Glider Crash - Minden?

[Mitch]

Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash in Minden? True or
False?

-EX

[Bill Daniels]

Yes, see: http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/3754767.html
and: http://www.ktvn.com/dyn_fullnews.asp?area=fullTopStory&storyid=7164

Bill Daniels

"Mitch" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash in Minden? True or
> False?
>
> -EX
>

[Mitch]

Humm looks like it's time to be getting that X-ponder and put off the
refinish another year or so.

-EX

[[email protected]]

Rumor control here...

Challenger 800X with 5 on board on route to Reno from San Diego
collided with an ASG29 around 16,000ft east on Minden on the Pinenut
mountains.

The Jet landed gear up at Carson City the pilot sustaining minor
injuries in the initial impact.

The Glider Pilot bailed and landed ok.

Look at KRNV.com or RGJ.com for more info.

This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
safer!!

Later

Al


Mitch wrote:
> Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash in Minden? True or
> False?
>
> -EX

[Ramy Yanetz]

A miracle. Did the ASG 29 used a transponder? Assuming not, I am wondering
if he could not afford one...
> This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
> you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
> safer!!
Maybe by enforcing the use of transponders in the Reno area? I don't see a
problem with that...

Ramy

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Rumor control here...
>
> Challenger 800X with 5 on board on route to Reno from San Diego
> collided with an ASG29 around 16,000ft east on Minden on the Pinenut
> mountains.
>
> The Jet landed gear up at Carson City the pilot sustaining minor
> injuries in the initial impact.
>
> The Glider Pilot bailed and landed ok.
>
> Look at KRNV.com or RGJ.com for more info.
>
> This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
> you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
> safer!!
>
> Later
>
> Al
>
>
> Mitch wrote:
>> Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash in Minden? True or
>> False?
>>
>> -EX
>

[Stewart Kissel]

http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5337875


Update with picture of glider pilot and damaged jet.

[DocJim]

I'm glad nobody was seriously hurt... that is a miracle!

Can anyone report the conditions at 16,000 feet at the time of the
collision, and the class of airspace?

wrote:
> Challenger 800X with 5 on board on route to Reno from San Diego
> collided with an ASG29 around 16,000ft east on Minden on the Pinenut
> mountains.

[SAM 303a]

Sure, blame the victim.
I haven't seen anything that suggests that the glider pilot was in any way
at fault. The glider was hit by the jet, not vice versa. Visual rules were
in effect.
Why are we asking what else could the glider pilot do?
Why aren't we asking "what else could the jet pilot have done?"
The jet does not have a greater right to use the skies than the glider.

I'm not arguing against transponders. I am arguing in favor of taking a
stand on the principle that we all have a right to use the skies, subject to
our compliance with the appropriate rules. We should not stand before the
regulators saying "we'll add any gizmo you ask if you'll just let us keep
flying". If anyone was at fault here it was the jet pilot for (pick one or
more of the following) not maintaining a visual scan of traffic, flying too
fast to react to the presence of a glider, not recognizing that the
sectional markings showing a glider port might be significant to how she
operated the aircraft.


"Ramy Yanetz" > wrote in message
om...
> A miracle. Did the ASG 29 used a transponder? Assuming not, I am wondering
> if he could not afford one...
> > This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
> > you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
> > safer!!
> Maybe by enforcing the use of transponders in the Reno area? I don't see a
> problem with that...
>
> Ramy
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Rumor control here...
> >
> > Challenger 800X with 5 on board on route to Reno from San Diego
> > collided with an ASG29 around 16,000ft east on Minden on the Pinenut
> > mountains.
> >
> > The Jet landed gear up at Carson City the pilot sustaining minor
> > injuries in the initial impact.
> >
> > The Glider Pilot bailed and landed ok.
> >
> > Look at KRNV.com or RGJ.com for more info.
> >
> > This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
> > you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
> > safer!!
> >
> > Later
> >
> > Al
> >
> >
> > Mitch wrote:
> >> Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash in Minden? True or
> >> False?
> >>
> >> -EX
> >
>
>

[[email protected]]

Right on Sam. My biggest fear arising out of this event is that our
own advocates will sell us out.
SAM 303a wrote:
> Sure, blame the victim.
> I haven't seen anything that suggests that the glider pilot was in any way
> at fault. The glider was hit by the jet, not vice versa. Visual rules were
> in effect.
> Why are we asking what else could the glider pilot do?
> Why aren't we asking "what else could the jet pilot have done?"
> The jet does not have a greater right to use the skies than the glider.
>
> I'm not arguing against transponders. I am arguing in favor of taking a
> stand on the principle that we all have a right to use the skies, subject to
> our compliance with the appropriate rules. We should not stand before the
> regulators saying "we'll add any gizmo you ask if you'll just let us keep
> flying". If anyone was at fault here it was the jet pilot for (pick one or
> more of the following) not maintaining a visual scan of traffic, flying too
> fast to react to the presence of a glider, not recognizing that the
> sectional markings showing a glider port might be significant to how she
> operated the aircraft.
>
>
> "Ramy Yanetz" > wrote in message
> om...
> > A miracle. Did the ASG 29 used a transponder? Assuming not, I am wondering
> > if he could not afford one...
> > > This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
> > > you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
> > > safer!!
> > Maybe by enforcing the use of transponders in the Reno area? I don't see a
> > problem with that...
> >
> > Ramy
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > > Rumor control here...
> > >
> > > Challenger 800X with 5 on board on route to Reno from San Diego
> > > collided with an ASG29 around 16,000ft east on Minden on the Pinenut
> > > mountains.
> > >
> > > The Jet landed gear up at Carson City the pilot sustaining minor
> > > injuries in the initial impact.
> > >
> > > The Glider Pilot bailed and landed ok.
> > >
> > > Look at KRNV.com or RGJ.com for more info.
> > >
> > > This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
> > > you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
> > > safer!!
> > >
> > > Later
> > >
> > > Al
> > >
> > >
> > > Mitch wrote:
> > >> Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash in Minden? True or
> > >> False?
> > >>
> > >> -EX
> > >
> >
> >

[Derek Copeland]

We are having a battle in the UK to stop the CAA (Civil
Aviation Authority, otherwise known as the 'Campaign
Against Aviation') enforcing the mandatory carriage
of Mode S transponders in all aircraft, which includes
gliders. The basic bit of kit costs about £1600 plus
fitting by an 'approved' organisation and Value Added
Tax (17.5%). In total we estimate this will cost at
least £3000+ per glider, with additional ongoing servicing
and licencing costs. Then there are all the extra batteries
that we will have to carry if we want to fly for more
than about 3 hours, which will have to come out of
our permitted MAUW. The fittings for the extra batteries
may have to have design approval by EASA, which is
another major cost.

Although transponders work perfectly well in IMC conditions,
they are also trying to impose strict VMC conditions
on gliding.

You may have enough money to fit and run a Mode S transponder
Ramy, but many private owners of older sailplanes do
not. An airworthy wooden gliders can be picked up for
£3k or less in the UK. Even for club owned gliders,
this proposal would significantly increase the cost
of flying gliders.

