an IAS/EAS of 250 knots *anyway*, even though the TAS is 450.
> >
> > So unless they go faster on descent the 250 limit is pretty much meaningless.
>
> Doesn't seem like you thought about that one much. There is no speed limit at 35000 so it is already meaningless. By the altitude that it becomes meaningful, it is meaningful.

Really?

So what's the typical maximum IAS seen on a typical 737 flight, then?

They have an Mmo of 340 knots, but I doubt they usually get anywhere near it.

[[email protected]]

> So what's the typical maximum IAS seen on a typical 737 flight, then?
> They have an Mmo of 340 knots, but I doubt they usually get anywhere near it.

Never flown a 737, but they are probably at or near Mmo during descents and in cruise at lower alititudes.
There are several airline pilots that are also glider pilots, so maybe they will reply.
Although, they may be too busy for ras.

If it helps, the IAS for a C560 at FL410 is usually around 230 kias which is ~420 true.
At FL350 the indicated is 250 and below FL250 the power must be reduced to stay below Vne of 290 even in cruise.
Descents from high altitude can only be at full power for a few minutes before Vne is reached and typical descents are done at reduced power.
If allowed by ATC to descend at pilot discretion, then it is easy to descend at Vne with reduced power to the assigned altitude.
If an expedited descent or agressive crossing restriction is given, then the descent may be at idle and sometimes even with spoilers out to stay below Vne.
Obviously the lower the aircraft is (i.e. closer to standard sea level pressure and temperature) the closer the indicated airspeeds is to the true airspeed.
It is usually necessary to start slowing down by 15,000 to be under the 250 knot speed limit at 10,000.
290 kias at 15,000 is 380 knots and 250 kias at 10,000 is 300 knots.

[CindyB[_2_]]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:05:08 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 5:21:37 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
>
> > ATC wants them below 10k' so they are below the 250kt limit. This is to handle busy airspace and help with workload.
>
> Interested to know if this can be confirmed.
>
> -T8

Take a peek at Flight Aware for almost any Class B at which you look. Right now, KORD, 4000 msl 280 kts for a SW 737. Night, junky weather, 1am local, so not much glider worries. But, it has been my observation there are not many air Traffic Cops worried about Part 121 speeders. Perhaps that is an entirely different thread.

Yes, I think transponders in gliders are hugely helpful. But I think pilot education has similar value. Awareness of Patterns of traffic use by all categories is incumbent on all pilots. One of my favorite Cindy-isms is that we shouldn't be playing volleyball on the freeway in rush hour.
We should know the paths heavies mostly use.

We shouldn't call Class E airspace 'uncontrolled'. Controlled airspace means places that IFR traffic can be routed. It does not mean places that a glider must request a clearance before entering. Since IFR traffic can be routed in Class E, those guys need to know that on VFR days they MUST look outside. That a controller and flight plan is NOT sweeping their path clean.

Awareness & education must take place on all three sides of the fence.... GA, Part 121/135 and ATC. (was that a mixed metaphor? sorry. sort of.) It is a blessing that many glider operations have been proactive - in education and in installations of hardware. Need to cross a freeway? Listen in on the Approach freq and learn who's roaring through.

Perhaps we accept this occasion as an opportunity to educate our family, again. We are not the only folks out there in the sky, and we are VERY difficult to see. Even with a TXP active and ATC giving the other guy warnings, I have had to leap out of the path...of the fast guy.

Cindy B

[[email protected]]

>Take a peek at Flight Aware for almost any Class B at which you look. Right now, KORD, 4000 msl 280 kts for a SW 737. Night, junky weather, 1am local, so not much glider worries. But, it has been my observation there are not many air Traffic Cops worried about Part 121 speeders. Perhaps that is an entirely different thread.

Cindy B, excellent points made in your post.
Regarding the speeds, I have found ATC very diligent at monitoring speeds. I've been asked to verify my speed of 250 Kias or less, several times when I am right at the limit. ATC does not even have authority to approve more than 250 Kias. They can approve an increase above the 200 kias limit under class B or in the vfr corridor of class B, but the 250 kias limit is a hard limit. Looking at the flightaware speeds is a little misleading because those are true speeds, does not factor in winds, and are computed based on position change. There is no way to know exactly what the indicated air speed is for the aircraft at a specific point, unless you are in the aircraft.

[[email protected]]

>Take a peek at Flight Aware for almost any Class B at which you look. Right now, KORD, 4000 msl 280 kts for a SW 737. Night, junky weather, 1am local, so not much glider worries. But, it has been my observation there are not many air Traffic Cops worried about Part 121 speeders. Perhaps that is an entirely different thread.

Cindy B, excellent points made in your post.
Regarding the speeds, I have found ATC very diligent at monitoring speeds. I've been asked to verify my speed of 250 Kias or less, several times when I am right at the limit. ATC does not even have authority to approve more than 250 Kias. They can approve an increase above the 200 kias limit under class B or in the vfr corridor of class B, but the 250 kias limit is a hard limit. Looking at the flightaware speeds is a little misleading because those are ground speeds that are effected by wind speed and direction. The speeds are also computed based on position change, so it is an approximation of ground speed. There is no way to know exactly what the indicated air speed is for the aircraft at a specific point, unless you are in the aircraft. Flightaware is great to see the patterns of flights in a general area, see the typical altitudes, and to realize how fast some of the aircraft are traveling at low altitude.

Again, because many of us throw the 250 number around so frequently, most pilots forget that the number is "indicated airspeed"; and that 250 kias at 10,000 ft, is really 300 knots.

For those that wonder why the controllers want everyone low at the same alititude, remember the systems they are using. It is a good idea to go visit a center and/or tower. The systems are all a flat screens that are great at projecting potential flight paths at the current speeds. The systems and the humans are great at visualizing these horizontal components. It is more difficult to visualize and manage the vertical component of altitude. Likewise, aircraft can maintain an airspeed very well which makes horizontal speeds more consistent. Vertical speeds are more difficult to predict and control by the computers and controllers. Every center and tower I have visited have been staffed by some of the nicest and most professional staff you will ever meet. I have witnessed a few stressed and angry controllers on the radio, but the vast majority are a great resource and well trained. It would be a shame to see it privatized and screwed up.

