Re: U.K. near-midairs

[Peter Seddon]

"Jack" > wrote in message
om...
> "Gliders in the U.K. were involved in 10 near-midairs
> in the second half of last year, safety investigators
> said recently, noting that newer models fly at high
> altitudes without transponders and are hard to see,
> both visually and on radar...."
>
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/314-full.html#188600
>
>
> e.g., <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3763766.stm>

Perhaps spam can pilots should look out of the window more often!!

Peter.

[Mark James Boyd]

Peter Seddon <peterdotseddonattiscalidotcodotuk> wrote:
>> "Gliders in the U.K. were involved in 10 near-midairs

The difference between a mid-air and a near-midair is
certainly an interesting topic. While in contact with ATC
in busy airspace I've frequently had jittery airline FOs
call me as threatening traffic over a mile away. I'd
guess if you're an airline guy and you see ANY aircraft,
and it wasn't on your TCAS, you'd just automatically call it
a near-midair.

In the US, I'm not aware of any ACTUAL midair collisions between a
glider and non-glider that are more than 4 miles from an airport.

I know of lots and lots of talk about near-midairs, and significant
pressure by the airlines to require transponders in more
ways. Can we blame them? The FIRST mid-air could result
in hundreds of deaths...

So there hasn't been one yet, and it's very hard to tell
how close we've REALLY been to having a glider-airplane midair
that wasn't very near an airport traffic pattern or approach.
I'm guessing this is trivial, and requiring transponders
in gliders is a solution looking for a problem.

Have there been any actual airplane-glider midairs in the UK
that weren't takeoff/landing related (within 4 miles of the airport)?

>> in the second half of last year, safety investigators
>> said recently, noting that newer models fly at high
>> altitudes without transponders and are hard to see,
>> both visually and on radar...."
>>
>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/314-full.html#188600
>>
>>
>> e.g., <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3763766.stm>
>
>Perhaps spam can pilots should look out of the window more often!!

Another possibility is a radar reflector installed in the glider.
These things are much cheaper than a transponder, and would give at least
some info...

I'd love to see if my local boating supply shop has one that would fit :)
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Marc Ramsey]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> In the US, I'm not aware of any ACTUAL midair collisions between a
> glider and non-glider that are more than 4 miles from an airport.

You might want to ask Chip Garner about the A-7 that ate 3 feet of one
of his wings. There have been a few others between airplanes and
gliders, in the US and away from airports...

Marc

[Stefan]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> Have there been any actual airplane-glider midairs in the UK
> that weren't takeoff/landing related (within 4 miles of the airport)?

I don't know for the UK, but there was one in France in 1999.

http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/1999/f-xb990212/pdf/f-xb990212.pdf

Miraculously nobody was injured, but the result is that another piece of
airspace has been changed from class E to class D.

Stefan

[Bill Daniels]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> > Have there been any actual airplane-glider midairs in the UK
> > that weren't takeoff/landing related (within 4 miles of the airport)?
>
> I don't know for the UK, but there was one in France in 1999.
>
> http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/1999/f-xb990212/pdf/f-xb990212.pdf
>
> Miraculously nobody was injured, but the result is that another piece of
> airspace has been changed from class E to class D.
>
> Stefan
>

Some years ago a pilot was taking his young son for a ride in a 2-32. There
was a BANG and the 2-32 was knocked into a spin. After recovery, nothing
seemed amiss. Later on landing one wing wheel assembly was missing. The
missing wing wheel assembly was found imbedded in the leading edge of an F4
at the local AFB.

Bill Daniels

[Michael McNulty]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41a63818$1@darkstar...
> Peter Seddon <peterdotseddonattiscalidotcodotuk> wrote:
>>> "Gliders in the U.K. were involved in 10 near-midairs
>
>
> In the US, I'm not aware of any ACTUAL midair collisions between a
> glider and non-glider that are more than 4 miles from an airport.
>

How hard have you looked?

Ask Chip Gardner how far he was from an airport when he got hit.

>
> So there hasn't been one yet, and it's very hard to tell
> how close we've REALLY been to having a glider-airplane midair
> that wasn't very near an airport traffic pattern or approach.
> I'm guessing this is trivial, and requiring transponders
> in gliders is a solution looking for a problem.
>


A few years ago an AmericaWest airliner 30 miles out of Phoenix nearly hit a
glider. A flight attendant had her leg broken during the rapid evasive
manuever.

[Peter Seddon]

>
> Another possibility is a radar reflector installed in the glider.
> These things are much cheaper than a transponder, and would give at least
> some info...
>
> I'd love to see if my local boating supply shop has one that would fit :)
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

I wasn't thinking about the big jets but the person in the PA28 etc. who
uses our NDB as a turning point at 2000 ft. The beacon is in the middle of
the airfield we use as our gliding club base. The area is marked as an area
of intense gliding activity and the airfield is marked with cables. We've
had a couple of near thing over the airfield.

Peter.

[BTIZ]

you know you are close.. when you can hear the other powerplane go by you..
and you have not seen it.. and when you do find him after he's past.. you
realize that the sun angles as he approached you.. he never saw you either..

BT

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41a63818$1@darkstar...
> Peter Seddon <peterdotseddonattiscalidotcodotuk> wrote:
>>> "Gliders in the U.K. were involved in 10 near-midairs
>
> The difference between a mid-air and a near-midair is
> certainly an interesting topic. While in contact with ATC
> in busy airspace I've frequently had jittery airline FOs
> call me as threatening traffic over a mile away. I'd
> guess if you're an airline guy and you see ANY aircraft,
> and it wasn't on your TCAS, you'd just automatically call it
> a near-midair.
>
> In the US, I'm not aware of any ACTUAL midair collisions between a
> glider and non-glider that are more than 4 miles from an airport.
>
> I know of lots and lots of talk about near-midairs, and significant
> pressure by the airlines to require transponders in more
> ways. Can we blame them? The FIRST mid-air could result
> in hundreds of deaths...
>
> So there hasn't been one yet, and it's very hard to tell
> how close we've REALLY been to having a glider-airplane midair
> that wasn't very near an airport traffic pattern or approach.
> I'm guessing this is trivial, and requiring transponders
> in gliders is a solution looking for a problem.
>
> Have there been any actual airplane-glider midairs in the UK
> that weren't takeoff/landing related (within 4 miles of the airport)?
>
>>> in the second half of last year, safety investigators
>>> said recently, noting that newer models fly at high
>>> altitudes without transponders and are hard to see,
>>> both visually and on radar...."
>>>
>>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/314-full.html#188600
>>>
>>>
>>> e.g., <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3763766.stm>
>>
>>Perhaps spam can pilots should look out of the window more often!!
>
> Another possibility is a radar reflector installed in the glider.
> These things are much cheaper than a transponder, and would give at least
> some info...
>
> I'd love to see if my local boating supply shop has one that would fit :)
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[Nyal Williams]

At 20:30 25 November 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
> >
>Another possibility is a radar reflector installed
>in the glider.
>These things are much cheaper than a transponder, and
>would give at least
>some info...
>
>I'd love to see if my local boating supply shop has
>one that would fit :)
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark J. Boyd

Boating stores sell radar reflectors made of cardboard
and covered with aluminum foil. They are in three
parts and can be disassembled. When put together they
make a sphere about 12-14 inches across and they provide
the 3D right triangles that are supposed to reflect
a signal back.

I inquired about their use in gliders (practically
no weight and could go in fuselage behind wing) and
someone told me they would not give a strong enough
signal for aircraft use owing to the speeds involved.
I have no idea about the validity of this statement.
Couldn't hurt to try it.
>

[Ralph Jones]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:17:14 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
wrote:

>
>"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>
>> > Have there been any actual airplane-glider midairs in the UK
>> > that weren't takeoff/landing related (within 4 miles of the airport)?
>>
>> I don't know for the UK, but there was one in France in 1999.
>>
>> http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/1999/f-xb990212/pdf/f-xb990212.pdf
>>
>> Miraculously nobody was injured, but the result is that another piece of
>> airspace has been changed from class E to class D.
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>
>Some years ago a pilot was taking his young son for a ride in a 2-32. There
>was a BANG and the 2-32 was knocked into a spin. After recovery, nothing
>seemed amiss. Later on landing one wing wheel assembly was missing. The
>missing wing wheel assembly was found imbedded in the leading edge of an F4
>at the local AFB.
>
That would be Donn Shearn, in 1975. The F4 was being vectored onto the
COS localizer, slow, nose up, pilot seat cranked down behind the
glareshield, and the pilot never knew he'd hit anything until a ground
crewman ponted to the wheel as he taxied in.

A busload of Air Force officers arrived at BFGP two days later to
investigate, and the first thing they saw was CSA's 1-34, N1171S,
crashing in the trees at the north end. I watched that one too...worst
case of thought processes stopping under pressure you could imagine.
The guy hit thirty feet up a tree a good 200 yards short of the
runway, with at least 3/4 spoiler on.