Most collisions involving gliders are with other gliders
in thermals or on ridges, or with GA or military aircraft.
Mode S transponders do little or nothing to address
this problem. Hence we are being asked to pay large
sums of money for protecting Commercial Airliners that
wish to take short cuts through Class G airspace, without
any benefits to us. Speaking personally I would be
less hostile to fitting ADS-B or FLARM systems, which
are cheaper, less power hungry and are of some benefit
to glider pilots in detecting other aircraft. Otherwise
we should expect all pilots to keep a good lookout
when flying in Class G.

Derek Copeland


At 05:00 29 August 2006, Ramy Yanetz wrote:
>A miracle. Did the ASG 29 used a transponder? Assuming
>not, I am wondering
>if he could not afford one...
>> This is not good as there are elections going on in
>>NV right now and
>> you know some moron politician is going to try to
>>make the skies
>> safer!!
>Maybe by enforcing the use of transponders in the Reno
>area? I don't see a
>problem with that...
>
>Ramy
>
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Rumor control here...
>>
>> Challenger 800X with 5 on board on route to Reno from
>>San Diego
>> collided with an ASG29 around 16,000ft east on Minden
>>on the Pinenut
>> mountains.
>>
>> The Jet landed gear up at Carson City the pilot sustaining
>>minor
>> injuries in the initial impact.
>>
>> The Glider Pilot bailed and landed ok.
>>
>> Look at KRNV.com or RGJ.com for more info.
>>
>> This is not good as there are elections going on in
>>NV right now and
>> you know some moron politician is going to try to
>>make the skies
>> safer!!
>>
>> Later
>>
>> Al
>>
>>
>> Mitch wrote:
>>> Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash
>>>in Minden? True or
>>> False?
>>>
>>> -EX
>>
>
>
>

[Ramy]

Derek, I am not advocating mode S transponder (which I couldn't efford
one either ), it is doing nothing to improve safety then mode C,which
should cost around 2K in the US, no more then a flight computer.
I absolutly agree, Flarm or ADS-B are far better, but it may take
another generation until it will be widely implemented, especially in
the US. Meanwhile, at least in the US, our only option is the 30 years
old technology of transponders, which are relatively effordable for
most pilots I see flying at the Reno area.

Ramy

Derek Copeland wrote:
> We are having a battle in the UK to stop the CAA (Civil
> Aviation Authority, otherwise known as the 'Campaign
> Against Aviation') enforcing the mandatory carriage
> of Mode S transponders in all aircraft, which includes
> gliders. The basic bit of kit costs about £1600 plus
> fitting by an 'approved' organisation and Value Added
> Tax (17.5%). In total we estimate this will cost at
> least £3000+ per glider, with additional ongoing servicing
> and licencing costs. Then there are all the extra batteries
> that we will have to carry if we want to fly for more
> than about 3 hours, which will have to come out of
> our permitted MAUW. The fittings for the extra batteries
> may have to have design approval by EASA, which is
> another major cost.
>
> Although transponders work perfectly well in IMC conditions,
> they are also trying to impose strict VMC conditions
> on gliding.
>
> You may have enough money to fit and run a Mode S transponder
> Ramy, but many private owners of older sailplanes do
> not. An airworthy wooden gliders can be picked up for
> £3k or less in the UK. Even for club owned gliders,
> this proposal would significantly increase the cost
> of flying gliders.
>
> Most collisions involving gliders are with other gliders
> in thermals or on ridges, or with GA or military aircraft.
> Mode S transponders do little or nothing to address
> this problem. Hence we are being asked to pay large
> sums of money for protecting Commercial Airliners that
> wish to take short cuts through Class G airspace, without
> any benefits to us. Speaking personally I would be
> less hostile to fitting ADS-B or FLARM systems, which
> are cheaper, less power hungry and are of some benefit
> to glider pilots in detecting other aircraft. Otherwise
> we should expect all pilots to keep a good lookout
> when flying in Class G.
>
> Derek Copeland
>
>
> At 05:00 29 August 2006, Ramy Yanetz wrote:
> >A miracle. Did the ASG 29 used a transponder? Assuming
> >not, I am wondering
> >if he could not afford one...
> >> This is not good as there are elections going on in
> >>NV right now and
> >> you know some moron politician is going to try to
> >>make the skies
> >> safer!!
> >Maybe by enforcing the use of transponders in the Reno
> >area? I don't see a
> >problem with that...
> >
> >Ramy
> >
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >> Rumor control here...
> >>
> >> Challenger 800X with 5 on board on route to Reno from
> >>San Diego
> >> collided with an ASG29 around 16,000ft east on Minden
> >>on the Pinenut
> >> mountains.
> >>
> >> The Jet landed gear up at Carson City the pilot sustaining
> >>minor
> >> injuries in the initial impact.
> >>
> >> The Glider Pilot bailed and landed ok.
> >>
> >> Look at KRNV.com or RGJ.com for more info.
> >>
> >> This is not good as there are elections going on in
> >>NV right now and
> >> you know some moron politician is going to try to
> >>make the skies
> >> safer!!
> >>
> >> Later
> >>
> >> Al
> >>
> >>
> >> Mitch wrote:
> >>> Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash
> >>>in Minden? True or
> >>> False?
> >>>
> >>> -EX
> >>
> >
> >
> >

[Marc Ramsey]

Ramy wrote:
> Derek, I am not advocating mode S transponder (which I couldn't efford
> one either ), it is doing nothing to improve safety then mode C,which
> should cost around 2K in the US, no more then a flight computer.

Double that figure, and you'll have a more typical installed cost in the
US, particularly in a type certified glider. A transponder installation
is a different kettle of fish from a glide computer, a 337 is often
required...

[Ramy]

Of course, we shouldn't blame anyone at this point, and my appologize
if it sounded like, we don't even know yet if the glider had a
transponder or not. I was just trying to make a point (again) on the
importance of transponders, as the only mean currently available to us
to avoid these kind of accidents. But how can a jet travelling at over
300 knots, which may have been 400 knots closing speed, could see a
glider on time to react if (assuming) the glider was flying straight
and level? It is almost impossible to see a glider more then a mile
away if it is not turning or zooming. This translates into 5 seconds or
so to see and react at these speeds.
Since on average we are circling say 30% of the time, we are invisible
70% of the time we are in the air.The only reason we don't collide all
the time is that the sky is big and gliders are small. See and Avoid
only works in traffic pattern, not when crusing. Check the following
article:
http://dwp.bigplanet.com/fosterflight/scottsrants/view.nhtml?profile=scottsrants&UID=10015
To avoid making myself unpopular, I'll rest my case. I am very glad no
one was hurt, and hope that more pilots will fly with transponders at
their own choice as a result. And if you do, please don't turn it off
away from Reno, especially not over the white mountains as some of us
are flying with TPAS. If you don't use a tranponder, please make a
circle every few minutes...