[Steve Koerner]

>> Vertical speeds are more difficult to predict and control by the computers and controllers.

Bingo! I think we finally solved the mystery as to why the hell ATC seems to be so inclined to drag airliners in low. The problem boils down to the fact that during descent, an airplane is inherently occupying a much greater volume of airspace then they are in level flight. Far out, there is plenty of room to accommodate that uncertainty volume that the airplane needs while descending. As you get closer to the terminal, there is less volume to work with (1/r^2) and the controllers are wanting tighter control which they can get with level flight and smallish altitude changes.

I don't like it one bit, but that's undoubtedly why it's happening. ATC needs to recalibrate the risk that they're taking by running heavies through airspace shared with gliders. As others have pointed out, they're likely oblivious to how prevalent gliders are and how hard we are to see and avoid.

[WhiskyRomeo2]

----ATC needs to recalibrate the risk that they're taking by running heavies through airspace shared with gliders. As others have pointed out, they're likely oblivious to how prevalent gliders are and how hard we are to see and avoid----


I'd say this goes both ways. We as GA glider pilots need to recalibrate the risk we take when operating near Class B and busy Class C airspace. That airspace does not "belong" to us as VFR aviators, it's mutual use see and avoid airspace. You should know the hot spots and avoid them, you should have a transponder (turning it on would be nice), and maybe even talk to or monitor ATC occasionally. Or we can complain to the Feds about heavy metal flying thru "our airspace" until the Feds decide "your right, that is high risk, I'll think we'll double the size of the Class B/C airspace. Thanks for the input glider dude". We are very fortunate to have the airspace access we have here in the good ol USofA. I don't wanna look like Europe.
WR

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 11:34:17 AM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> >> Vertical speeds are more difficult to predict and control by the computers and controllers.
>
> Bingo! I think we finally solved the mystery as to why the hell ATC seems to be so inclined to drag airliners in low. The problem boils down to the fact that during descent, an airplane is inherently occupying a much greater volume of airspace then they are in level flight. Far out, there is plenty of room to accommodate that uncertainty volume that the airplane needs while descending. As you get closer to the terminal, there is less volume to work with (1/r^2) and the controllers are wanting tighter control which they can get with level flight and smallish altitude changes.
>
> I don't like it one bit, but that's undoubtedly why it's happening. ATC needs to recalibrate the risk that they're taking by running heavies through airspace shared with gliders. As others have pointed out, they're likely oblivious to how prevalent gliders are and how hard we are to see and avoid.

If that airliner goes over us in level flight at 9000 instead of 6000, it isn't consuming any more volume. It does possibly eliminate one descent step for the approach controller which is likely why they do it.
UH

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 4:36:45 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> If that airliner goes over us in level flight at 9000 instead of 6000, it isn't consuming any more
> volume. It does possibly eliminate one descent step for the approach controller which is likely
> why they do it.
> UH

What Steve was trying to say is that if the plane were to be flying a steady descent from 9 to 6 it would be consuming ALL the airspace from 9 to 6, not just the diagonal vector. So they cannot vector a plane at 7k across that path because it's *possible* that the plane will descend from 9 to 6 in less than a mile vs. the hoped for gentle descent.

5Z

[Steve Koerner]

> What Steve was trying to say is that if the plane were to be flying a steady descent from 9 to 6 it would be consuming ALL the airspace from 9 to 6, not just the diagonal vector. So they cannot vector a plane at 7k across that path because it's *possible* that the plane will descend from 9 to 6 in less than a mile vs. the hoped for gentle descent.
>
> 5Z

Yes, exactly Tom. The further out that they can get an airliner low, the less airspace they will consume getting him down in close to the vicinity of the terminal where the airspace is more precious.

[[email protected]]

>"250 kias limit is a hard limit"
I need to clarify my previous post. I should have stated, "250 kias limit is a hard limit for civilian aircraft". One of the things Wes made me aware of when getting an orientation at Seminole, is that there is a military IR route just west of the airport over the green swamp. As most pilots are aware, the military can exceed the 250 kias limit on their training routes even below 10,000. Even below 1,500 ft in some cases. The military speed limit below 10,000 ft is 420 kias and their "minimum" speed is usually 300 knots. Many of the routes are for IFR military training and they are under the control of ATC and possibly not looking out the windows. Flying near these routes without a transponder would not seem prudent. ATC is keeping other IFR traffic out of the area. If a VFR pilot ventures into one of these routes, then the VFR pilot should probably assume they have full responsibility for separation.

I have not seen it discussed previously, or I may have missed it. I have had reservations about flying near airways or crossing airways in the glider.. As most gliders are certified in the experimental category, the FAR rule about not flying over densely populated areas and "in a congested airway" applies. Since I have Mode S transponders in my gliders, I am aware that ATC can see exactly where I am and who I am. I have never seen a definition of "congested". I have monitored the traffic on airways near where I primarily fly, both via ADSB-IN in my other aircraft and using Flightaware. I think I could justify that the airways I cross are not "congested", but the term is obviously subject to some interpretation. In the case of the United246 incident, there are many airways in the area. Most of the airways have a minimum altitude for IFR traffic less than 3000 ft. Likewise, since STARS into ORD use some of the airways, then those might be considered congested, or at least frequently used airways. If it is not permissible to fly in a congested airway, then it seems an argument could be made that we must fly under it?

[[email protected]]

>>"the 250 kias limit is a hard limit"


I need to clarify my previous post. I should have stated, "250 kias limit is a hard limit for civilian aircraft". One of the things Wes made me aware of when getting an orientation at Seminole, is that there is a military IR route just west of the airport over the green swamp. As most pilots are aware, the military can exceed the 250 kias limit on their training routes even below 10,000. Even below 1,500 ft in some cases. The military speed limit below 10,000 ft is Mach 1 although they typically fly somewhere between 300 kias and 420 kias. Many of the routes are for IFR military training and they are under the control of ATC and possibly not looking out the windows. Flying near these routes without a transponder would not seem prudent.. ATC is keeping other IFR traffic out of the area. If a VFR pilot ventures into one of these routes, then the VFR pilot should probably assume they have full responsibility for separation.