Anyway, the gubmint finally wrote a check for $94 to replace the wheel
three years later.

rj

[Ralph Jones]

On 26 Nov 2004 01:37:03 GMT, Nyal Williams
> wrote:
[snip]
>
>Boating stores sell radar reflectors made of cardboard
>and covered with aluminum foil. They are in three
>parts and can be disassembled. When put together they
>make a sphere about 12-14 inches across and they provide
>the 3D right triangles that are supposed to reflect
>a signal back.
>
>I inquired about their use in gliders (practically
>no weight and could go in fuselage behind wing) and
>someone told me they would not give a strong enough
>signal for aircraft use owing to the speeds involved.
> I have no idea about the validity of this statement.
> Couldn't hurt to try it.
>>
That is a corner reflector: three flat, mutually perpendicular
surfaces. It has the special geometric property that a signal striking
it from any direction will reflect from surface to surface and wind up
going back exactly the way it came. On radar, it looks much larger
than an irregular-shaped object the same size.

Apollo crews left at least one optical corner reflector on the moon,
and astronomers can bounce laser light off it to make precision
orbital measurements.

Signal strength is not the problem: a fiberglass ship with a one-foot
corner reflector inside it will look bigger than a metal sailplane.
The bad news: air traffic control radars are "moving target" systems,
which means they filter out returns that don't have any Doppler shift
to indicate a moving object. I don't know what the minimum detectable
speed is, but if you're under it, they just won't see you.

rj

[Bill Daniels]

"Ralph Jones" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Nov 2004 01:37:03 GMT, Nyal Williams
> > wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> >Boating stores sell radar reflectors made of cardboard
> >and covered with aluminum foil. They are in three
> >parts and can be disassembled. When put together they
> >make a sphere about 12-14 inches across and they provide
> >the 3D right triangles that are supposed to reflect
> >a signal back.
> >
> >I inquired about their use in gliders (practically
> >no weight and could go in fuselage behind wing) and
> >someone told me they would not give a strong enough
> >signal for aircraft use owing to the speeds involved.
> > I have no idea about the validity of this statement.
> > Couldn't hurt to try it.
> >>
> That is a corner reflector: three flat, mutually perpendicular
> surfaces. It has the special geometric property that a signal striking
> it from any direction will reflect from surface to surface and wind up
> going back exactly the way it came. On radar, it looks much larger
> than an irregular-shaped object the same size.
>
> Apollo crews left at least one optical corner reflector on the moon,
> and astronomers can bounce laser light off it to make precision
> orbital measurements.
>
> Signal strength is not the problem: a fiberglass ship with a one-foot
> corner reflector inside it will look bigger than a metal sailplane.
> The bad news: air traffic control radars are "moving target" systems,
> which means they filter out returns that don't have any Doppler shift
> to indicate a moving object. I don't know what the minimum detectable
> speed is, but if you're under it, they just won't see you.
>
> rj

I dunno how slow the moving target filter is.

I was working Holoman AFB approach inbound for ALM when they called out a
"large, slow moving target at 12 O'clock, five miles". I looked and saw
nothing in the severe clear. "How large?", I asked. "Really big, sir", came
the reply.

Now the Tularosa Basin is known for its UFO sightings. Maybe I'm going to
see one. I'm thinking a Klingon Bird of Prey with the cloaking device on
'cause I can see all the way to Mexico in the 12 O'clock direction.

Finally, I noticed a line of 18 wheelers northbound on Route 54. "Approach,
does your radar see trucks?" I asked. "Sometimes, sir", came the reply.
Oh, well. Maybe they should require trucks to have transponders.

Bill Daniels

[Nyal Williams]

At 03:00 26 November 2004, Ralph Jones wrote:


>[snip]
>>
>>Boating stores sell radar reflectors made of cardboard
>>and covered with aluminum foil. They are in three
>>parts and can be disassembled. When put together they
>>make a sphere about 12-14 inches across and they provide
>>the 3D right triangles that are supposed to reflect
>>a signal back.
>>
>>I inquired about their use in gliders (practically
>>no weight and could go in fuselage behind wing) and
>>someone told me they would not give a strong enough
>>signal for aircraft use owing to the speeds involved.
>> I have no idea about the validity of this statement.
>> Couldn't hurt to try it.
>>>
>That is a corner reflector: three flat, mutually perpendicular
>surfaces. It has the special geometric property that
>a signal striking
>it from any direction will reflect from surface to
>surface and wind up
>going back exactly the way it came. On radar, it looks
>much larger
>than an irregular-shaped object the same size.
>
>Apollo crews left at least one optical corner reflector
>on the moon,
>and astronomers can bounce laser light off it to make
>precision
>orbital measurements.
>
>Signal strength is not the problem: a fiberglass ship
>with a one-foot
>corner reflector inside it will look bigger than a
>metal sailplane.
>The bad news: air traffic control radars are 'moving
>target' systems,
>which means they filter out returns that don't have
>any Doppler shift
>to indicate a moving object. I don't know what the
>minimum detectable
>speed is, but if you're under it, they just won't see
>you.
>
>rj
>


What about the radars in corporate aircraft? If they
can pick it up I might consider stuffing one in the
Discus.

[OscarCVox]

>"Gliders in the U.K. were involved in 10 near-midairs
> in the second half of last year, safety investigators
> said recently, noting that newer models fly at high
> altitudes without transponders and are hard to see,
> both visually and on radar...."
>
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/314-full.html#188600
>
>
>e.g., <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3763766.stm>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Can we believe any of this? A classic case of chinese whispers. Avweb quoting
the BBC quoting unamed MOD officials who are reporting on airmiss reports filed
by power pilots. We all know the perception of an airmiss by some power pilots
is completely different to what glider pilots understand.
I was speaking to one last summer who had just come down from a trial lesson
thermalling with about 12 other gliders.(not unusual at our site) and he was
nearly having kittens.

I am not saying that near misses do not happen between power and gliders but in
my experience gliders are far more aware of what is going on outside the
cockpit. The case of the fast jet pilot nearly hitting two gliders over the
gliding site at Talgarth at 500ft is a case in point. If he could not see the
gliders in plent of time he was going too fast, too low and in the wrong area.
Are powered aircraft not supposed to give way to gliders, balloons etc?

[Charles Yeates]

Ralph Jones wrote:
>
> Signal strength is not the problem: a fiberglass ship with a one-foot
> corner reflector inside it will look bigger than a metal sailplane.
> The bad news: air traffic control radars are "moving target" systems,
> which means they filter out returns that don't have any Doppler shift
> to indicate a moving object. I don't know what the minimum detectable
> speed is, but if you're under it, they just won't see you.
>
> rj

They do not see sailplanes that are thermaling -- tested by Halifax
International Airport controllers

[Chris Rollings]

I'm aware of one airplane/glider collision in the UK
not with 4 miles of the gliders base. A piston single
cruising at about 140 knots ran into the back of a
std cirrus on a staight glide. If I remeber correctlythe
glider pilot was probably killed by the aircrafts propeller.
I think the airplane pilot survived.

I'm also aware of one in the UK and one in the USA
where, although near the gliders base airports, both
involved transiting powered airplanes - so not 'landing
related'. In both cases the powered airplane removed
the outboard few feet of the gliders wing. Both gliders
landed safely, both airplane pilots were killed.

Some years ago, as part of a discussion with officialdom
about proposed increases in regulated airspace, I did
a calculation that suggested that incidents that one
might expect an airplane pilot to report as a near
miss (which I reckoned was passing within 500 feet
vertically and 300 yards horizontally of another aircraft
and not seeing early enough to take avoiding action)
would occur about 1000 times more often than actual
collisions.

At 20:30 25 November 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>Peter Seddon wrote:
>>> 'Gliders in the U.K. were involved in 10 near-midairs
>
>The difference between a mid-air and a near-midair
>is
>certainly an interesting topic. While in contact with
>ATC
>in busy airspace I've frequently had jittery airline
>FOs
>call me as threatening traffic over a mile away. I'd
>guess if you're an airline guy and you see ANY aircraft,
>and it wasn't on your TCAS, you'd just automatically
>call it
>a near-midair.
>
>In the US, I'm not aware of any ACTUAL midair collisions
>between a
>glider and non-glider that are more than 4 miles from
>an airport.
>
>I know of lots and lots of talk about near-midairs,
>and significant
>pressure by the airlines to require transponders in
>more
>ways. Can we blame them? The FIRST mid-air could
>result
>in hundreds of deaths...
>
>So there hasn't been one yet, and it's very hard to
>tell
>how close we've REALLY been to having a glider-airplane
>midair
>that wasn't very near an airport traffic pattern or
>approach.
>I'm guessing this is trivial, and requiring transponders
>in gliders is a solution looking for a problem.
>
>Have there been any actual airplane-glider midairs
>in the UK
>that weren't takeoff/landing related (within 4 miles
>of the airport)?
>
>>> in the second half of last year, safety investigators
>>> said recently, noting that newer models fly at high
>>> altitudes without transponders and are hard to see,
>>> both visually and on radar....'
>>>
>>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/314-full.html#18860
>>>>0
>>>
>>>
>>> e.g.,
>>
>>Perhaps spam can pilots should look out of the window
>>more often!!
>
>Another possibility is a radar reflector installed
>in the glider.
>These things are much cheaper than a transponder, and
>would give at least
>some info...
>
>I'd love to see if my local boating supply shop has
>one that would fit :)
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark J. Boyd
>

[BTIZ]

Our local Class B airport.. DOES see gliders as they thermal.. they know we
are based south of the Class B and keep an eye out.. primary radar returns..
SGS2-33, 1-26 (lots of metal), Grob 103 and LS4 are all seen on their radar.