Ramy

SAM 303a wrote:
> Sure, blame the victim.
> I haven't seen anything that suggests that the glider pilot was in any way
> at fault. The glider was hit by the jet, not vice versa. Visual rules were
> in effect.
> Why are we asking what else could the glider pilot do?
> Why aren't we asking "what else could the jet pilot have done?"
> The jet does not have a greater right to use the skies than the glider.
>
> I'm not arguing against transponders. I am arguing in favor of taking a
> stand on the principle that we all have a right to use the skies, subject to
> our compliance with the appropriate rules. We should not stand before the
> regulators saying "we'll add any gizmo you ask if you'll just let us keep
> flying". If anyone was at fault here it was the jet pilot for (pick one or
> more of the following) not maintaining a visual scan of traffic, flying too
> fast to react to the presence of a glider, not recognizing that the
> sectional markings showing a glider port might be significant to how she
> operated the aircraft.
>
>
> "Ramy Yanetz" > wrote in message
> om...
> > A miracle. Did the ASG 29 used a transponder? Assuming not, I am wondering
> > if he could not afford one...
> > > This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
> > > you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
> > > safer!!
> > Maybe by enforcing the use of transponders in the Reno area? I don't see a
> > problem with that...
> >
> > Ramy
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > > Rumor control here...
> > >
> > > Challenger 800X with 5 on board on route to Reno from San Diego
> > > collided with an ASG29 around 16,000ft east on Minden on the Pinenut
> > > mountains.
> > >
> > > The Jet landed gear up at Carson City the pilot sustaining minor
> > > injuries in the initial impact.
> > >
> > > The Glider Pilot bailed and landed ok.
> > >
> > > Look at KRNV.com or RGJ.com for more info.
> > >
> > > This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
> > > you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
> > > safer!!
> > >
> > > Later
> > >
> > > Al
> > >
> > >
> > > Mitch wrote:
> > >> Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash in Minden? True or
> > >> False?
> > >>
> > >> -EX
> > >
> >
> >

[Ramy]

I would just like to add, many kudos to all pilots involved to survive
it. Bailing out of a broken glider is no easy task.

Ramy

Ramy wrote:
> Of course, we shouldn't blame anyone at this point, and my appologize
> if it sounded like, we don't even know yet if the glider had a
> transponder or not. I was just trying to make a point (again) on the
> importance of transponders, as the only mean currently available to us
> to avoid these kind of accidents. But how can a jet travelling at over
> 300 knots, which may have been 400 knots closing speed, could see a
> glider on time to react if (assuming) the glider was flying straight
> and level? It is almost impossible to see a glider more then a mile
> away if it is not turning or zooming. This translates into 5 seconds or
> so to see and react at these speeds.
> Since on average we are circling say 30% of the time, we are invisible
> 70% of the time we are in the air.The only reason we don't collide all
> the time is that the sky is big and gliders are small. See and Avoid
> only works in traffic pattern, not when crusing. Check the following
> article:
> http://dwp.bigplanet.com/fosterflight/scottsrants/view.nhtml?profile=scottsrants&UID=10015
> To avoid making myself unpopular, I'll rest my case. I am very glad no
> one was hurt, and hope that more pilots will fly with transponders at
> their own choice as a result. And if you do, please don't turn it off
> away from Reno, especially not over the white mountains as some of us
> are flying with TPAS. If you don't use a tranponder, please make a
> circle every few minutes...
>
> Ramy
>
> SAM 303a wrote:
> > Sure, blame the victim.
> > I haven't seen anything that suggests that the glider pilot was in any way
> > at fault. The glider was hit by the jet, not vice versa. Visual rules were
> > in effect.
> > Why are we asking what else could the glider pilot do?
> > Why aren't we asking "what else could the jet pilot have done?"
> > The jet does not have a greater right to use the skies than the glider.
> >
> > I'm not arguing against transponders. I am arguing in favor of taking a
> > stand on the principle that we all have a right to use the skies, subject to
> > our compliance with the appropriate rules. We should not stand before the
> > regulators saying "we'll add any gizmo you ask if you'll just let us keep
> > flying". If anyone was at fault here it was the jet pilot for (pick one or
> > more of the following) not maintaining a visual scan of traffic, flying too
> > fast to react to the presence of a glider, not recognizing that the
> > sectional markings showing a glider port might be significant to how she
> > operated the aircraft.
> >
> >
> > "Ramy Yanetz" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > A miracle. Did the ASG 29 used a transponder? Assuming not, I am wondering
> > > if he could not afford one...
> > > > This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
> > > > you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
> > > > safer!!
> > > Maybe by enforcing the use of transponders in the Reno area? I don't see a
> > > problem with that...
> > >
> > > Ramy
> > >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ups.com...
> > > > Rumor control here...
> > > >
> > > > Challenger 800X with 5 on board on route to Reno from San Diego
> > > > collided with an ASG29 around 16,000ft east on Minden on the Pinenut
> > > > mountains.
> > > >
> > > > The Jet landed gear up at Carson City the pilot sustaining minor
> > > > injuries in the initial impact.
> > > >
> > > > The Glider Pilot bailed and landed ok.
> > > >
> > > > Look at KRNV.com or RGJ.com for more info.
> > > >
> > > > This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
> > > > you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
> > > > safer!!
> > > >
> > > > Later
> > > >
> > > > Al
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mitch wrote:
> > > >> Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash in Minden? True or
> > > >> False?
> > > >>
> > > >> -EX
> > > >
> > >
> > >

[diederik]

In the Netherlands we have (had) a similar discussion about the
installation of transponders. The Dutch CAA was convinced to "stall"
installation of
transponders for a couple of years. Arguments that were used:

- Power consumption.
- Very limited amount of manufacturers that are producing LOW POWER
consumption transponders (no competition so a manopoly for one or two
supliers).
- What setting will you put the transponder on when you don't have any
ATC communication?
- Positioning of the antenea. That is something the the manufacturer of
the AC should determine (who is going to go back to Sweizer for the
1-26 or 2-33 or 2-22 or to Glasflugel for the Libelle). If you don't
put them in the right position it could harm the pilot (radiation
hazard) and/or provide a useless signal that can only be recieved from
useless angles (on the 747 they originaly had placed the transponder
antenne on top, until they discoverd that it didn't gave a decent
signal for ATC while flying straight and level....)
- What do you think that ATC will do when a glider contest is going on
or when there are 10 gliders in one thermal? There first responce will
be to filter out all gliders, since they don't use any ATC
communication. Because of so many gliders in a small area the system
will generate "false returns" (it interogates one transponder and gets
a return from a different transponder so it will mess up the whole
system)
- Why do we have different classes of airspace, that is exactly the
reason, to keep us seperated (commercial AC from gliders). So if a
commercial aircraft is in class G airspace they should be the one to be
extra allert. According to the rules a powered AC should give way to a
Glider!
- Most of the time we are flying realtively low so the possibility of
running into a commercial aircraft is relatively low. The only AC's
that fly fast and low are Fighters and they don't carry any transponder
at all!
- It is also a question of mentality of the commercial pilots, I have
flown a number of test flights with a fokker 100 and only during
takeoff or landing do they ever raise there head to see what's outside
of the aircraft (even though these pilots were also glider pilots)!
- Generaly glider pilots are most of the time busy to see what's going
on outside in conterary to comercial pilots. Why should the glider
pilot pay for solving a problem that is mainly caused by commercial
flights? If we raise an airline ticket by not even one US$ cent (0,01)
there is enough money to provide every glider with a transponder so why
ask every individual glider pilot to spend a 1000 US or more to solve
a problem that is not theirs?
- Now it is the Mode S transponder they want, when this discussion took
place, not even 3 years ago they wanted us to install Mode C
transponders, so what's the next $ 4000 (total cost of installation
maintenance extra power suply, certification in some cases) gadget that
they want you to replace the mode S transponder with?