I have not seen it discussed previously, or I may have missed it. I have had reservations about flying near airways or crossing airways in the glider.. As most gliders are certified in the experimental category, the FAR rule about not flying over densely populated areas and "in a congested airway" applies. Since I have Mode S transponders in my gliders, I am aware that ATC can see exactly where I am and who I am. I have never seen a definition of "congested". I have monitored the traffic on airways near where I primarily fly, both via ADSB-IN in my other aircraft and using Flightaware. I think I could justify that the airways I cross are not "congested", but the term is obviously subject to some interpretation. In the case of the United246 incident, there are many airways in the area. Most of the airways have a minimum altitude for IFR traffic less than 3000 ft. Likewise, since STARS into ORD use some of the airways, then those might be considered congested, or at least frequently used airways. If it is not permissible to fly in a congested airway, then it seems an argument could be made that we must fly under it?

[JB Gunner]

Heavy transport category aircraft are authorized to exceed the 250KIAS limit in the climb below 10,000 MSL when required to maintain a safe speed margin in clean configuration.

Military fighters do the same and often climb out at 350KIAS below 10,000 MSL. Many jet fighters descend at 300 KIAS below 10,000 for the same reason having the ability to maneuver while clean.

IR routes for military use are often used in VFR weather. VR routes require higher weather mins to used.
Speeds in a IR/VR route and MOA can routinely exceed 500KIAS to .99 Mach. at altitudes down to 500ft AGL.

[Rich Owen[_2_]]

Did anyone comment about departing aircraft from airports are climbing out and being in the way of arriving aircraft. At Newark when your landing on 04 you are down low for a long time. That is due to arrivals into Teterboro, LGA and JFK. Departures from these same airports force ATC to bring arrivals in lower than anyone wants. For airline pilots we would like to be at altitude until we pull the engines to idle and not move them until the flair. STARS help in that regard and lessens ATC workload. Flying into Reno one day, I was right over Minden airport at a reasonable glider altitude. The operations/glider pilots out there and ATC have a great relationship. We need more efforts like that to midigate problems like Chicago.

Military fighters climb at 300kts (except A-10’s) unless you want to show off. VR routes do allow flights down to 200ft AGL. I’ve been west of Seminole-Lake Gliderport and seen everything from B-52’s, F-16’s to C-130’s on the IR by the gliderport. When flying around Avon Park you have to watch for fighters using transiting to/from the bombing range under 5,000ft.

Florida has a great number of corporate jets that fly in our airspace. It isn’t uncommon to see jets below 5K skirting the Class B around Orlando to fly into Orlando Executive. They also transit to Ocala, Tampa, and Kissemmee VFR. I’m buying a transponder for my ship just to be a little more visible in the airspace. Hope to see some of you all down here in March.

Cheers,
Rich
ZO

[[email protected]]

>Hope to see some of you all down here in March.

Of course, condo is booked through second week of May.
Noticed you already have two dozen entries. Only about three dozen more before you're full.

[[email protected]]

I was cross countrying in Brazil Central Plateau last week. As it was to be a long flight (9+ hours) and with scarce air traffic, I kept radio watch but transponder off.
When passing about 5 miles South of an untowered airport, I heard a descending exec jet, asked for his position and bearing and calculated we were going to cross paths, warned the jet pilot and turned on my transponder.
He deviated to the left after I appeared in his TCAS and crossed in front of the glider exactly in the same altitude...

[Dan Marotta]

Good plan, Rich.Â* I highly recommend the Trig TT22.Â* It's a 1090ES
transponder and easily upgraded to ADS-B Out when/if you're ready. The
price is also reasonable.

On 10/12/2017 11:54 AM, Rich Owen wrote:
> Did anyone comment about departing aircraft from airports are climbing out and being in the way of arriving aircraft. At Newark when your landing on 04 you are down low for a long time. That is due to arrivals into Teterboro, LGA and JFK. Departures from these same airports force ATC to bring arrivals in lower than anyone wants. For airline pilots we would like to be at altitude until we pull the engines to idle and not move them until the flair. STARS help in that regard and lessens ATC workload. Flying into Reno one day, I was right over Minden airport at a reasonable glider altitude. The operations/glider pilots out there and ATC have a great relationship. We need more efforts like that to midigate problems like Chicago.
>
> Military fighters climb at 300kts (except A-10’s) unless you want to show off. VR routes do allow flights down to 200ft AGL. I’ve been west of Seminole-Lake Gliderport and seen everything from B-52’s, F-16’s to C-130’s on the IR by the gliderport. When flying around Avon Park you have to watch for fighters using transiting to/from the bombing range under 5,000ft.
>
> Florida has a great number of corporate jets that fly in our airspace. It isn’t uncommon to see jets below 5K skirting the Class B around Orlando to fly into Orlando Executive. They also transit to Ocala, Tampa, and Kissemmee VFR. I’m buying a transponder for my ship just to be a little more visible in the airspace. Hope to see some of you all down here in March.
>
> Cheers,
> Rich
> ZO

--
Dan, 5J

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 12:54:24 PM UTC-5, Rich Owen wrote:
> Did anyone comment about departing aircraft from airports are climbing out and being in the way of arriving aircraft. At Newark when your landing on 04 you are down low for a long time. That is due to arrivals into Teterboro, LGA and JFK. Departures from these same airports force ATC to bring arrivals in lower than anyone wants. For airline pilots we would like to be at altitude until we pull the engines to idle and not move them until the flair. STARS help in that regard and lessens ATC workload. Flying into Reno one day, I was right over Minden airport at a reasonable glider altitude. The operations/glider pilots out there and ATC have a great relationship. We need more efforts like that to midigate problems like Chicago.
>
> Military fighters climb at 300kts (except A-10’s) unless you want to show off. VR routes do allow flights down to 200ft AGL. I’ve been west of Seminole-Lake Gliderport and seen everything from B-52’s, F-16’s to C-130’s on the IR by the gliderport. When flying around Avon Park you have to watch for fighters using transiting to/from the bombing range under 5,000ft.
>
> Florida has a great number of corporate jets that fly in our airspace. It isn’t uncommon to see jets below 5K skirting the Class B around Orlando to fly into Orlando Executive. They also transit to Ocala, Tampa, and Kissemmee VFR. I’m buying a transponder for my ship just to be a little more visible in the airspace. Hope to see some of you all down here in March.
>
> Cheers,
> Rich
> ZO

Are these military aircraft equipped with transponders and/or ADS-B OUT? Do they show up on TIS-B in a properly ADS-B IN and OUT equipped aircraft?