It could be your local Halifax controllers are not trying, have to many
filters turned on.. or are just not experienced in radar operation.

BT


"Charles Yeates" > wrote in message
...
> Ralph Jones wrote:
>>
>> Signal strength is not the problem: a fiberglass ship with a one-foot
>> corner reflector inside it will look bigger than a metal sailplane.
>> The bad news: air traffic control radars are "moving target" systems,
>> which means they filter out returns that don't have any Doppler shift
>> to indicate a moving object. I don't know what the minimum detectable
>> speed is, but if you're under it, they just won't see you.
>>
>> rj
>
> They do not see sailplanes that are thermaling -- tested by Halifax
> International Airport controllers

[BTIZ]

Nyal, corporate radars are WX radars and not designed to me air-to-air
intercept radars..

you'd be better off stuffing in a transponder for their TCAS and for ATC to
really see you.

BT

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> At 03:00 26 November 2004, Ralph Jones wrote:
>
>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Boating stores sell radar reflectors made of cardboard
>>>and covered with aluminum foil. They are in three
>>>parts and can be disassembled. When put together they
>>>make a sphere about 12-14 inches across and they provide
>>>the 3D right triangles that are supposed to reflect
>>>a signal back.
>>>
>>>I inquired about their use in gliders (practically
>>>no weight and could go in fuselage behind wing) and
>>>someone told me they would not give a strong enough
>>>signal for aircraft use owing to the speeds involved.
>>> I have no idea about the validity of this statement.
>>> Couldn't hurt to try it.
>>>>
>>That is a corner reflector: three flat, mutually perpendicular
>>surfaces. It has the special geometric property that
>>a signal striking
>>it from any direction will reflect from surface to
>>surface and wind up
>>going back exactly the way it came. On radar, it looks
>>much larger
>>than an irregular-shaped object the same size.
>>
>>Apollo crews left at least one optical corner reflector
>>on the moon,
>>and astronomers can bounce laser light off it to make
>>precision
>>orbital measurements.
>>
>>Signal strength is not the problem: a fiberglass ship
>>with a one-foot
>>corner reflector inside it will look bigger than a
>>metal sailplane.
>>The bad news: air traffic control radars are 'moving
>>target' systems,
>>which means they filter out returns that don't have
>>any Doppler shift
>>to indicate a moving object. I don't know what the
>>minimum detectable
>>speed is, but if you're under it, they just won't see
>>you.
>>
>>rj
>>
>
>
> What about the radars in corporate aircraft? If they
> can pick it up I might consider stuffing one in the
> Discus.
>
>
>

[Nyal Williams]

I'm sure I've seen an article about anti-collision
radar available for corporate aircraft. I believe
that they are available, but am unsure how prevalent
they are. There was some comment about this in AOPA(?)
mag a couple of years ago.

At 18:00 26 November 2004, Btiz wrote:
>Nyal, corporate radars are WX radars and not designed
>to me air-to-air
>intercept radars..
>
>you'd be better off stuffing in a transponder for their
>TCAS and for ATC to
>really see you.
>
>BT
>
>'Nyal Williams' wrote in message
...
>> At 03:00 26 November 2004, Ralph Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>Boating stores sell radar reflectors made of cardboard
>>>>and covered with aluminum foil. They are in three
>>>>parts and can be disassembled. When put together they
>>>>make a sphere about 12-14 inches across and they provide
>>>>the 3D right triangles that are supposed to reflect
>>>>a signal back.
>>>>
>>>>I inquired about their use in gliders (practically
>>>>no weight and could go in fuselage behind wing) and
>>>>someone told me they would not give a strong enough
>>>>signal for aircraft use owing to the speeds involved.
>>>> I have no idea about the validity of this statement.
>>>> Couldn't hurt to try it.
>>>>>
>>>That is a corner reflector: three flat, mutually perpendicular
>>>surfaces. It has the special geometric property that
>>>a signal striking
>>>it from any direction will reflect from surface to
>>>surface and wind up
>>>going back exactly the way it came. On radar, it looks
>>>much larger
>>>than an irregular-shaped object the same size.
>>>
>>>Apollo crews left at least one optical corner reflector
>>>on the moon,
>>>and astronomers can bounce laser light off it to make
>>>precision
>>>orbital measurements.
>>>
>>>Signal strength is not the problem: a fiberglass ship
>>>with a one-foot
>>>corner reflector inside it will look bigger than a
>>>metal sailplane.
>>>The bad news: air traffic control radars are 'moving
>>>target' systems,
>>>which means they filter out returns that don't have
>>>any Doppler shift
>>>to indicate a moving object. I don't know what the
>>>minimum detectable
>>>speed is, but if you're under it, they just won't see
>>>you.
>>>
>>>rj
>>>
>>
>>
>> What about the radars in corporate aircraft? If they
>> can pick it up I might consider stuffing one in the
>> Discus.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Charles Yeates]

BTIZ wrote:
>
> It could be your local Halifax controllers are not trying, have to many
> filters turned on.. or are just not experienced in radar operation.
>

It is the filter settings -- they don't want to see birds {:>))

[Mark James Boyd]

Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> In the US, I'm not aware of any ACTUAL midair collisions between a
>> glider and non-glider that are more than 4 miles from an airport.
>
>You might want to ask Chip Garner about the A-7 that ate 3 feet of one
>of his wings. There have been a few others between airplanes and
>gliders, in the US and away from airports...

Apr 20, 1986: LS-4 vs. A-7

I've read some others between military and civilian airplanes,
but I haven't found any more glider vs. airplane.

And as far as being on an MTR while there is a NOTAM for its use,
well, I once wandered into an active artillery range too.
When the tree branches started falling off, there was no mystery there.

I'd like to hear about other glider vs. airplane not near an airport,
if others have references...

And thanks to Marc for this one...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

Nyal Williams > wrote:
>
>I inquired about their use in gliders (practically
>no weight and could go in fuselage behind wing) and
>someone told me they would not give a strong enough
>signal for aircraft use owing to the speeds involved.
> I have no idea about the validity of this statement.
> Couldn't hurt to try it.

I'll let you know...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41a77ce7$1@darkstar...
> Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> >Mark James Boyd wrote:
> >> In the US, I'm not aware of any ACTUAL midair collisions between a
> >> glider and non-glider that are more than 4 miles from an airport.
> >
> >You might want to ask Chip Garner about the A-7 that ate 3 feet of one
> >of his wings. There have been a few others between airplanes and
> >gliders, in the US and away from airports...
>
> Apr 20, 1986: LS-4 vs. A-7
>
> I've read some others between military and civilian airplanes,
> but I haven't found any more glider vs. airplane.
>
> And as far as being on an MTR while there is a NOTAM for its use,
> well, I once wandered into an active artillery range too.
> When the tree branches started falling off, there was no mystery there.
>
> I'd like to hear about other glider vs. airplane not near an airport,
> if others have references...
>
> And thanks to Marc for this one...
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

George Thelen has one, F-4 at an estimated three foot separation. IIRC,
that's what really got him into writing about safety for Soaring.

Frank Whiteley

[Marc Ramsey]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> I'm sure I've seen an article about anti-collision
> radar available for corporate aircraft. I believe
> that they are available, but am unsure how prevalent
> they are. There was some comment about this in AOPA(?)
> mag a couple of years ago.

It's called TCAS (Traffic Alert/Collision Avoidance System). It's not
radar based, it broadcasts an interrogation signal which causes any
nearby transponders to respond. It calculates range and bearing to
transponders that respond, and shows them on a display in the cockpit.
If there appears to be the threat of collision, it sounds an alarm. If
the other aircraft is TCAS equipped, the two units actually negotiate an
avoidance strategy, then advise the pilots how to maneuver away from the
other aircraft.

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> In the US, I'm not aware of any ACTUAL midair collisions between a
> glider and non-glider that are more than 4 miles from an airport.

About 15 years ago near Ephrata, Washington, there was a glider/airplane
collision about 10 miles from the airport. Everyone was killed. I don't
remember the details, or even if they were determined with any confidence.