Diederik

PS: this can become a long discussion!

[Stewart Kissel]

http://iagblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/aviation-accident-miracle.html


One picture=1,000 words

[kirk.stant]

Ramy wrote:
> Meanwhile, at least in the US, our only option is the 30 years
> old technology of transponders, which are relatively effordable for
> most pilots I see flying at the Reno area.

Ramy, what if the collision had been between an older Learjet, not
equipped with TCAS, and not talking to ATC (in the process of being
handed off, talking to FSS, or just tooling around VFR. Transponders
would be totally useless in preventing the midair.

Remember, unless equipped with TCAS (big jets) or an IFF interrogator
(many military fighters), or talking to the controlling agency that is
actually watching you and your transponder, it's not going to do any
good. It is absolutely no good at preventing VFR - VFR midairs.

TPAS is a good solution, since it warns you of someone else tooling
around with his xponder on. ADS-B would be nice, if
affordable/practicable in a glider. FLARM is pretty much only
glider-to-glider, and requires active participation (and is a moot
point in the US anyway, at present).

If I was going to get up in the flight levels with my glider (no
thanks, I happen to like my old gelcoat, thankyou!) I would seriously
consider a transponder. Also an attitude indicator!. Down lower, if
traffic is an issue, then I'm leaning towards some kind of TPAS - like
device. I'm waiting for one with a good aural cue (I think there is
one out now). Any comments from current TPAS users out there?

Kirk
66

[Ramy]

Kirk, I happen to be also a TPAS user. I am using the Monroy, which
gives you warning for nearby transponder equipped aircraft. All it does
actually is alerting you to scan for traffic when there is traffic
nearby. It doesn't tell you where it is though, but for $500 I think it
worth it. There is now a better unit offered on Wings and Wheels
http://www.wingsandwheels.com/page4.htm
Installation is not much of an issue, since those units are so small
you can stick them to the glare shield as I do. Just make sure to buy
one with voice alerts as you noted, as you would not notice the leds
during day time when your eyes are focused outside.

Ramy


kirk.stant wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
> > Meanwhile, at least in the US, our only option is the 30 years
> > old technology of transponders, which are relatively effordable for
> > most pilots I see flying at the Reno area.
>
> Ramy, what if the collision had been between an older Learjet, not
> equipped with TCAS, and not talking to ATC (in the process of being
> handed off, talking to FSS, or just tooling around VFR. Transponders
> would be totally useless in preventing the midair.
>
> Remember, unless equipped with TCAS (big jets) or an IFF interrogator
> (many military fighters), or talking to the controlling agency that is
> actually watching you and your transponder, it's not going to do any
> good. It is absolutely no good at preventing VFR - VFR midairs.
>
> TPAS is a good solution, since it warns you of someone else tooling
> around with his xponder on. ADS-B would be nice, if
> affordable/practicable in a glider. FLARM is pretty much only
> glider-to-glider, and requires active participation (and is a moot
> point in the US anyway, at present).
>
> If I was going to get up in the flight levels with my glider (no
> thanks, I happen to like my old gelcoat, thankyou!) I would seriously
> consider a transponder. Also an attitude indicator!. Down lower, if
> traffic is an issue, then I'm leaning towards some kind of TPAS - like
> device. I'm waiting for one with a good aural cue (I think there is
> one out now). Any comments from current TPAS users out there?
>
> Kirk
> 66

[Gary Emerson[_1_]]

> Why are we asking what else could the glider pilot do?
> Why aren't we asking "what else could the jet pilot have done?"
> The jet does not have a greater right to use the skies than the glider.

Furthermore, let's not forget the FAA right of way rules. A glider has
right of way over all powered craft unless that craft is in distress.

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

kirk.stant wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
>> Meanwhile, at least in the US, our only option is the 30 years
>> old technology of transponders, which are relatively effordable for
>> most pilots I see flying at the Reno area.
>
> Ramy, what if the collision had been between an older Learjet, not
> equipped with TCAS, and not talking to ATC (in the process of being
> handed off, talking to FSS, or just tooling around VFR.

Do they actually do that? And why would they want to, as long as they
had radar coverage? I'm having a hard time imagining a professional jet
pilot flying around at 300 knots that wouldn't want to be talking to
ATC, especially with passengers.

I'm not questioning your advice on TPAS units, just wondering how likely
your scenario is. The TPAS units would also work with the average
Cessna, which is certainly doesn't have TCAS, and even more likely to be
without ATC contact.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Mike the Strike]

I've just started flying with a Mode C transponder and have been
alerted a couple of times of approaching traffic when it started
replying to frequent interrogations. I was able to locate these
aircraft visually. Clearly an alert system would be an inexpensive and
valuable asset.

Having the right of way in a glider is about as useful as having right
of way in a sailboat when you're about to be run over by a mega
container ship (which has also happened to me). Large aircraft (and
vessels) just might not see you and, even if they do, can't avoid you
becasue of their mass and speed. I'd just like to steer clear of
conflict, which includes alerting others to my presence and learning
about theirs.

Good grief, there are still folks in the USA (including some well-known
glider FBOs) that fly without radios, let alone transponders.

Mike

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

Flarm is, Flarm to Flarm. Up to now it is mainly fitted to gliders,
practically universal in the European Alps, and widely fitted in Australia.
In the Swiss Alps it is also fitted to rescue helicopters, partly because of
its obstacle database.

ADS-B out can be read by ADS-B in.

In Australia they are working on the idea that an enhancement to ADS-B
could enable it to read Flarm, and an enhancement to Flarm could enable it
to read ADS-B.

This is why things may improve when Mode A/C and Mode S are phased out in
favour of ADS-B.

In Australia Flarm is built under licence (OzFlarm), there are other
licensees. Is there nobody interested in doing this in the USA ? It
would surely be ideal for any light aircraft. I understand that there is
an add-on to Flarm which can sound a signal in headphones.

Remember, Modes A/C and S are only transmitted when the Transponder is
triggered by an interrogation. Flarm and ADS-B transmit regularly without
having to be triggered.

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

>
> "kirk.stant" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>
>> Ramy wrote:
>> Meanwhile, at least in the US, our only option is the 30 years
>> old technology of transponders, which are relatively affordable for
>> most pilots I see flying at the Reno area.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
> TPAS is a good solution, since it warns you of someone else tooling
> around with his xponder on. ADS-B would be nice, if
> affordable/practicable in a glider. FLARM is pretty much only
> glider-to-glider, and requires active participation (and is a moot
> point in the US anyway, at present).
>
> <snip>
>
> Kirk
> 66
>

[kirk.stant]

Hmm, the glider is thermalling - probably the easiest thing in the air
to see from another aircraft approaching.

So much for professional pilots looking out the window.

If the glider had been cruising I could understand it. I've lost
gliders I've been following when I knew where they were. But there is
little excuse in a two-crew cockpit to miss something as substantial as
an 18 meter glider thermalling in front of you!

In the AF we called it clearing your flightpath. Everything else is
secondary at jet speeds.

Good job getting the jet and it's valuable pax back unharmed. Love the
pic of the glider spar in the radome! But I would love to hear the
crew admit they were heads-down at the time of the collision, if that
is what really happened.