[Rich Owen[_2_]]

All military aircraft have transponders and we do show up on on civilian equipment.

[JS[_5_]]

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 5:22:24 AM UTC-7, Rich Owen wrote:
> All military aircraft have transponders and we do show up on on civilian equipment.

In my experience, transponders in F- things don't seem to be the norm, Rich..

Half an hour ago a B-1 and two F-16s roared past my house at a reasonably fast pace. One of the fighters was yanking and banking at less than 1000' AGL, quite legal in the MOA, part of the R2508 Complex (2508 user handbook link below). Looked like they went overhead Tehachapi Municipal, a few miles from the glider operation at Mountain Valley Airport, apparently on their way to Edwards AFB for a Chuck Yeager supersonic anniversary.

The responsibility to see and avoid is on all of us. If you fly in heavily trafficked areas, use Mode C or better and turn the thing on. I can think of one excuse for a SLSP flying near ORD not to be at least squawking 1202: Not accepting the second word in this paragraph.
Jim

http://www.edwards.af.mil/Portals/50/documents/R2508/AFD-070103-052.pdf?ver=2016-06-21-080711-260

[WaltWX[_2_]]

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 5:22:24 AM UTC-7, Rich Owen wrote:
> All military aircraft have transponders and we do show up on on civilian equipment.

WX here... Walt Rogers.

In October 2015 I filed a NASA Safety Report for a near miss with a fighter roaring it's way out of restricted airspace near China Lake NAS intersecting my path 200 feet above. I literally mean... ROARING... because that's how I became aware of it. After passing by I checked my PowerFlarm and found no transponder target. It may have been a Euro fighter that clearly was in non restricted airspace (MOA) and not marked by transponder.

I agree with JS... and have come to my own conclusion that not all these fighters are squawking with a transponder.

The encounter motivated me to install a transponder (Trig T22) over the winter.

Sure hope that DOD budget can afford ADS-B out 1090ES for all their equipment.

[Rich Owen[_2_]]

Guys, I flew fighters for 22 years. The only time I turned my transponder off was in Libyia and during Desert Storm. Can’t say about my fellow fighter pilots but it was not the norm to leave mode C off. I think if you are in an area where military or civilian “fast movers� fly, a transponder is a smart move! It will never make up for good look out doctrine.

Cheers,
Rich

[[email protected]]

>After passing by I checked my PowerFlarm and found no transponder target.

For powerflarm to see a Mode C or Mode S transponders, the target needs to be interrogated by a ground station or another aircraft.
The powerflarm itself does not interrogate does it?

[jfitch]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:03:20 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >After passing by I checked my PowerFlarm and found no transponder target.
>
> For powerflarm to see a Mode C or Mode S transponders, the target needs to be interrogated by a ground station or another aircraft.
> The powerflarm itself does not interrogate does it?

That is correct.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:03:20 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >After passing by I checked my PowerFlarm and found no transponder target..
>
> For powerflarm to see a Mode C or Mode S transponders, the target needs to be interrogated by a ground station or another aircraft.
> The powerflarm itself does not interrogate does it?

As Jon said yes that is correct, and when a fighter is close to the ground its possibly not interrogated by ground based SSR radar. It might be interrogated by airborne TCAS/TCAD systems but even then you may have line of sight obscuration even if there are airborne interrogators around and within range (at least several tens of miles) . And then the glider would need line of site to the fighter jet to receive the PCAS, and you have limited PCAS range and time to react.

PCAS receivers including PowerFLARM might not be much help against fast moving targets in these situations even if they are being interrogated. 1890ES In on the PowerFLARM, if the fighter was equipped with 1090ES Out (and using it) would be more help, but even then down lower the glider pilot may not have many options and not able to guess what the jet is going to do. Getting them to see you via transponder is probably better first layer of technology assistance.

If you fly near fast military traffic I would encourage folks to contact the appropriate ATC controllers (civil and/or military) or air base. The military side especially will likely have a MACA (mid-air collision avoidance) program and somebody there will *want* to talk to you, take it as a time for both sides to educate each other on what what is happening. what equipment ((transponders, ADS-B, PCAS, IFF, etc.) the aircraft have. Many USAF air bases will have MACA information on their web site and who to contact. Fast fighter jets may have active IFF interrogators capable of seeing your transponder (ask them specifically about that). Civil and Military controllers watching over an MOA may also be able to see your transponder on SSR. Military transports and larger aircraft often have full TCAS II. All only useful if your glider has a transponder.

[[email protected]]

Walt's encounters was over IYK, which happens to have a radar right on the airport. I think this provides coverage up the Owens valley toward Bishop.

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:03:20 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >After passing by I checked my PowerFlarm and found no transponder target.
>
> For powerflarm to see a Mode C or Mode S transponders, the target needs to be interrogated by a ground station or another aircraft.
> The powerflarm itself does not interrogate does it?

[WaltWX[_2_]]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 1:02:13 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Walt's encounters was over IYK, which happens to have a radar right on the airport. I think this provides coverage up the Owens valley toward Bishop.
>
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:03:20 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > >After passing by I checked my PowerFlarm and found no transponder target.
> >
> > For powerflarm to see a Mode C or Mode S transponders, the target needs to be interrogated by a ground station or another aircraft.
> > The powerflarm itself does not interrogate does it?

[WaltWX[_2_]]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 1:02:13 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Walt's encounters was over IYK, which happens to have a radar right on the airport. I think this provides coverage up the Owens valley toward Bishop.
>

In hind sight... since I was so close to a the R2505 restricted boundary and China Lake NAS, I probably should have contacted the tower or approach control (just outside 5NM). At that point I did not have a transponder, but now I do have one.