I seem to recall one near Truckee 5-10 years ago, but don't remember how
far it was from the airport.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Ralph Jones wrote:

> Signal strength is not the problem: a fiberglass ship with a one-foot
> corner reflector inside it will look bigger than a metal sailplane.
> The bad news: air traffic control radars are "moving target" systems,
> which means they filter out returns that don't have any Doppler shift
> to indicate a moving object. I don't know what the minimum detectable
> speed is, but if you're under it, they just won't see you.

This is quite variable, depending on the radar and the operator, but if
you present a bigger primary return, your chances are improved. The
filtering may be adjustable, so if you contact them by radio, they are
more likely to get you on the radar.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> > In the US, I'm not aware of any ACTUAL midair collisions between a
> > glider and non-glider that are more than 4 miles from an airport.
>
> About 15 years ago near Ephrata, Washington, there was a glider/airplane
> collision about 10 miles from the airport. Everyone was killed. I don't
> remember the details, or even if they were determined with any confidence.
>
> I seem to recall one near Truckee 5-10 years ago, but don't remember how
> far it was from the airport.
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
That was the heads down Aero Commander that nearly sliced the Grob in half,
except the oxygen bottle deflected the wing tip upwards. The glider pilot
was flying without parachute, so his option was to fly gently back to
Truckee. IIRC, the bits were jiggling around a bit, but held together long
enough.

Frank Whiteley

[BTIZ]

I was training a young controller once.. and he kept calling out a primary
return as traffic.. slow moving south bound.. altitude unknown.. but I was
seeing more than one return on occasion..

So.. we asked the next pilot going up the airway if he could spot the
traffic... (clue, airway followed river valley north to south).. sure enough
the pilot reported a beautiful V formation of Ducks.. heading south for the
winter.. about 2000ft below his cruising altitude..

Water in the ducks bellies reflect the radar..

BT

"Charles Yeates" > wrote in message
...
> BTIZ wrote:
>>
>> It could be your local Halifax controllers are not trying, have to many
>> filters turned on.. or are just not experienced in radar operation.
>>
>
> It is the filter settings -- they don't want to see birds {:>))

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> In the US, I'm not aware of any ACTUAL midair collisions between a
>> glider and non-glider that are more than 4 miles from an airport.
>
>About 15 years ago near Ephrata, Washington, there was a glider/airplane
>collision about 10 miles from the airport. Everyone was killed. I don't
>remember the details, or even if they were determined with any confidence.

Can't find this one in fatals/glider/state of washington on NTSB. Hmmm...
Looked for 1980 to 1999...

>
>I seem to recall one near Truckee 5-10 years ago, but don't remember how
>far it was from the airport.

3/31/1998, Grob 102 vs. Aero Commander 690, vicinity of the airport,
all uninjured

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


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

BTIZ > wrote:
>
>you'd be better off stuffing in a transponder for their TCAS and for ATC to
>really see you.

I think we all understand that putting in a transponder and a
big battery is a more complete solution. I think those
on this thread are simply looking at the lower tech, less expensive,
no recurrent certification alternatives.

At $50 and one pound, this looks pretty good. At $1000 and
10 pounds (including the extra battery) + $160/every two years,
I suspect we'd see fewer takers.

I personally also love the idea of the "star" multi-faceted
reflective tape. I despise the green and light grey color of
my current airplane, for example.

Cheap, passive, low cost solutions have a sort of engineering elegance,
don't you think?

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Marc Ramsey]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> + $160/every two years,

It's more like $75-100 every two years, as a transponder in a glider
just needs VFR certification (i.e., no static leak-down test).

Marc

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41a81fb1$1@darkstar...
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> >Mark James Boyd wrote:
> >
> >> In the US, I'm not aware of any ACTUAL midair collisions between a
> >> glider and non-glider that are more than 4 miles from an airport.
> >
> >About 15 years ago near Ephrata, Washington, there was a glider/airplane
> >collision about 10 miles from the airport. Everyone was killed. I don't
> >remember the details, or even if they were determined with any
confidence.
>
> Can't find this one in fatals/glider/state of washington on NTSB. Hmmm...
> Looked for 1980 to 1999...
>
> >
> >I seem to recall one near Truckee 5-10 years ago, but don't remember how
> >far it was from the airport.
>
> 3/31/1998, Grob 102 vs. Aero Commander 690, vicinity of the airport,
> all uninjured
>
Yes, but VERY lucky. The empennage was sort of flopping about. The landing
was not pretty.

Frank

[Mike Lindsay]

In article >, Charles
Yeates > writes
>BTIZ wrote:
>>
>> It could be your local Halifax controllers are not trying, have to many
>> filters turned on.. or are just not experienced in radar operation.
>>
>
>It is the filter settings -- they don't want to see birds {:>))

Oh. Don't they want to avoid bird strikes, then?
--
Mike Lindsay

[Ian Cant]

Sometimes that is so; what if you install one because
you want to operate in Class A or B airspace [as opposed
to being more visible in uncontrolled airspace]?

Ian




At 07:30 27 November 2004, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> + $160/every two years,
>
>It's more like $75-100 every two years, as a transponder
>in a glider
>just needs VFR certification (i.e., no static leak-down
>test).
>
>Marc
>
>

[Dave Rolley]

In the USA there are simple and fatal flaws with any system that
includes ground based radar and a controller near a high density airport.

First, as already mentioned, the controller's normal display is
processed information. The is often referred to as secondary radar.
Basically it is just the transponder equipped traffic with data tags.

Second, as already mentioned, the system is normally configured to drop
out targets that have a low ground speed or don't have a ground track
that is going somewhere (e.g. circling). So a radar reflector wouldn't
be much help. It isn't the size of the return that gets the target
filtered out under these circumstances.

Third, and probably the greatest problem, if there are too many 12XX
returns (VFR transponder equipped traffic in the USA) the controller can
filter the specific codes or blocks of codes.

The was a mid-air between a commuter flight and a skydiving jump plane
between Denver CO and Cheyenne WY about 15 or 20 years ago. The
commuter flew into the climbing jump plane. Since they we both above
12,500 MSL (about 7,000 AGL), it was assumed the commuter pilots were
heads down in the cockpit. The jump plane was using a transponder code
of 1234 and ATC had 12XX code filtered for the higher altitudes. The
jump plane was not talking to ATC. Oops...

Other than a TCAS installation (aircraft to aircraft), the only way a
transponder will help us is if the ATC facility in the area knows about
the glider operations and can (or will) operate their equipment in a
manner that allows the controller to see the glider traffic. That means
we have to work with the local ATC folks. Otherwise, it is so much extra
ballast and power draw in the glider.

Even when the technology should help, local procedures can negate the
technology. Since the way we operate gliders does not fit in the
general transportation model the ATC system is designed to support,
putting a transponder into a glider without working with the affected
ATC organization does little to help the situation.

Dave Rolley

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> BTIZ > wrote:
>
>>you'd be better off stuffing in a transponder for their TCAS and for ATC to
>>really see you.
>
>
> I think we all understand that putting in a transponder and a
> big battery is a more complete solution. I think those
> on this thread are simply looking at the lower tech, less expensive,
> no recurrent certification alternatives.
>
> At $50 and one pound, this looks pretty good. At $1000 and
> 10 pounds (including the extra battery) + $160/every two years,
> I suspect we'd see fewer takers.
>
> I personally also love the idea of the "star" multi-faceted
> reflective tape. I despise the green and light grey color of
> my current airplane, for example.
>
> Cheap, passive, low cost solutions have a sort of engineering elegance,
> don't you think?
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[Marc Ramsey]

Ian Cant wrote:
> Sometimes that is so; what if you install one because
> you want to operate in Class A or B airspace [as opposed
> to being more visible in uncontrolled airspace]?

Assuming you are talking about the US, I've never seen any explicit
requirement for IFR transponder certification for entry into Class B
airspace (assuming VFR operation). As for Class A (outside of a wave
window) you would be operating IFR, so I would guess IFR certification
would be a requirement, as well as the sensible thing to do.

Marc

[Ian Johnston]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:15:23 UTC, "Peter Seddon"
> wrote:

: The area is marked as an area
: of intense gliding activity and the airfield is marked with cables. We've
: had a couple of near thing over the airfield.

I have on several occasions seen light single engined aircraft pass
directly over the SGU site at Portmoak on their way - I presumed - to
or from Edinburgh airport. They were at 1000', or to put it another
way, 300 - 600' below the height the winches cables were getting to.

And I have I told you about the Tornado which passed me on the level,
in the Cheviots, about 2 wingspans away from me?

Ian
:


--

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:37:03 UTC, Nyal Williams
> wrote:

: Boating stores sell radar reflectors made of cardboard
: and covered with aluminum foil.

I have never seen a cardboard one, but I do have a light alloy one on
the boat.

: I inquired about their use in gliders (practically
: no weight and could go in fuselage behind wing) and
: someone told me they would not give a strong enough
: signal for aircraft use owing to the speeds involved.