Of course, I could be totally wrong - sun, bugs on the canopy, etc...
And this assumes the glider was actually turning, of course.

Well, it's better than trying to take off on the wrong runway,
anyway...

Check 6, guys! (and 9, and 3, and 12, and...)

Kirk
66

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

kirk.stant wrote:
> Hmm, the glider is thermalling - probably the easiest thing in the air
> to see from another aircraft approaching.
>
> So much for professional pilots looking out the window.
>
> If the glider had been cruising I could understand it. I've lost
> gliders I've been following when I knew where they were. But there is
> little excuse in a two-crew cockpit to miss something as substantial as
> an 18 meter glider thermalling in front of you!

A thermalling glider should be able to see approaching aircraft more
easily, too. Quite different from being run down by a faster aircraft
coming up behind. We probably shouldn't be too smug at this point, until
we know the facts for sure.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[snoop]

Must be nice to walk on water!

kirk.stant wrote:
> Hmm, the glider is thermalling - probably the easiest thing in the air
> to see from another aircraft approaching.
>
> So much for professional pilots looking out the window.
>
> If the glider had been cruising I could understand it. I've lost
> gliders I've been following when I knew where they were. But there is
> little excuse in a two-crew cockpit to miss something as substantial as
> an 18 meter glider thermalling in front of you!
>
> In the AF we called it clearing your flightpath. Everything else is
> secondary at jet speeds.
>
> Good job getting the jet and it's valuable pax back unharmed. Love the
> pic of the glider spar in the radome! But I would love to hear the
> crew admit they were heads-down at the time of the collision, if that
> is what really happened.
>
> Of course, I could be totally wrong - sun, bugs on the canopy, etc...
> And this assumes the glider was actually turning, of course.
>
> Well, it's better than trying to take off on the wrong runway,
> anyway...
>
> Check 6, guys! (and 9, and 3, and 12, and...)
>
> Kirk
> 66

[BTIZ]

reports are the ASG29 had a transponder..
so now what are we going to enforce..
BT

"Ramy Yanetz" > wrote in message
om...
>A miracle. Did the ASG 29 used a transponder? Assuming not, I am wondering
>if he could not afford one...
>> This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
>> you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
>> safer!!
> Maybe by enforcing the use of transponders in the Reno area? I don't see a
> problem with that...
>
> Ramy
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Rumor control here...
>>
>> Challenger 800X with 5 on board on route to Reno from San Diego
>> collided with an ASG29 around 16,000ft east on Minden on the Pinenut
>> mountains.
>>
>> The Jet landed gear up at Carson City the pilot sustaining minor
>> injuries in the initial impact.
>>
>> The Glider Pilot bailed and landed ok.
>>
>> Look at KRNV.com or RGJ.com for more info.
>>
>> This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
>> you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
>> safer!!
>>
>> Later
>>
>> Al
>>
>>
>> Mitch wrote:
>>> Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash in Minden? True or
>>> False?
>>>
>>> -EX
>>
>
>

[Mike Schumann]

Are there any low cost ADS-B units available?

Mike Schumann

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." > wrote in message
...
> Flarm is, Flarm to Flarm. Up to now it is mainly fitted to gliders,
> practically universal in the European Alps, and widely fitted in
> Australia.
> In the Swiss Alps it is also fitted to rescue helicopters, partly because
> of
> its obstacle database.
>
> ADS-B out can be read by ADS-B in.
>
> In Australia they are working on the idea that an enhancement to ADS-B
> could enable it to read Flarm, and an enhancement to Flarm could enable it
> to read ADS-B.
>
> This is why things may improve when Mode A/C and Mode S are phased out in
> favour of ADS-B.
>
> In Australia Flarm is built under licence (OzFlarm), there are other
> licensees. Is there nobody interested in doing this in the USA ? It
> would surely be ideal for any light aircraft. I understand that there is
> an add-on to Flarm which can sound a signal in headphones.
>
> Remember, Modes A/C and S are only transmitted when the Transponder is
> triggered by an interrogation. Flarm and ADS-B transmit regularly
> without
> having to be triggered.
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>
>>
>> "kirk.stant" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> Ramy wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, at least in the US, our only option is the 30 years
>>> old technology of transponders, which are relatively affordable for
>>> most pilots I see flying at the Reno area.
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> TPAS is a good solution, since it warns you of someone else tooling
>> around with his xponder on. ADS-B would be nice, if
>> affordable/practicable in a glider. FLARM is pretty much only
>> glider-to-glider, and requires active participation (and is a moot
>> point in the US anyway, at present).
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Kirk
>> 66
>>
>
>
>
>

[Mike Schumann]

The reality is that it is incredibly difficult to see converging traffic
that is approaching at 200-300 knots.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:Zn6Jg.3900$nR2.1435@trnddc03...
> kirk.stant wrote:
>> Hmm, the glider is thermalling - probably the easiest thing in the air
>> to see from another aircraft approaching.
>>
>> So much for professional pilots looking out the window.
>>
>> If the glider had been cruising I could understand it. I've lost
>> gliders I've been following when I knew where they were. But there is
>> little excuse in a two-crew cockpit to miss something as substantial as
>> an 18 meter glider thermalling in front of you!
>
> A thermalling glider should be able to see approaching aircraft more
> easily, too. Quite different from being run down by a faster aircraft
> coming up behind. We probably shouldn't be too smug at this point, until
> we know the facts for sure.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
> Operation"

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

BTIZ wrote:
> reports are the ASG29 had a transponder..
> so now what are we going to enforce..

Maybe using it? I don't think it's been confirmed the transponder was
operating, but I'm sure ATC knows, and should have the tapes to prove it.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[SAM 303a]

Is that an appropriate and prudent speed to fly in an area know for soaring?

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> The reality is that it is incredibly difficult to see converging traffic
> that is approaching at 200-300 knots.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> news:Zn6Jg.3900$nR2.1435@trnddc03...
> > kirk.stant wrote:
> >> Hmm, the glider is thermalling - probably the easiest thing in the air
> >> to see from another aircraft approaching.
> >>
> >> So much for professional pilots looking out the window.
> >>
> >> If the glider had been cruising I could understand it. I've lost
> >> gliders I've been following when I knew where they were. But there is
> >> little excuse in a two-crew cockpit to miss something as substantial as
> >> an 18 meter glider thermalling in front of you!
> >
> > A thermalling glider should be able to see approaching aircraft more
> > easily, too. Quite different from being run down by a faster aircraft
> > coming up behind. We probably shouldn't be too smug at this point, until
> > we know the facts for sure.
> >
> > --
> > Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> >
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> >
> > www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
> > Operation"
>
>

[jb92563]