Walt WX

[WaltWX[_2_]]

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 11:34:22 PM UTC-7, Rich Owen wrote:
> Guys, I flew fighters for 22 years. The only time I turned my transponder off was in Libyia and during Desert Storm. Can’t say about my fellow fighter pilots but it was not the norm to leave mode C off. I think if you are in an area where military or civilian “fast movers� fly, a transponder is a smart move! It will never make up for good look out doctrine.
>
> Cheers,
> Rich

Rich, I don't think any fighter pilots would intentionally turn off their transponder. Radar coverage was good in my area to trigger a nearby transponder for PowerFlarm detection. Perhaps, since the fighter was operating in R2505, it was turned off for a special mission. He had just popped out of the restricted area for a downwind and turn to land at China Lake.

Walt WX

[Rich Owen[_2_]]

Walt, when you’re about to bomb someone you turn off the ATC version of the transponder. Any electronic emmisions can help a bad guy shoot you down!!

[JB Gunner]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 1:34:22 AM UTC-5, Rich Owen wrote:
> Guys, I flew fighters for 22 years. The only time I turned my transponder off was in Libyia and during Desert Storm. Can’t say about my fellow fighter pilots but it was not the norm to leave mode C off. I think if you are in an area where military or civilian “fast movers� fly, a transponder is a smart move! It will never make up for good look out doctrine.
>
> Cheers,
> Rich

Thats strange from my experience. I only flew fighters from the late 1980s to the middle 2000s but every place I flew only lead turned on their transponder. So one out of 4 aircraft had it on. The other aircraft where often 1-2 thousand feet off in altitude and 1-2 nm miles spread and 2 miles in trail of each other.

Once in the MOA or IR/VR route the transponder was turned off by all players. It was turned back on by lead when getting a IFR clearance back to base..

When intercepting civilian aircraft flying through a MOA we where advised to ensure the mode c function was off as to not set off TCAS alerts on the aircraft being intercepted.

[WaltWX[_2_]]

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 12:47:31 PM UTC-7, Rich Owen wrote:
> Walt, when you’re about to bomb someone you turn off the ATC version of the transponder. Any electronic emmisions can help a bad guy shoot you down!!

That's a good reason to turn off a transponder! Agreed ... :)

[WaltWX[_2_]]

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:37:12 PM UTC-7, JB Gunner wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 1:34:22 AM UTC-5, Rich Owen wrote:
> > Guys, I flew fighters for 22 years. The only time I turned my transponder off was in Libyia and during Desert Storm. Can’t say about my fellow fighter pilots but it was not the norm to leave mode C off. I think if you are in an area where military or civilian “fast movers� fly, a transponder is a smart move! It will never make up for good look out doctrine.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rich
>
> Thats strange from my experience. I only flew fighters from the late 1980s to the middle 2000s but every place I flew only lead turned on their transponder. So one out of 4 aircraft had it on. The other aircraft where often 1-2 thousand feet off in altitude and 1-2 nm miles spread and 2 miles in trail of each other.
>
> Once in the MOA or IR/VR route the transponder was turned off by all players. It was turned back on by lead when getting a IFR clearance back to base.
>
> When intercepting civilian aircraft flying through a MOA we where advised to ensure the mode c function was off as to not set off TCAS alerts on the aircraft being intercepted.

I'm concerned as a glider pilot with that practice... of turning off a fighter transponder in a MOA. How common is that practice.. addressed to any other fighter pilots out there? Most of my glider cross country occurs in a MOA. Sure would like to see fast movers on my PowerFlarm PCAS and in the near future through ADS-B out 1090ES

[Squeaky]

;957147']On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 5:22:24 AM UTC-7, Rich Owen wrote:
All military aircraft have transponders and we do show up on on civilian equipment.

I agree with JS... and have come to my own conclusion that not all these fighters are squawking with a transponder.

Sure hope that DOD budget can afford ADS-B out 1090ES for all their equipment.

OK, fyi... All fighters have transponders. FYI only the LEAD aircraft squawks for the formation. If you encounter numbers 2-4 leaving the range and flying at a speed to catch up to lead aircraft who is climbing out or transiting airspace at the normal 300kt IAS, the wingman will be faster. Quite often, in tactical formation, the spread between aircraft can be two nm. So you can encounter a fighter not squawking because he is a wingman, and you may not see the lead/squawking aircraft because of the distance away. And the lead aircraft WILL have his transponder on. We never turned it off during stateside operations because there was never a reason to. In theater, sure, all the time it goes off.

The military is dealing with how to comply with ADSB. However, the military budget has been crap since 2013, and frankly we do not have the money to upgrade the aircraft and also keep them combat capable. We desire to do both, but we do not have the money, but it is the plan.

Oh, and to make things worse.... We used to fly "non standard formation" all the time ... meaning as a tactical group, you really do not want all aircraft at the same altitude, so we would have aircraft in a tactical box formation, roughly 6000-9000 feet apart in each element, with the second element 2nm in trail of the first element, and all four aircraft at different altitudes up to 4000' apart.

[krasw]

maanantai 16. lokakuuta 2017 15.43.08 UTC+3 Squeaky kirjoitti:
>
> However, the
> military budget has been crap since 2013, and frankly we do not have the
> money to upgrade the aircraft and also keep them combat capable.

US military budget is $523.9 billion for 2017, just to put crap in perspective.

[Tony[_5_]]

LOL The us military has access to printing presses that spit out money all day long.

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 9:24:51 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> maanantai 16. lokakuuta 2017 15.43.08 UTC+3 Squeaky kirjoitti:
> >
> > However, the
> > military budget has been crap since 2013, and frankly we do not have the
> > money to upgrade the aircraft and also keep them combat capable.
>
> US military budget is $523.9 billion for 2017, just to put crap in perspective.

Most federal money is spent on war toys, rent seeking corporate interests and investment bank bailouts. The rest is just wasted.

/s

T8

[Ramy[_2_]]

This is disturbing news to hear that the military can not afford to comply with the ADS-B requirement while GA is required.
And why the wingmen in formation turn off their transponders?