I have heard that a military ATC who visited one site where I fly said
that it would make a considerable improvement to the radar return from
a glider. It's on my list of things to do.

Ian

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:22:05 UTC, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

: This is quite variable, depending on the radar and the operator, but if
: you present a bigger primary return, your chances are improved.

Absolutely. No one ever became less visible with a radar reflector...

Ian
--

[Peter Seddon]

> I have on several occasions seen light single engined aircraft pass
> directly over the SGU site at Portmoak on their way - I presumed - to
> or from Edinburgh airport. They were at 1000', or to put it another
> way, 300 - 600' below the height the winches cables were getting to.
>
> And I have I told you about the Tornado which passed me on the level,
> in the Cheviots, about 2 wingspans away from me?
>
> Ian
> :
>

I've had a few good flight at SGU, I must say that I've been too bussy
looking out for other gliders buzzing up and down Bishop to see anything in
the far distance. It gets hectic up there, and Perth airport is not too far
away with quite a lot of GA going on.

Peter.

[Peter Seddon]

> : I inquired about their use in gliders (practically
> : no weight and could go in fuselage behind wing) and
> : someone told me they would not give a strong enough
> : signal for aircraft use owing to the speeds involved.
>
> I have heard that a military ATC who visited one site where I fly said
> that it would make a considerable improvement to the radar return from
> a glider. It's on my list of things to do.
>
> Ian

You could fly a tin AC!!! ;-)

Peter
Pilatus B4

[Carl J. Niedermeyer]

In article <41a81fb1$1@darkstar>,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> >Mark James Boyd wrote:
> >
> >> In the US, I'm not aware of any ACTUAL midair collisions between a
> >> glider and non-glider that are more than 4 miles from an airport.
> >
> >About 15 years ago near Ephrata, Washington, there was a glider/airplane
> >collision about 10 miles from the airport. Everyone was killed. I don't
> >remember the details, or even if they were determined with any confidence.
>
> Can't find this one in fatals/glider/state of washington on NTSB. Hmmm...
> Looked for 1980 to 1999...
>
> >
> >I seem to recall one near Truckee 5-10 years ago, but don't remember how
> >far it was from the airport.
>
> 3/31/1998, Grob 102 vs. Aero Commander 690, vicinity of the airport,
> all uninjured
>
> >--
> >Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> >
> >Eric Greenwell
> >Washington State
> >USA
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd


I believe the accident Eric is referring to occurred in 1978 between a
Piper PA-32R (Lance or Saratoga, I forget which) and my partner flying
our LS1-f. 5 people were killed, no surviviors.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=39335&key=0

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=39336&key=0

Amazing how long ago this accident happened.

Carl J. Niedermeyer
Washington State
USA

[OscarCVox]

Imagine this scenario.
A gliding competition in southern England with 100+ gliders all with
transponders, Plus non competition gliders flying with transponders, Plus light
aircraft flying VFR, Plus commercial, Plus military all with transponders
bleeping away.

The poor chap on the Radar would have a totally confused picture. The
authorities would then want to make sense of it because they look so close
together on the screen, all these people flying VFR outside controlled
airspace.

Before we know where we are there will be NO uncontrolled airspace and since
gliders cannot maintain nice neat constant heights and headings they would be
banned.
Paranoid me? Maybe

[Jack]

After 20,000+ hours of civilian and military flying, given the number
of times that I have not seen an aircraft until he is _no longer_ a
threat, I have decided that there are probably few, if any, days when
we see all of the traffic in our area throughout the flight.

If we all knew how much traffic we miss, we'd work a lot harder to see
and avoid, and to be seen and avoided.


Jack

[Mark James Boyd]

Ian Cant > wrote:
>Sometimes that is so; what if you install one because
>you want to operate in Class A or B airspace [as opposed
>to being more visible in uncontrolled airspace]?

A very rare case indeed. I know of few glider pilots who would operate
in such airspace. I think the stats that 80% of glider pilots twirl
around their home field isn't because of lack of transponders or radios...

On the other hand, here in the states, SSA has proposed to the FAA
allowing glider pilots to legally turn transponders on and off in flight,
to conserve battery power.

I think the FAA is unlikely to approve this. If I'm faced with this
situation, I will notice it is inoperative, turn it off, and place the
appropriate sticker on it. Later in the flight, when I have the time to
test it further, I'll turn it on and notice it works, and I will remove
the sticker.

The other perhaps much more important activity is to learn enough about
the IFR approach procedures near high volume airports where you are
about to fly. The US VFR charts have magenta shaded markings which often
extend from busier airports indicating an IFR approach. Also, for $4-$5
one can purchase the IFR approach plates for a region of the US. Any
instrument pilot can show enough about these to add some perspective.

Of course, this is really mostly to avoid high volume approaches to
commuter airports, but I've used it to assure I avoid commuter traffic
near several gliderports.

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

Carl J. Niedermeyer > wrote:
>
>I believe the accident Eric is referring to occurred in 1978 between a
>Piper PA-32R (Lance or Saratoga, I forget which) and my partner flying
>our LS1-f. 5 people were killed, no surviviors.
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=39335&key=0
>
>Amazing how long ago this accident happened.

Hmmm...the accident reports don't indicate if this was very near a
gliderport or near Moses Lake (the Piper's departure point).

I'd be interested in more details, if they are available. I suppose
the altitude of the collision is unknown...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

Jack > wrote:
>After 20,000+ hours of civilian and military flying, given the number
>of times that I have not seen an aircraft until he is _no longer_ a
>threat, I have decided that there are probably few, if any, days when
>we see all of the traffic in our area throughout the flight.
>
>If we all knew how much traffic we miss, we'd work a lot harder to see
>and avoid, and to be seen and avoided.

Given how much traffic I see within 4 miles of an airport vs. how much I see
during random flight paths away from airports, combined with the midair
accident statistics and my own close calls, I have some conclusions.

I'm very attentive (looking outside) at "D" towered airports.
I fly enroute below 3000 AGL at "off" altitudes (2700, 2340, etc),
except when overflying airports.
I avoid overflying navaids (VORs) and airports, often diverting 5+
miles away/around them.
If I notice an airplane, I immediately assume there are more nearby.
I don't fly in glider gaggles or contests as I don't have the avoidance
skills necessary to feel comfortable.
I only fly near the same thermal/ridge with other gliders if it is exactly
one other glider, or I have two people on board (one as lookout).

Those very experienced in gaggles have different standards, but this
has worked for me so far.




--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Bob Korves]

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
(snip)
>
> George Thelen has one, F-4 at an estimated three foot separation. IIRC,
> that's what really got him into writing about safety for Soaring.
>
> Frank Whiteley

George is a friend of mine, and I know that story well, and it is believable
and scary. That said, I think that military fighter pilots are not immune
from buzzing gliders:

"Hey Maverick, got the glider at 12:00? Lets wake him up."

Been there, done that (twice, on the receiving end), have the stained
shorts...

Now when one goes by the first thing I think of is "Wingman!"
-Bob

[Carl J. Niedermeyer]

In article <41ab5a00$1@darkstar>,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

> Carl J. Niedermeyer > wrote:
> >
> >I believe the accident Eric is referring to occurred in 1978 between a
> >Piper PA-32R (Lance or Saratoga, I forget which) and my partner flying
> >our LS1-f. 5 people were killed, no surviviors.
> >
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=39335&key=0
> >
> >Amazing how long ago this accident happened.
>
> Hmmm...the accident reports don't indicate if this was very near a
> gliderport or near Moses Lake (the Piper's departure point).
>
> I'd be interested in more details, if they are available. I suppose
> the altitude of the collision is unknown...
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

The accident occurred approximately 7 or 8 nm miles West of Ephrata,
where we fly from. The altimeter in the LS1-f was broken with the hands
indicating about 6700 feet MSL (IIRC), about 5000 feet AGL. There were
no clouds that day and visibilty was 150 miles. I have the complete
report somewhere in my files.

Carl J. Niedermeyer
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> Carl J. Niedermeyer > wrote:
>
>>I believe the accident Eric is referring to occurred in 1978 between a
>>Piper PA-32R (Lance or Saratoga, I forget which) and my partner flying
>>our LS1-f. 5 people were killed, no surviviors.
>>
>>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=39335&key=0
>>
>>Amazing how long ago this accident happened.
>
>
> Hmmm...the accident reports don't indicate if this was very near a
> gliderport or near Moses Lake (the Piper's departure point).
>
> I'd be interested in more details, if they are available. I suppose
> the altitude of the collision is unknown...

Carl N. can tell you more accurately, but I recall it was about 10 miles
NW of Ephrata airport, where the glider launched from, and probably in
the 5000-7000 msl range.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Carl J. Niedermeyer > wrote:
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote:
>
>The accident occurred approximately 7 or 8 nm miles West of Ephrata,
>where we fly from. The altimeter in the LS1-f was broken with the hands
>indicating about 6700 feet MSL (IIRC), about 5000 feet AGL. There were
>no clouds that day and visibilty was 150 miles. I have the complete
>report somewhere in my files.