Ramy wrote:
> Of course, we shouldn't blame anyone at this point, and my appologize
> if it sounded like, we don't even know yet if the glider had a
> transponder or not. I was just trying to make a point (again) on the
> importance of transponders, as the only mean currently available to us
> to avoid these kind of accidents. But how can a jet travelling at over
> 300 knots, which may have been 400 knots closing speed, could see a
> glider on time to react if (assuming) the glider was flying straight
> and level? It is almost impossible to see a glider more then a mile
> away if it is not turning or zooming. This translates into 5 seconds or
> so to see and react at these speeds.
> Since on average we are circling say 30% of the time, we are invisible
> 70% of the time we are in the air.The only reason we don't collide all
> the time is that the sky is big and gliders are small. See and Avoid
> only works in traffic pattern, not when crusing. Check the following
> article:
> http://dwp.bigplanet.com/fosterflight/scottsrants/view.nhtml?profile=scottsrants&UID=10015
> To avoid making myself unpopular, I'll rest my case. I am very glad no
> one was hurt, and hope that more pilots will fly with transponders at
> their own choice as a result. And if you do, please don't turn it off
> away from Reno, especially not over the white mountains as some of us
> are flying with TPAS. If you don't use a tranponder, please make a
> circle every few minutes...
>
> Ramy
>
> SAM 303a wrote:
> > Sure, blame the victim.
> > I haven't seen anything that suggests that the glider pilot was in any way
> > at fault. The glider was hit by the jet, not vice versa. Visual rules were
> > in effect.
> > Why are we asking what else could the glider pilot do?
> > Why aren't we asking "what else could the jet pilot have done?"
> > The jet does not have a greater right to use the skies than the glider.
> >
> > I'm not arguing against transponders. I am arguing in favor of taking a
> > stand on the principle that we all have a right to use the skies, subject to
> > our compliance with the appropriate rules. We should not stand before the
> > regulators saying "we'll add any gizmo you ask if you'll just let us keep
> > flying". If anyone was at fault here it was the jet pilot for (pick one or
> > more of the following) not maintaining a visual scan of traffic, flying too
> > fast to react to the presence of a glider, not recognizing that the
> > sectional markings showing a glider port might be significant to how she
> > operated the aircraft.
> >
> >
> > "Ramy Yanetz" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > A miracle. Did the ASG 29 used a transponder? Assuming not, I am wondering
> > > if he could not afford one...
> > > > This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
> > > > you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
> > > > safer!!
> > > Maybe by enforcing the use of transponders in the Reno area? I don't see a
> > > problem with that...
> > >
> > > Ramy
> > >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ups.com...
> > > > Rumor control here...
> > > >
> > > > Challenger 800X with 5 on board on route to Reno from San Diego
> > > > collided with an ASG29 around 16,000ft east on Minden on the Pinenut
> > > > mountains.
> > > >
> > > > The Jet landed gear up at Carson City the pilot sustaining minor
> > > > injuries in the initial impact.
> > > >
> > > > The Glider Pilot bailed and landed ok.
> > > >
> > > > Look at KRNV.com or RGJ.com for more info.
> > > >
> > > > This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
> > > > you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
> > > > safer!!
> > > >
> > > > Later
> > > >
> > > > Al
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mitch wrote:
> > > >> Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash in Minden? True or
> > > >> False?
> > > >>
> > > >> -EX
> > > >
> > >
> > >

[HL Falbaum]

We know how to recognize a thermaling glider from far off. But the glider
can disappear during two parts of the circle even when we know where to
look. And the jet jock probably does not know what to look for or to
understand the significance of what (s)he sees.

A thermalling glider has a moving blind spot that may be 15 seconds or more.
Not much-but how much distance can a bizjet cover in 15 seconds? Remember to
increase the TAS (and thus GS) by 2% per thousand feet over and above the
IAS.---The jet can go from a speck to very big in that distance.

--
Hartley Falbaum
DG800B "KF" USA


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:Zn6Jg.3900$nR2.1435@trnddc03...
> kirk.stant wrote:
>> Hmm, the glider is thermalling - probably the easiest thing in the air
>> to see from another aircraft approaching.
>>
>
> A thermalling glider should be able to see approaching aircraft more
> easily, too. Quite different from being run down by a faster aircraft
> coming up behind. We probably shouldn't be too smug at this point, until
> we know the facts for sure.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
> Operation"

[Matt Herron Jr.]

I was told that the transponder was brand new, and not certified yet,
so it was not turned on...

BTIZ wrote:
> reports are the ASG29 had a transponder..
> so now what are we going to enforce..
> BT

[Mike the Strike]

....and what is the downside of operating a new but uncertified
transponder? Can't be worse than getting run over by a bizjet.


Mike


Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> I was told that the transponder was brand new, and not certified yet,
> so it was not turned on...
>
> BTIZ wrote:
> > reports are the ASG29 had a transponder..
> > so now what are we going to enforce..
> > BT

[Jack[_1_]]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> ...and what is the downside of operating a new but uncertified
> transponder? Can't be worse than getting run over by a bizjet.


One serious downside would be to cause a false Resolution Advisory
indication on another ship's TCAS, resulting in a traffic conflict where
none was likely otherwise, either with the "offending" glider or another
ship.


Jack

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

HL Falbaum wrote:
> We know how to recognize a thermaling glider from far off. But the glider
> can disappear during two parts of the circle even when we know where to
> look. And the jet jock probably does not know what to look for or to
> understand the significance of what (s)he sees.
>
> A thermalling glider has a moving blind spot that may be 15 seconds or more.
> Not much-but how much distance can a bizjet cover in 15 seconds? Remember to
> increase the TAS (and thus GS) by 2% per thousand feet over and above the
> IAS.---The jet can go from a speck to very big in that distance.

Yes, and even worse, the glider goes from a tiny speck to not very big
in the same distance. It's a tough situation for see-and-avoid.


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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Mike the Strike]

OK, let me rephrase the question - what is the downside of operating a
new transponder and encoder that are correctly working (properly
reporting position and altitude) but are not certified?

Mike


Jack wrote:
> Mike the Strike wrote:
> > ...and what is the downside of operating a new but uncertified
> > transponder? Can't be worse than getting run over by a bizjet.
>
>
> One serious downside would be to cause a false Resolution Advisory
> indication on another ship's TCAS, resulting in a traffic conflict where
> none was likely otherwise, either with the "offending" glider or another
> ship.
>
>
> Jack

[Jack[_1_]]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> OK, let me rephrase the question - what is the downside of operating a
> new transponder and encoder that are correctly working (properly
> reporting position and altitude) but are not certified?

How do you find one of those?


Jack

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

> Jack wrote:
>> Mike the Strike wrote:
>>> ...and what is the downside of operating a new but uncertified
>>> transponder? Can't be worse than getting run over by a bizjet.
>>
>> One serious downside would be to cause a false Resolution Advisory
>> indication on another ship's TCAS, resulting in a traffic conflict where
>> none was likely otherwise, either with the "offending" glider or another
>> ship.
>>
>>
>> Jack
>

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Jack wrote:
> Mike the Strike wrote:
>> ...and what is the downside of operating a new but uncertified
>> transponder? Can't be worse than getting run over by a bizjet.
>
>
> One serious downside would be to cause a false Resolution Advisory
> indication on another ship's TCAS, resulting in a traffic conflict where
> none was likely otherwise, either with the "offending" glider or another
> ship.

What does "certification" entail? When my transponder was installed, all
it got was a 5 minute "VFR check" with a little box about 5 feet from
the glider that showed it responded to interrogations and that the mode
C altitude reported was the airport elevation. It that all it takes to
ensure a TCAS isn't fooled?