Ramy

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I believe your information is incorrect. The DOD budget for 2017 is $582.7 Billion. That is more than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France and Japan combined. I wonder if those countries have ADS-B requirments :)

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 6:24:51 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
> maanantai 16. lokakuuta 2017 15.43.08 UTC+3 Squeaky kirjoitti:
> >
> > However, the
> > military budget has been crap since 2013, and frankly we do not have the
> > money to upgrade the aircraft and also keep them combat capable.
>
> US military budget is $523.9 billion for 2017, just to put crap in perspective.

[Dave Nadler]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 12:57:35 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> This is disturbing news to hear that the military can not afford to
> comply with the ADS-B requirement while GA is required.
> And why the wingmen in formation turn off their transponders?

Hi Ramy - IIRC, for civilian formation flying, procedure is normally
the same; only one in formation has transponder on. Why?
Because otherwise they all get interrogated at the same time,
they all answer at the same time, and the result is unintelligible
(this is called "fruiting", kinda like everyone shouting at the
same time - even worse than RAS).

In principal this is less of a problem with Mode S, except a
mode S transponder behaves like an old Mode C when it gets an
old-style interrogation. And while ground stations send new-style
interrogation, older TCAS-I installations send the old-style
interrogation. And these are installed in better-equipped GA
aircraft like Lee's Bonanza.

Darryl, please correct if I've garbled (fruited) this...

Hope that's clear!
Best Regards, Dave

[krasw]

Well I (or Wikipedia) was not so much off, only amount that is my country's entire budget for one year :)

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 7:04:05 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 9:24:51 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> > maanantai 16. lokakuuta 2017 15.43.08 UTC+3 Squeaky kirjoitti:
> > >
> > > However, the
> > > military budget has been crap since 2013, and frankly we do not have the
> > > money to upgrade the aircraft and also keep them combat capable.
> >
> > US military budget is $523.9 billion for 2017, just to put crap in perspective.
>
> Most federal money is spent on war toys, rent seeking corporate interests and investment bank bailouts. The rest is just wasted.
>
> /s
>
> T8

According to an article on Yahoo news this morning: "An internal study issued by the Defense Department in 2015 uncovered a staggering $125 billion in bureaucratic waste. The report was promptly buried by the Pentagon and only came to light following an investigation by the Washington Post newspaper.."

[Auxvache]

Flew us nationals this summer with a new ship, new pf core feeding LX9000. Used the same config settings as the old glider, changed only to reflect the new ship's transponder.
Double checked these settings after the first day, when the constant alarms caused by one competitor's transponder hijacked the instrument until I could get several miles away from him.
Later in the contest, I heard one contestant ask another to turn off his transponder when entering the gaggle.
Perhaps someone could review here the proper settings in the config file and in the LX to best mitigate false txpdr alarms.
Thanks in advance.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 11:01:03 AM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 12:57:35 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> > This is disturbing news to hear that the military can not afford to
> > comply with the ADS-B requirement while GA is required.
> > And why the wingmen in formation turn off their transponders?
>
> Hi Ramy - IIRC, for civilian formation flying, procedure is normally
> the same; only one in formation has transponder on. Why?
> Because otherwise they all get interrogated at the same time,
> they all answer at the same time, and the result is unintelligible
> (this is called "fruiting", kinda like everyone shouting at the
> same time - even worse than RAS).
>
> In principal this is less of a problem with Mode S, except a
> mode S transponder behaves like an old Mode C when it gets an
> old-style interrogation. And while ground stations send new-style
> interrogation, older TCAS-I installations send the old-style
> interrogation. And these are installed in better-equipped GA
> aircraft like Lee's Bonanza.
>
> Darryl, please correct if I've garbled (fruited) this...
>
> Hope that's clear!
> Best Regards, Dave

Yes that's right and with Mode S transponders primarily being interrogated by Mode S capable SSR you can likely leave multiple transponders on in a formation flight. I have no idea if the military ha moved to do that more recently or not. The selective interrogation of Mode S deals with what would otherwise be fruiting/overlap of the Mode A/C replies. Even with Mode C transponders I've had comments from controllers and radar techs that modern radar systems are able to deccorealate several closely based Mode C targets. I've got no hard numbers on that.

Transponder use patterns is another thing to ask about when talking to ATC or airforce MACA reps etc.

[Ramy[_2_]]

Dave, Yes, would make sense to have only one transponder in formation, but 2 miles and 1000 feet different is not a formation!

Ramy

[Ramy[_2_]]

I had the exact same problem with my LX9000. It is an issue with the LX9000 missing the option to turn off collision alarms for mode C (while retaining the mode C alert functionality). I exchanged few emails with LXNAV and they agreed to provide this option on next firmware update. But will be good if others will report this issue to them as well. I found out that most folks rather discuss instrument issues on RAS instead of the manufacture.
On the same note I should point out that I've been following up both with LXNAV and Flarm on few issues recently, and both have excellent customer support with very timely response. You just need to explain your issue patiently and persistently as the first assumption that all technical supports always have is that the customer did not read the manual and does not understand how to use the unit, but once you get pass that they listen :)

Ramy

[JS[_5_]]

Someone got a video of the three buggers that flew low and fast over the house.
Jim

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2UJ9HtfB6I&feature=youtu.be

[Dave Nadler]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 11:06:41 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> 2 miles and 1000 feet different is not a formation!

Unfortunately they seem to consider this a formation, as it
happens while a formation "maneuvers"... Not Blue Angels stuff.
Rich, do I understand this correctly?

[Rich Owen[_2_]]

Lol Dave!! Loved your answer!!

[Rich Owen[_2_]]

This would be a formation and only one should have the transponder on. I bet, Blues 2-4 and Number 6 rarely ever have their transponder on except when flying as a single. Any former Blues or Thunderbirds out there?