Geez. This sounds like a pure one-in-a-million case of crappy luck.
The chance of two aircraft in all that 3-dimensional space hitting each
other, while just flying around, is almost astronomical.

An astronomical number of hours of flight in the USA in the past
century multiplied by a miniscule chance of a random collision = ?

I don't know what to conclude from this, but thank you for your
investigation and response. Perhaps others will have comments.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

There was another collision.

It was over Farnborough airfield between a glider from the Farnborough
gliding club and a light aircraft from Blackbushe.

The Astir pilot baled out and landed safely on the airfield.

The power pilot flew back to Blackbushe with his pupil instead of landing on
the vast airfield underneath him.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Chris Rollings" >
> wrote in message ...
>
> I'm aware of one airplane/glider collision in the UK
> not with 4 miles of the gliders base. A piston single
> cruising at about 140 knots ran into the back of a
> std cirrus on a straight glide. If I remember correctly the
> glider pilot was probably killed by the aircrafts propeller.
> I think the airplane pilot survived.
>
> I'm also aware of one in the UK and one in the USA
> where, although near the gliders base airports, both
> involved transiting powered airplanes - so not 'landing
> related'. In both cases the powered airplane removed
> the outboard few feet of the gliders wing. Both gliders
> landed safely, both airplane pilots were killed.
>
> Some years ago, as part of a discussion with officialdom
> about proposed increases in regulated airspace, I did
> a calculation that suggested that incidents that one
> might expect an airplane pilot to report as a near
> miss (which I reckoned was passing within 500 feet
> vertically and 300 yards horizontally of another aircraft
> and not seeing early enough to take avoiding action)
> would occur about 1000 times more often than actual
> collisions.
>

[Don Brown]

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." > wrote in message
...
> There was another collision.
>
> It was over Farnborough airfield between a glider from the Farnborough
> gliding club and a light aircraft from Blackbushe.
>
> The Astir pilot baled out and landed safely on the airfield.
>
> The power pilot flew back to Blackbushe with his pupil instead of landing
> on
> the vast airfield underneath him.
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>
Back in the 70's ( before you were at the Long Mynd) there was an incident
which I witnessed where a pair of Hunters crossed the airfield. Approaching
from the West they slightly diverted apart as if they had suddenly seen the
gliders and the southerly one passed underneath the K13 just as it released
the cable. Two seconds earlier it would have hit the cable whilst it was
attached to the glider.

I was interviewed by an RAF investigator (we had reported the incident) who
stated that the Hunters were based in Germany , were on exercise over the UK
and that their maps showed the Long Mynd as an area of intense gliding
activity.

DB

[Andreas Maurer]

On 29 Nov 2004 22:57:25 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:


>Geez. This sounds like a pure one-in-a-million case of crappy luck.
>The chance of two aircraft in all that 3-dimensional space hitting each
>other, while just flying around, is almost astronomical.

They are not, unfortunately.

In my vicinity there have been two jet-glider midairs in the last 15
years and one near-collision where the motorglider was damaged badly
by wake turbulence. The winch cable of my club was cut once by a
fighter about 25 years ago.


Bye
Andreas

[Eric Greenwell]

Dave Rolley wrote:
> In the USA there are simple and fatal flaws with any system that
> includes ground based radar and a controller near a high density airport.
>
> First, as already mentioned, the controller's normal display is
> processed information. The is often referred to as secondary radar.
> Basically it is just the transponder equipped traffic with data tags.
>
> Second, as already mentioned, the system is normally configured to drop
> out targets that have a low ground speed or don't have a ground track
> that is going somewhere (e.g. circling). So a radar reflector wouldn't
> be much help. It isn't the size of the return that gets the target
> filtered out under these circumstances.
>
> Third, and probably the greatest problem, if there are too many 12XX
> returns (VFR transponder equipped traffic in the USA) the controller can
> filter the specific codes or blocks of codes.

These may be "simple" flaws, but they aren't "fatal" to transponder
equipped gliders:

#1 this isn't a problem for transponder equipped aircraft, since they
will show on the display along with their data tag. Primary returns may
not be displayed, depending on the situation; however, if you call ATC,
they may be able and willing to put your primary return on the screen.

#2 doesn't apply to transponder equipped aircraft, as they are not
filtered by speed or track, but may apply to aircraft without
transponders, as primary returns may be filtered by speed or track.
Filtering out transponder

#3 applies in only a very few, very high density areas that gliders
aren't likely to be flying in, such as the area near LAX (Los Angles).

> The was a mid-air between a commuter flight and a skydiving jump plane
> between Denver CO and Cheyenne WY about 15 or 20 years ago. The
> commuter flew into the climbing jump plane. Since they we both above
> 12,500 MSL (about 7,000 AGL), it was assumed the commuter pilots were
> heads down in the cockpit. The jump plane was using a transponder code
> of 1234 and ATC had 12XX code filtered for the higher altitudes. The
> jump plane was not talking to ATC. Oops...

Errors happen, and this has got to be a rare one, where both ATC and the
jump plane make them. I've asked the controllers at Seattle Center if
they ever filter out VFR code 1200 - "NO SIR"! The jump plane flying out
of our airport gets every transponder equipped aircraft (including my
glider) called out to him before he lets any jumpers loose.

> Other than a TCAS installation (aircraft to aircraft),

This is actually the BEST reason to carry a transponder - so airliners
in particular, but also many corporate aircraft and military aircraft
can avoid you!

the only way a
> transponder will help us is if the ATC facility in the area knows about
> the glider operations and can (or will) operate their equipment in a
> manner that allows the controller to see the glider traffic. That means
> we have to work with the local ATC folks. Otherwise, it is so much extra
> ballast and power draw in the glider.

THis is definitely NOT true. ATC is operating their equipment so they
can track VFR aircraft (that includes you in your glider), and they
don't need to know if it's an airplane or a glider. If they can see the
airplanes, they'll see you, even if you are circling or moving slowly.

>
> Even when the technology should help, local procedures can negate the
> technology. Since the way we operate gliders does not fit in the
> general transportation model the ATC system is designed to support,
> putting a transponder into a glider without working with the affected
> ATC organization does little to help the situation.

The essence of the VFR 1200 code is that ATC _doesn't_ need to "work"
with you: that's why it's a "VFR" code. You just fly around, minding
your own business like the airplanes flying VFR, and their radar will
pick you up. They want to know where the VFR traffic is so they can
direct the IFR traffic away from it. Folks, we aren't that special. The
only place in the USA that I know of that has a different situation is
at Reno, where gliders may use the 0440 code to identify themselves as a
glider. It's not required that gliders use it, only that they are
allowed to use it as an aid to the Reno controllers. If you use 1200,
they'll still see you.

Note that it's not just the IFR and TCAS traffic that can be steered
away from you, but also VFR aircraft using "flight following", and the
already mentioned skydivers.

If you think you need a transponder, but are concerned that it will be
just "so much extra ballast and power draw", please, please, contact the
ATC in your flying area and ask them if they will see you on their
radar! My experience is they will be delighted to have you equipped with
one.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Daniels]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Rolley wrote:
> > In the USA there are simple and fatal flaws with any system that
> > includes ground based radar and a controller near a high density
airport.
> >
> > First, as already mentioned, the controller's normal display is
> > processed information. The is often referred to as secondary radar.
> > Basically it is just the transponder equipped traffic with data tags.
> >
> > Second, as already mentioned, the system is normally configured to drop
> > out targets that have a low ground speed or don't have a ground track
> > that is going somewhere (e.g. circling). So a radar reflector wouldn't
> > be much help. It isn't the size of the return that gets the target
> > filtered out under these circumstances.
> >
> > Third, and probably the greatest problem, if there are too many 12XX
> > returns (VFR transponder equipped traffic in the USA) the controller can
> > filter the specific codes or blocks of codes.
>
> These may be "simple" flaws, but they aren't "fatal" to transponder
> equipped gliders:
>
> #1 this isn't a problem for transponder equipped aircraft, since they
> will show on the display along with their data tag. Primary returns may