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Mike the Strike]

Exactly my point. Certification is often a quick and dirty test by
someone who probably isn't an expert on avionics just using a test box
or gizmo of some sort. It's easy to test your encoder yourself - many
transponders will report their output for you - and if your transponder
replies to interrogations with the correct altitude, the only questions
remaining are the transmitter output frequency and power. (something I
am equipped to measure too, but then I am a geek with high-tech toys!)

If I had a working transponder, it would be on, whatever the status of
the paperwork!

Mike

>
> What does "certification" entail? When my transponder was installed, all
> it got was a 5 minute "VFR check" with a little box about 5 feet from
> the glider that showed it responded to interrogations and that the mode
> C altitude reported was the airport elevation. It that all it takes to
> ensure a TCAS isn't fooled?
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
> Operation"

[[email protected]]

snoop wrote:
> Must be nice to walk on water!

Actually, it's the water into wine trick that really wows the crowd I
hang with...

No apologies - the bizjet should have seen the glider. The glider also
should have seen the bizjet. There may be reasons why that didn't
happen - and I'll be the first to admit I've been guilty of late
detection of aircraft nearby. If I screw up, I've got no problem
admitting it - there really isn't much room for ego where flight safety
is concerned.

But I also know from first hand that all this hysteria about closing
speed is BS. Even jet fighters can be seen in time to avoid.
Airliners are huge and almost impossible to miss. Bizjets fit in
between.

But you have to be looking.

Kirk

[Stefan]

schrieb:

> But I also know from first hand that all this hysteria about closing
> speed is BS. Even jet fighters can be seen in time to avoid.

No.

http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_003/nn_41544/DE/Publikationen/Untersuchungsberichte/1998/Bericht__3X191-1-2.98,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Bericht_3X191-1-2.pdf
http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/1598

Stefan

[snoop]

Water into wine? Bubba and I have been tryin' to figure out how to turn
water into Shiner Bock. Anyway, Kirk, I was looking at the Reno/Minden
area arrival procedures and almost all of them have in a BIG box the
words, Caution Intensive Glider traffic, or something to that effect.
I haven't read back through the thread, to see which arrival is in
question, but it appears to me that our local glider folks have done
their homework, with regard to putting up the big billboard for those
of us who come zipping through that airspace in hi performance
aircraft, that there are other aircraft in the area. Be aware.
I fly out of Dallas Love for work and Texas Soaring for fun. When I've
been at work and flying that one arrival, which puts us on top of TSA,
I always ask the controller, "is there any glider activity today"? Plus
I call on 123.3 to see if anyone is up. This doesn't happen that often,
but when it has been a nice day, and the possibility of glider activity
exists I do these things.
Playing the devils advocate, I was asking Bubba, in another thread,
what the chances are that the glider pilot will be asked about his
installation and use of oxygen at 16000ft. Another angle.

wrote:
> snoop wrote:
> > Must be nice to walk on water!
>
> Actually, it's the water into wine trick that really wows the crowd I
> hang with...
>
> No apologies - the bizjet should have seen the glider. The glider also
> should have seen the bizjet. There may be reasons why that didn't
> happen - and I'll be the first to admit I've been guilty of late
> detection of aircraft nearby. If I screw up, I've got no problem
> admitting it - there really isn't much room for ego where flight safety
> is concerned.
>
> But I also know from first hand that all this hysteria about closing
> speed is BS. Even jet fighters can be seen in time to avoid.
> Airliners are huge and almost impossible to miss. Bizjets fit in
> between.
>
> But you have to be looking.
>
> Kirk

[Mark Dickson]

Although both aircraft were VMC, the jet may have been
(probably was) flying IFR. He may have been recieving
a radar service from Reno. If so, he should have been
passed traffic information by ATC. Even if the glider
was not transponding it would still have produced a
primary return; don't believe that myth about gliders
not providing radar returns, they do.

[Brian[_1_]]

I've done the same thing by calling up ATC and asking if they are
getting a reply and if the altitude checks with my altimeter.

Not official, but I sometimes am suspicious of certified transponders
and don't want pay a shop to find out if I need to take it to the shop.

Brian Case



Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Jack wrote:
> > Mike the Strike wrote:
> >> ...and what is the downside of operating a new but uncertified
> >> transponder? Can't be worse than getting run over by a bizjet.
> >
> >
> > One serious downside would be to cause a false Resolution Advisory
> > indication on another ship's TCAS, resulting in a traffic conflict where
> > none was likely otherwise, either with the "offending" glider or another
> > ship.
>
> What does "certification" entail? When my transponder was installed, all
> it got was a 5 minute "VFR check" with a little box about 5 feet from
> the glider that showed it responded to interrogations and that the mode
> C altitude reported was the airport elevation. It that all it takes to
> ensure a TCAS isn't fooled?
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
> Operation"

[Mike Schumann]

Let me rephrase that; It is very difficult to see converging traffic
approaching at 100 - 200 knots.

Mike Schumann

"SAM 303a" <brentDAHTsullivanATgmailDAHTcom> wrote in message
...
> Is that an appropriate and prudent speed to fly in an area know for
> soaring?
>
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> The reality is that it is incredibly difficult to see converging traffic
>> that is approaching at 200-300 knots.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>>
>> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>> news:Zn6Jg.3900$nR2.1435@trnddc03...
>> > kirk.stant wrote:
>> >> Hmm, the glider is thermalling - probably the easiest thing in the air
>> >> to see from another aircraft approaching.
>> >>
>> >> So much for professional pilots looking out the window.
>> >>
>> >> If the glider had been cruising I could understand it. I've lost
>> >> gliders I've been following when I knew where they were. But there is
>> >> little excuse in a two-crew cockpit to miss something as substantial
>> >> as
>> >> an 18 meter glider thermalling in front of you!
>> >
>> > A thermalling glider should be able to see approaching aircraft more
>> > easily, too. Quite different from being run down by a faster aircraft
>> > coming up behind. We probably shouldn't be too smug at this point,
>> > until
>> > we know the facts for sure.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>> >
>> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>> >
>> > www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
>> > Operation"
>>
>>
>
>

[Tony Verhulst]

snoop wrote:
> Water into wine? Bubba and I have been tryin' to figure out how to turn
> water into Shiner Bock.

We were enjoying a single malt Scotch after a fine day of soaring and
some one said "that stuff looks like p*ss". My comment was "get me the
guy that passed it and 5 gallons of water" :-).

Tony V "6N"

[kirk.stant]

Stefan wrote:
> No.

Yes. I've done it in fighters, light planes, and gliders. Dodged
F-16s and AV-8Bs in Arizona for many years in my LS6.

Of course, if you don't see it, for whatever reason, then yes it can
hit you. If you were deaf, you could even get run over by a blimp!
(except the shadow might warn you!).

Worse case is getting run down from behind. It helps if you hear the
fighters and throw up a wing so they see you (done that too - it worked
just fine). You do have to be willing to move your glider around to
look all around when you suspect there is someone in your blind spot.

I'll keep on looking out the window instead of fiddling with my PDA.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[LOV2AV8]

Mark Dickson wrote:
> Although both aircraft were VMC, the jet may have been
> (probably was) flying IFR. He may have been recieving
> a radar service from Reno. If so, he should have been
> passed traffic information by ATC. Even if the glider
> was not transponding it would still have produced a
> primary return; don't believe that myth about gliders
> not providing radar returns, they do.