[[email protected]]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:43:08 AM UTC-7, Squeaky wrote:
> 'WaltWX[_2_ Wrote:
> > ;957147']On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 5:22:24 AM UTC-7, Rich Owen
> > wrote:-
> > All military aircraft have transponders and we do show up on on
> > civilian equipment.-
> >
> > I agree with JS... and have come to my own conclusion that not all these
> > fighters are squawking with a transponder.
> >
> > Sure hope that DOD budget can afford ADS-B out 1090ES for all their
> > equipment.
>
> OK, fyi... All fighters have transponders. FYI only the LEAD aircraft
> squawks for the formation. If you encounter numbers 2-4 leaving the
> range and flying at a speed to catch up to lead aircraft who is climbing
> out or transiting airspace at the normal 300kt IAS, the wingman will be
> faster. Quite often, in tactical formation, the spread between aircraft
> can be two nm. So you can encounter a fighter not squawking because he
> is a wingman, and you may not see the lead/squawking aircraft because of
> the distance away. And the lead aircraft WILL have his transponder on.
>
> The military is dealing with how to comply with ADSB. However, the
> military budget has been crap since 2013, and frankly we do not have the
> money to upgrade the aircraft and also keep them combat capable. We
> desire to do both, but we do not have the money, but it is the plan.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Squeaky

The 2 military jets that flew over Hot Springs just east of Warner Springs a week ago did not show up on my Flarm display. They may have X-ponders but they were not squawking if they had them.
Steve

[JS[_5_]]

On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 7:20:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:43:08 AM UTC-7, Squeaky wrote:
> > 'WaltWX[_2_ Wrote:
> > > ;957147']On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 5:22:24 AM UTC-7, Rich Owen
> > > wrote:-
> > > All military aircraft have transponders and we do show up on on
> > > civilian equipment.-
> > >
> > > I agree with JS... and have come to my own conclusion that not all these
> > > fighters are squawking with a transponder.
> > >
> > > Sure hope that DOD budget can afford ADS-B out 1090ES for all their
> > > equipment.
> >
> > OK, fyi... All fighters have transponders. FYI only the LEAD aircraft
> > squawks for the formation. If you encounter numbers 2-4 leaving the
> > range and flying at a speed to catch up to lead aircraft who is climbing
> > out or transiting airspace at the normal 300kt IAS, the wingman will be
> > faster. Quite often, in tactical formation, the spread between aircraft
> > can be two nm. So you can encounter a fighter not squawking because he
> > is a wingman, and you may not see the lead/squawking aircraft because of
> > the distance away. And the lead aircraft WILL have his transponder on.
> >
> > The military is dealing with how to comply with ADSB. However, the
> > military budget has been crap since 2013, and frankly we do not have the
> > money to upgrade the aircraft and also keep them combat capable. We
> > desire to do both, but we do not have the money, but it is the plan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Squeaky
>
> The 2 military jets that flew over Hot Springs just east of Warner Springs a week ago did not show up on my Flarm display. They may have X-ponders but they were not squawking if they had them.
> Steve

Steve, I've been passed by fighters along that ridge with no detection. Came from behind, so no visual until off the wingtip. The closest was not a glider pilot or wouldn't have been close at the same altitude and away from the ridge.
SoCal confirmed my own TXP operation.
Jim

[[email protected]]

The official report does not provide any additional information.

http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:36:0::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:NGLTRFD17001

[Steve Koerner]

On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 3:51:04 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> The official report does not provide any additional information.
>
> http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:36:0::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:NGLTRFD17001

Are we never going to know if this glider had a transponder?
Can someone who flies in the Chicago area please try to sort this out?

[WaltWX[_2_]]

On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 7:20:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:43:08 AM UTC-7, Squeaky wrote:
> > 'WaltWX[_2_ Wrote:
> > > ;957147']On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 5:22:24 AM UTC-7, Rich Owen
> > > wrote:-
> > > All military aircraft have transponders and we do show up on on
> > > civilian equipment.-
> > >
> > > I agree with JS... and have come to my own conclusion that not all these
> > > fighters are squawking with a transponder.
> > >
> > > Sure hope that DOD budget can afford ADS-B out 1090ES for all their
> > > equipment.
> >
> > OK, fyi... All fighters have transponders. FYI only the LEAD aircraft
> > squawks for the formation. If you encounter numbers 2-4 leaving the
> > range and flying at a speed to catch up to lead aircraft who is climbing
> > out or transiting airspace at the normal 300kt IAS, the wingman will be
> > faster. Quite often, in tactical formation, the spread between aircraft
> > can be two nm. So you can encounter a fighter not squawking because he
> > is a wingman, and you may not see the lead/squawking aircraft because of
> > the distance away. And the lead aircraft WILL have his transponder on.
> >
> > The military is dealing with how to comply with ADSB. However, the
> > military budget has been crap since 2013, and frankly we do not have the
> > money to upgrade the aircraft and also keep them combat capable. We
> > desire to do both, but we do not have the money, but it is the plan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Squeaky
>
> The 2 military jets that flew over Hot Springs just east of Warner Springs a week ago did not show up on my Flarm display. They may have X-ponders but they were not squawking if they had them.
> Steve

I bet that the low altitude military jet's transponder is not being triggered by ATC surveillance radar... and that may be the reason we're not seeing them on PowerFlarm PCAS.

In my near miss case near China Lake, CA posted earlier, I KNOW that radar was good at that location. So, there are a variety of reasons fighter may not show up on PCAS... including that formations turn it off except for the leader or trailer.

How does that sound Rich?

Walt WX

[Dan Marotta]

We used to fly target/intercept training missions when I flew in Alaska
in the 70s.Â* The target aircraft would always "strangle parrot" (set the
transponder to standby) as we entered the working area.Â* It wouldn't
surprise me if the same or similar missions were still being flown
except at much lower altitude (Russian bombers did not fly that low
coming over the pole).