> not be displayed, depending on the situation; however, if you call ATC,
> they may be able and willing to put your primary return on the screen.
>
> #2 doesn't apply to transponder equipped aircraft, as they are not
> filtered by speed or track, but may apply to aircraft without
> transponders, as primary returns may be filtered by speed or track.
> Filtering out transponder
>
> #3 applies in only a very few, very high density areas that gliders
> aren't likely to be flying in, such as the area near LAX (Los Angles).
>
> > The was a mid-air between a commuter flight and a skydiving jump plane
> > between Denver CO and Cheyenne WY about 15 or 20 years ago. The
> > commuter flew into the climbing jump plane. Since they we both above
> > 12,500 MSL (about 7,000 AGL), it was assumed the commuter pilots were
> > heads down in the cockpit. The jump plane was using a transponder code
> > of 1234 and ATC had 12XX code filtered for the higher altitudes. The
> > jump plane was not talking to ATC. Oops...
>
> Errors happen, and this has got to be a rare one, where both ATC and the
> jump plane make them. I've asked the controllers at Seattle Center if
> they ever filter out VFR code 1200 - "NO SIR"! The jump plane flying out
> of our airport gets every transponder equipped aircraft (including my
> glider) called out to him before he lets any jumpers loose.
>
> > Other than a TCAS installation (aircraft to aircraft),
>
> This is actually the BEST reason to carry a transponder - so airliners
> in particular, but also many corporate aircraft and military aircraft
> can avoid you!
>
> the only way a
> > transponder will help us is if the ATC facility in the area knows about
> > the glider operations and can (or will) operate their equipment in a
> > manner that allows the controller to see the glider traffic. That means
> > we have to work with the local ATC folks. Otherwise, it is so much extra
> > ballast and power draw in the glider.
>
> THis is definitely NOT true. ATC is operating their equipment so they
> can track VFR aircraft (that includes you in your glider), and they
> don't need to know if it's an airplane or a glider. If they can see the
> airplanes, they'll see you, even if you are circling or moving slowly.
>
> >
> > Even when the technology should help, local procedures can negate the
> > technology. Since the way we operate gliders does not fit in the
> > general transportation model the ATC system is designed to support,
> > putting a transponder into a glider without working with the affected
> > ATC organization does little to help the situation.
>
> The essence of the VFR 1200 code is that ATC _doesn't_ need to "work"
> with you: that's why it's a "VFR" code. You just fly around, minding
> your own business like the airplanes flying VFR, and their radar will
> pick you up. They want to know where the VFR traffic is so they can
> direct the IFR traffic away from it. Folks, we aren't that special. The
> only place in the USA that I know of that has a different situation is
> at Reno, where gliders may use the 0440 code to identify themselves as a
> glider. It's not required that gliders use it, only that they are
> allowed to use it as an aid to the Reno controllers. If you use 1200,
> they'll still see you.
>
> Note that it's not just the IFR and TCAS traffic that can be steered
> away from you, but also VFR aircraft using "flight following", and the
> already mentioned skydivers.
>
> If you think you need a transponder, but are concerned that it will be
> just "so much extra ballast and power draw", please, please, contact the
> ATC in your flying area and ask them if they will see you on their
> radar! My experience is they will be delighted to have you equipped with
> one.
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

Eric, I think you got all that right.

I have spoken to the Denver Center about transponders in gliders.
Specifically, I asked if "Flight Following" would be available to
transponder equipped gliders after explaining the erratic path gliders fly.
The answer was, "On a workload permitting basis, of course". (They also
mentioned that the "erratic" description would fit some of the instrument
training flights they work.)

"Flight following" means that you get your very own transponder code for
that flight and somebody to talk to if you're in trouble. Workload
permitting, they will call out your position to other conflicting traffic
and tell you about them. You're guaranteed to be on their radar screens
until the end of the flight or until you get a call from center that "Flight
following is terminated" due to workload.

The downside is that you would have to constantly monitor the center
frequency listening to all the other chatter. You can leave the frequency
for short periods by request to contact your crew.

For those readers outside the USA, this is as close as we get to "Controlled
VFR". For those properly trained and equipped, Flight Following morphs
nicely into an IFR clearance if the need arises.

I always used flight following in place of a flight plan when flying powered
aircraft. I made sure whoever I was meeting at my destination knew my ETA,
my N number and who to call. I didn't have to remember to cancel it and, if
I went down, the radar track would pinpoint my location.

Bill Daniels

[Dave Rolley]

Not fatal to the glider or occupant, but possibly fatal to the scheme of
"transponders will solve midair problems". Probably a poor choice of
wording on my part.

OK, I try again. My comments came from personal observation and quotes
from FAA officials in response to problems in the Denver area. Just as
Eric's comments come from his knowledge and contacts with the FAA.
While there are policies at the agency level, implementation around the
country may vary. The transponder is just one tool in a set of tools
used by ATC to perform their tasks. ATC will manage those tools in a
manner that allows them accomplish their mission.

My real point, which got lost in the details, is simple. For the most
part, the ATC system is not designed for General Aviation. It is
designed to keep things from bumping into the airliners. It is not
designed for our kind of flying. My assertion is that simply adding a
transponder to our gliders will not necessarily improve the situation.

I believe that there needs to be an educational outreach on both sides
that lets each see what the needs and concerns are in a particular
geographical area. For instance, the practices used in the Reno area.

I have visited the local radar facility on several occasions. The folks
there are very helpful and very interested in where and how we fly. Our
understanding where and how they route the airliners in our area helps
us. It is time well spent. BTW, the right of pilots to visit FAA
facilities was just reaffirmed. Contact your local radar facility and
arrange a tour. It may just give you the information you need to help
your decision on that transponder installation.

But remember, it takes more than a transponder to keep two aircraft from
going bump!

Dave

Eric Greenwell wrote:

>
> The essence of the VFR 1200 code is that ATC _doesn't_ need to "work"
> with you: that's why it's a "VFR" code. You just fly around, minding
> your own business like the airplanes flying VFR, and their radar will
> pick you up. They want to know where the VFR traffic is so they can
> direct the IFR traffic away from it. Folks, we aren't that special. The
> only place in the USA that I know of that has a different situation is
> at Reno, where gliders may use the 0440 code to identify themselves as a
> glider. It's not required that gliders use it, only that they are
> allowed to use it as an aid to the Reno controllers. If you use 1200,
> they'll still see you.
>
> Note that it's not just the IFR and TCAS traffic that can be steered
> away from you, but also VFR aircraft using "flight following", and the
> already mentioned skydivers.
>
> If you think you need a transponder, but are concerned that it will be
> just "so much extra ballast and power draw", please, please, contact the
> ATC in your flying area and ask them if they will see you on their
> radar! My experience is they will be delighted to have you equipped with
> one.
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Dave Rolley wrote:

> My real point, which got lost in the details, is simple. For the most
> part, the ATC system is not designed for General Aviation. It is
> designed to keep things from bumping into the airliners. It is not
> designed for our kind of flying. My assertion is that simply adding a
> transponder to our gliders will not necessarily improve the situation.

By "situation", do you mean keeping gliders from bumping into gliders?
If so, I agree that a adding a transponder won't help any, unless
gliders also start carrying the transponder "alerting" devices that
Monroy and others sell. These devices can also help with the airliners
bumping into gliders situation, but they depend on the glider pilot
instead of ATC.

>
> I believe that there needs to be an educational outreach on both sides
> that lets each see what the needs and concerns are in a particular
> geographical area. For instance, the practices used in the Reno area.

Again, I'm not sure what you are thinking of here. The Reno transponder
practices are aimed at keeping airliners from bumping into gliders,
which is the usual goal of a glider pilot that installs one. There is
education aimed at the glider pilot (transponder equipped or not) to
help them avoid the flight paths of aircraft going into Reno.

In any case, the density of glider traffic around Reno is routinely very
high compared to any other US area I'm aware of. The point I'm slowly
(and maybe poorly) making is putting in a transponder will provide most
of it's collision-avoidance value without any formal contact or
agreement with the local tower or ATC. A few situations, like Reno, may
be further improved with some contact.

>
> I have visited the local radar facility on several occasions. The folks
> there are very helpful and very interested in where and how we fly. Our
> understanding where and how they route the airliners in our area helps
> us. It is time well spent. BTW, the right of pilots to visit FAA
> facilities was just reaffirmed. Contact your local radar facility and
> arrange a tour. It may just give you the information you need to help
> your decision on that transponder installation.

Good advice.
>
> But remember, it takes more than a transponder to keep two aircraft from
> going bump!

It's another layer of protection, but not an impervious shield. It does
address a weakness in the "see and be seen" technique that isn't easily
accomplished any other way, except by flying somewhere the airliners,
corporate jets, and some military aircraft (generally transports) don't fly.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Dave Rolley wrote:
>
>> My real point, which got lost in the details, is simple. For the most
>> part, the ATC system is not designed for General Aviation. It is
>> designed to keep things from bumping into the airliners. It is not
>> designed for our kind of flying. My assertion is that simply adding a
>> transponder to our gliders will not necessarily improve the situation.
>
>By "situation", do you mean keeping gliders from bumping into gliders?
>If so, I agree that a adding a transponder won't help any, unless
>gliders also start carrying the transponder "alerting" devices that
>Monroy and others sell. These devices can also help with the airliners
>bumping into gliders situation, but they depend on the glider pilot
>instead of ATC.

If ATC ran the show, they'd require mode-S in everything immediately.
ATC doesn't mind if the Cubs and Champs and 2-33s of the world are grounded.

Is grounding everything safer? Of course. Sept 12th was the safest
day in modern US aviation history.