On 10/20/2017 11:21 AM, WaltWX wrote:
> On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 7:20:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:43:08 AM UTC-7, Squeaky wrote:
>>> 'WaltWX[_2_ Wrote:
>>>> ;957147']On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 5:22:24 AM UTC-7, Rich Owen
>>>> wrote:-
>>>> All military aircraft have transponders and we do show up on on
>>>> civilian equipment.-
>>>>
>>>> I agree with JS... and have come to my own conclusion that not all these
>>>> fighters are squawking with a transponder.
>>>>
>>>> Sure hope that DOD budget can afford ADS-B out 1090ES for all their
>>>> equipment.
>>> OK, fyi... All fighters have transponders. FYI only the LEAD aircraft
>>> squawks for the formation. If you encounter numbers 2-4 leaving the
>>> range and flying at a speed to catch up to lead aircraft who is climbing
>>> out or transiting airspace at the normal 300kt IAS, the wingman will be
>>> faster. Quite often, in tactical formation, the spread between aircraft
>>> can be two nm. So you can encounter a fighter not squawking because he
>>> is a wingman, and you may not see the lead/squawking aircraft because of
>>> the distance away. And the lead aircraft WILL have his transponder on.
>>>
>>> The military is dealing with how to comply with ADSB. However, the
>>> military budget has been crap since 2013, and frankly we do not have the
>>> money to upgrade the aircraft and also keep them combat capable. We
>>> desire to do both, but we do not have the money, but it is the plan.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Squeaky
>> The 2 military jets that flew over Hot Springs just east of Warner Springs a week ago did not show up on my Flarm display. They may have X-ponders but they were not squawking if they had them.
>> Steve
> I bet that the low altitude military jet's transponder is not being triggered by ATC surveillance radar... and that may be the reason we're not seeing them on PowerFlarm PCAS.
>
> In my near miss case near China Lake, CA posted earlier, I KNOW that radar was good at that location. So, there are a variety of reasons fighter may not show up on PCAS... including that formations turn it off except for the leader or trailer.
>
> How does that sound Rich?
>
> Walt WX

--
Dan, 5J

[jfitch]

On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 8:48:26 AM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 3:51:04 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > The official report does not provide any additional information.
> >
> > http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:36:0::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:NGLTRFD17001
>
> Are we never going to know if this glider had a transponder?
> Can someone who flies in the Chicago area please try to sort this out?

The official report lists the other aircraft (glider) as unknown. If it had Mode S, they would know.

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 10:48:26 AM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
> On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 3:51:04 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > The official report does not provide any additional information.
> >
> > http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:36:0::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:NGLTRFD17001
>
> Are we never going to know if this glider had a transponder?
> Can someone who flies in the Chicago area please try to sort this out?

It's pretty clear that the glider either didn't have a transponder or it was turned off. If the glider had an operating transponder, it would have been visible on ATC radar, and the UA jet would have presumably been vectored around the glider or at least have received a traffic advisory from ATC (even though this is not required by the FAA rules).

If ATC hadn't vectored the UA jet around the glider, a transponder would have triggered a TCAS Resolution Advisory which would have resolved the situation and avoided the aircraft getting this close to each other. There is no indication in the report that the UA aircraft received a TCAS RA, which would indicate that the glider did not have an operating transponder.

[Ramy[_2_]]

The flight with the pilot name is out there in public on OLC. very easy to find giving that it was the last day of 2017 season.
I wouldn't be surprised if he is totally oblivious to the fact that he almost made history. Otherwise I would have expected to hear more info by now. Or if he had privacy concerns he could have requested olc to remove the flight.

Ramy

[Hartley Falbaum[_2_]]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687
>
> The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.
>
> I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.
>
> The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually.. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.
>
> When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…

I am seriously considering adding a transponder to my DG808C but I am not convinced it will add a lot to my protection against military collisions on MTRs. Please read the following NTSB letter. It is chilling. It involves a formation of 2 F-16s and a C172, resulting in a fatality. The C172 did everything right. The controllers at ATC, and the F-16 failed him.
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/RecLetters/A02_15_19.pd
it is a long, sobering read. There are many MTR "close encounters" and ATC cannot cope with the traffic.

[Hartley Falbaum[_2_]]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687
>
> The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.
>
> I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.
>
> The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually.. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.
>
> When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…
sorry for the broken link--try this

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/RecLetters/A02_15_19.pdf

should work better

[Hartley Falbaum[_2_]]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687
>
> The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.
>
> I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.
>
> The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually.. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.
>
> When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…

And here's another unlucky transponder equipped C150M at Moncks Corner, 2015 mid air w/F-16 http://go.usa.gov/x8cGc
Another (41 pg) long read. Bottom line Controller and F-16 pilot failure.
Both the above were low altitude and High F-16 speed.

[Squeaky]

;957631']On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:[color=blue][i]

I am seriously considering adding a transponder to my DG808C but I am not convinced it will add a lot to my protection against military collisions on MTRs. Please read the following NTSB letter. It is chilling. It involves a formation of 2 F-16s and a C172, resulting in a fatality. The C172 did everything right. The controllers at ATC, and the F-16 failed him.
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/RecLetters/A02_15_19.pd
it is a long, sobering read. There are many MTR "close encounters" and ATC cannot cope with the traffic.

This report concerns me.... No mention of the numerous flight rule breaches by the military pilots (and that bothers me too as I have been seeing increased laxity and loss of professionalism in doing things right). The military jets flew through class B and C airspace, and were very likely NOT inside the MTR and definitely flying faster than ATC rules at the time as well.

Most VR routes only go up to 1500 AGL, while some will go up to 3000. Under controlled airspace, they do not go up that high most times. Unless you are in the VR route, you are supposed to fly at normal allowed airspeeds for the airspace, though Fighters are waived to fly at 300IAS below 10K. But VR routes also have identified entry points, and you are not supposed to enter wherever you want either. MTRs are supposed to be booked in advance.

In the 80's we used to set up for MTR low levels, we'd cancel IFR or flight following early (military regs/AFI says maintain IFR to the maximum extent possible) and jaunt around at 480 knots enroute to the entry point (sometimes holding outside the start point to make the entry on time on airspeed). Then the Wing changed this procedure, saying we didn't have authority to ramp around at whatever speed we wanted out side the VR routes, and we had to maintain IFR or flight following until just prior to entry, and we had to abide by speed limits until in the route structure.

This was normal until I got out in 99. Everything this F-16 group did is not standard, and against rules and procedures...

...but that's jmho. But it bothers me a lot.

[Chicago Pilot]

No Transponder was installed on this glider.


On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 10:48:26 AM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
> On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 3:51:04 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > The official report does not provide any additional information.
> >
> > http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:36:0::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:NGLTRFD17001
>
> Are we never going to know if this glider had a transponder?
> Can someone who flies in the Chicago area please try to sort this out?