I think the best path is to get to cheap GPS transponders (and flight
recorders for that matter). If it's $100 and uses 4 "D" batteries and
runs for 30 days, everyone (well, almost) will get one.

This isn't so far off, with WAAS and all...

>
>>
>> I believe that there needs to be an educational outreach on both sides
>> that lets each see what the needs and concerns are in a particular
>> geographical area. For instance, the practices used in the Reno area.
>
>Again, I'm not sure what you are thinking of here. The Reno transponder
>practices are aimed at keeping airliners from bumping into gliders,
>which is the usual goal of a glider pilot that installs one. There is
>education aimed at the glider pilot (transponder equipped or not) to
>help them avoid the flight paths of aircraft going into Reno.
>
>In any case, the density of glider traffic around Reno is routinely very
>high compared to any other US area I'm aware of. The point I'm slowly
>(and maybe poorly) making is putting in a transponder will provide most
>of it's collision-avoidance value without any formal contact or
>agreement with the local tower or ATC. A few situations, like Reno, may
>be further improved with some contact.
>
>>
>> I have visited the local radar facility on several occasions. The folks
>> there are very helpful and very interested in where and how we fly. Our
>> understanding where and how they route the airliners in our area helps
>> us. It is time well spent. BTW, the right of pilots to visit FAA
>> facilities was just reaffirmed. Contact your local radar facility and
>> arrange a tour. It may just give you the information you need to help
>> your decision on that transponder installation.
>
>Good advice.
>>
>> But remember, it takes more than a transponder to keep two aircraft from
>> going bump!
>
>It's another layer of protection, but not an impervious shield. It does
>address a weakness in the "see and be seen" technique that isn't easily
>accomplished any other way, except by flying somewhere the airliners,
>corporate jets, and some military aircraft (generally transports) don't fly.
>
>--
>Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Stephen Haley]

This is curious as like all things in british bureacracy it takes time for
stats to be reported and given that the AIB has only just released the
results of 2003 It must be that that is referred to. If so then as usual
there has been a slight case of exageration as there were only 8 airprox
involving civil gliders in 2003 in the uk - 3GA, 1 GA heli, 1 glider vs
glider, 1 Civil, 1 milatry & 1 unknown ? (ufo??). But there were also 3
military gliders who filed airproxes 1 vs Military the other 2 GA. and had 2
Airproxes filed against them. This was out of a total of 181. Also note that
I am not sure that the aib differentiates between gliders and hang gliders.
The biggest total was unsurprisingly Military who claimed the top two spaces
with 18 airproxes against themselves and 18 vs Civil. The worst class
overall was military who had 65 airprox filed against them with GA a close
second with 50. ( Civil Gliders only had 2 airprox filed against them and
one of these was by another glider pilot)

full report at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/423/Pages%20from%20BK11web.pdf see
page 7 for summary table

I have yet to see a Light aircraft take avoiding action - I suspect they are
concentrating on the instruments and gps far too intently. The only time I
know I have been spotted is when I have been thermaling near ATZs and heard
complaints to the local traffic management (tower/radio) that I was actually
in the ATZ when I was a good 3-4+ miles clear. I think the only time power
pilots are looking out the window is on Final aproach and then they get a
completely false sense of prospective. I would suspect our wingspan may have
something to do with it as they they think we are smaller thatn we actualy
are and thus get the distance wrong.
As for the altitude comment given the usable airspace in the UK is sub 7k ft
and mostly sub 5k ft I dont see that anything has changed with the newer
models this was well within reach of pre-glass gliders.


"Jack" > wrote in message
om...
> "Gliders in the U.K. were involved in 10 near-midairs
> in the second half of last year, safety investigators
> said recently, noting that newer models fly at high
> altitudes without transponders and are hard to see,
> both visually and on radar...."
>
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/314-full.html#188600
>
>
> e.g., <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3763766.stm>

[Bob Korves]

I find the concept of "near-midairs" close to useless. One pilot's "near
miss" is another pilot's "sighting". If there was some way of accurately
and consistently measuring the distances and then quantifying large numbers
of results objectively then it _might_ be useful. Until then there are only
"hits" and "misses" in my book. "Hits" make the evening news, subjective
war stories shouldn't...
-Bob

"Stephen Haley" > wrote in message
...
> This is curious as like all things in british bureacracy it takes time for
> stats to be reported and given that the AIB has only just released the
> results of 2003 It must be that that is referred to. If so then as usual
> there has been a slight case of exageration as there were only 8 airprox
> involving civil gliders in 2003 in the uk - 3GA, 1 GA heli, 1 glider vs
> glider, 1 Civil, 1 milatry & 1 unknown ? (ufo??). But there were also 3
> military gliders who filed airproxes 1 vs Military the other 2 GA. and had
2
> Airproxes filed against them. This was out of a total of 181. Also note
that
> I am not sure that the aib differentiates between gliders and hang
gliders.
> The biggest total was unsurprisingly Military who claimed the top two
spaces
> with 18 airproxes against themselves and 18 vs Civil. The worst class
> overall was military who had 65 airprox filed against them with GA a close
> second with 50. ( Civil Gliders only had 2 airprox filed against them and
> one of these was by another glider pilot)
>
> full report at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/423/Pages%20from%20BK11web.pdf
see
> page 7 for summary table
>
> I have yet to see a Light aircraft take avoiding action - I suspect they
are
> concentrating on the instruments and gps far too intently. The only time I
> know I have been spotted is when I have been thermaling near ATZs and
heard
> complaints to the local traffic management (tower/radio) that I was
actually
> in the ATZ when I was a good 3-4+ miles clear. I think the only time power
> pilots are looking out the window is on Final aproach and then they get a
> completely false sense of prospective. I would suspect our wingspan may
have
> something to do with it as they they think we are smaller thatn we actualy
> are and thus get the distance wrong.
> As for the altitude comment given the usable airspace in the UK is sub 7k
ft
> and mostly sub 5k ft I dont see that anything has changed with the newer
> models this was well within reach of pre-glass gliders.
>
>
> "Jack" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Gliders in the U.K. were involved in 10 near-midairs
> > in the second half of last year, safety investigators
> > said recently, noting that newer models fly at high
> > altitudes without transponders and are hard to see,
> > both visually and on radar...."
> >
> > http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/314-full.html#188600
> >
> >
> > e.g., <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3763766.stm>
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

This is why I only use fatalities for accident statistics of any kind
to judge relative safety.
They are the only utterly consistently metric.

Bob Korves <bkorves@winfirstDECIMALcom> wrote:
>I find the concept of "near-midairs" close to useless. One pilot's "near
>miss" is another pilot's "sighting". If there was some way of accurately
>and consistently measuring the distances and then quantifying large numbers
>of results objectively then it _might_ be useful. Until then there are only
>"hits" and "misses" in my book. "Hits" make the evening news, subjective
>war stories shouldn't...
>-Bob
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob Korves wrote:
> I find the concept of "near-midairs" close to useless. One pilot's "near
> miss" is another pilot's "sighting". If there was some way of accurately
> and consistently measuring the distances and then quantifying large numbers
> of results objectively then it _might_ be useful. Until then there are only
> "hits" and "misses" in my book. "Hits" make the evening news, subjective
> war stories shouldn't...
> -Bob

It could be done by radar for aircraft with transponders (which would
include some gliders and most GA aircraft, at least in the the US) or by
flight recorders (glider/glider near misses could often be measured this
way), but I don't know if any effort is made to get these numbers. The
exception would be if both aircraft were under ATC control.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Tony Burton]

> Some years ago a pilot was taking his young son for a ride in a 2-32. There
> was a BANG and the 2-32 was knocked into a spin. After recovery, nothing
> seemed amiss. Later on landing one wing wheel assembly was missing. The
> missing wing wheel assembly was found imbedded in the leading edge of an F4
> at the local AFB.
>
> Bill Daniels

I was there that day. It was just west of Black Forest Gliderport, 1975
I think. The jet was southbound, letting down into Peterson Field. The
2-32 didn't spin so far as I recall the pilot recounting the event. The
wingtip wheel was found imbedded in the tip tank of the jet.

[Ian Cant]

At 09:30 21 December 2004, Tony Burton wrote:
>
>> Some years ago a pilot was taking his young son for
>>a ride in a 2-32. There
>> was a BANG and the 2-32 was knocked into a spin.
>>After recovery, nothing
>> seemed amiss. Later on landing one wing wheel assembly
>>was missing. The
>> missing wing wheel assembly was found imbedded in
>>the leading edge of an F4
>> at the local AFB.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>
>I was there that day. It was just west of Black Forest
>Gliderport, 1975
>I think. The jet was southbound, letting down into
>Peterson Field. The
>2-32 didn't spin so far as I recall the pilot recounting
>the event. The
>wingtip wheel was found imbedded in the tip tank of
>the jet.
>

F-4s never carried tiptanks, so presumably wheel was
in an underwing tank. Route to get there must have
been interesting.