IFR does not relieve anyone of "see and avoid" when VMC. This is a
common misconception when receiving IFR handling from ATC. I think we
need to educate others as to the fact that there are aircraft above
10,000 MSL without Transponders. I have heard from more than one
airline pilot "What's he doing up here" when our field is on the
sectional and Tucson Approach puts a warning on ATIS with altitudes
we're operating at. I've had pilots defend thier position saying they
were IFR and don't even have a sectional with them to know they are in
the vicinity of a glider field.

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>> What does "certification" entail? When my transponder was installed, all
>> it got was a 5 minute "VFR check" with a little box about 5 feet from
>> the glider that showed it responded to interrogations and that the mode
>> C altitude reported was the airport elevation. It that all it takes to
>> ensure a TCAS isn't fooled?
>
> Presumably "certification" was being used as shorthand for
> the 91.413 tests, which reference Appendix F of Part 43. As
> a matter of interest, I looked them up:
>
> Appendix F--ATC Transponder Tests and Inspections
>
> The ATC transponder tests required by Sec. 91.413 of this
> chapter may be conducted using a bench check or portable
> test equipment and must meet the requirements prescribed in
> paragraphs (a) through (j) of this appendix. If portable

Big snip. An awful lot of stuff that doesn't apply to a mode C VFR
transponder check. Does any of it make my "box on the ground check"
insufficient to meet the standards? It would take longer to read, let
alone understand, than the actual check took.


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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "Mike the Strike" > wrote:
>
>> ...and what is the downside of operating a new but uncertified
>> transponder? Can't be worse than getting run over by a bizjet.
>
> It's a violation of 91.413(a) to turn it on. A bad TCAS
> resolution could result from a bad encoder altitude.

My transponder reads out the encoder altitude. Is that adequate? Or how
about asking ATC what altitude they are reading from my glider? Or how
about using it in Mode A until it's checked?

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

kirk.stant wrote:
> Stefan wrote:
>> No.
>
> Yes. I've done it in fighters, light planes, and gliders. Dodged
> F-16s and AV-8Bs in Arizona for many years in my LS6.
>
> Of course, if you don't see it, for whatever reason, then yes it can
> hit you. If you were deaf, you could even get run over by a blimp!
> (except the shadow might warn you!).
>
> Worse case is getting run down from behind. It helps if you hear the
> fighters and throw up a wing so they see you (done that too - it worked
> just fine). You do have to be willing to move your glider around to
> look all around when you suspect there is someone in your blind spot.

Would you write an article for Soaring magazine about your techniques?
It seems like an appropriate time. I know I don't see fighters soon
enough, and I'm sure I could miss aircraft coming up behind me. I often
see aircraft in the distance, but I know I haven't seen some airplanes
of various types that were potential threats.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Graeme Cant]

Mike the Strike wrote:

> ...and what is the downside of operating a new but uncertified
> transponder? Can't be worse than getting run over by a bizjet.

> Mike

I'd guess the problem is the same as the parachute with an out of date
packing slip. It's illegal to carry the parachute, much less attempt to
use it just because it's the only thing that might save your life.

An uncertificated transponder installation probably has a C/B that the
pilot was told was illegal to set. A conscientious, Japanese visitor
probably thinks following the hometown rules is the right thing to do.

GC

[309]

Curse the online Code of Federal Regulations!!!

Fortunately, it is not as easy for the government to change the
regulations as it is for us to spew them on the web.

Good detective work, Todd.

As the Dali Lama was qouted: "Study the rule so you can break them
properly."

-Pete
T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> As
> a matter of interest, I looked them up:
>

[SAM 303a]

The jet stalls if it goes slower?

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Let me rephrase that; It is very difficult to see converging traffic
> approaching at 100 - 200 knots.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "SAM 303a" <brentDAHTsullivanATgmailDAHTcom> wrote in message
> ...
> > Is that an appropriate and prudent speed to fly in an area know for
> > soaring?
> >
> > "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >> The reality is that it is incredibly difficult to see converging
traffic
> >> that is approaching at 200-300 knots.
> >>
> >> Mike Schumann
> >>
> >> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> >> news:Zn6Jg.3900$nR2.1435@trnddc03...
> >> > kirk.stant wrote:
> >> >> Hmm, the glider is thermalling - probably the easiest thing in the
air
> >> >> to see from another aircraft approaching.
> >> >>
> >> >> So much for professional pilots looking out the window.
> >> >>
> >> >> If the glider had been cruising I could understand it. I've lost
> >> >> gliders I've been following when I knew where they were. But there
is
> >> >> little excuse in a two-crew cockpit to miss something as substantial
> >> >> as
> >> >> an 18 meter glider thermalling in front of you!
> >> >
> >> > A thermalling glider should be able to see approaching aircraft more
> >> > easily, too. Quite different from being run down by a faster aircraft
> >> > coming up behind. We probably shouldn't be too smug at this point,
> >> > until
> >> > we know the facts for sure.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> >> >
> >> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> >> >
> >> > www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
> >> > Operation"
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[SAM 303a]

And isn't this point the reason one might question the prudence of flying so
fast in such an area?
What are the responsibilities of the jet pilot? If the pilot must yeild to
the glider, isn't the jet pilot being irresponsible if she flies at a speed
that allows her no opportunity to yeild?

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:qDjJg.3232$XD1.570@trnddc01...
> HL Falbaum wrote:
> > A thermalling glider has a moving blind spot that may be 15 seconds or
more.
> > Not much-but how much distance can a bizjet cover in 15 seconds?
Remember to
> > increase the TAS (and thus GS) by 2% per thousand feet over and above
the
> > IAS.---The jet can go from a speck to very big in that distance.
>
> Yes, and even worse, the glider goes from a tiny speck to not very big
> in the same distance. It's a tough situation for see-and-avoid.
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
> Operation"

[Papa3]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> I've had situations where I hear piston traffic coming from
> behind while in cruise. I'm never quite sure if "throwing a
> wing up" helps me because it makes me easier to see or hurts
> me because it makes my impact cross section larger for the
> oncoming aircraft in level cruise. I've always been
> inclined towards the "it hurts me," but not with any real
> conviction one way or another.
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

In those situations, I've always found that ducking my head and
slouching my shoulders to assume the nearest thing to fetal position
possible in a glider cockpit was comforting. Not sure what it does to
the probability of an impact though :-).

In all seriousness, I have in the past been fairly careful about flying
along those Victor airways that I know to be primary approach corridors
into our local area (ie. New York). Whenever I've been in one, I've
tended to do what Kirk does, which is to make a slightly more than 90
degree shackle turn every few minutes to both provide a visible surface
and to see what's behind me. In retrospect, it's probably not an
extremely effective maneuver since the timing would have to be just
right to have any impact (or, rather, not have any impact). Just the
other day, I had a 40 mile final glide, level for the most part between
4,500 and 6,500 MSL (pretty rare here in the East, but it does happen).
That was a long time to be more or less invisible to a rapidly
approaching Bizjet if there happened to be one...

Erik Mann
LS8-18 P3

[kirk.stant]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Would you write an article for Soaring magazine about your techniques?
> It seems like an appropriate time. I know I don't see fighters soon
> enough, and I'm sure I could miss aircraft coming up behind me. I often
> see aircraft in the distance, but I know I haven't seen some airplanes
> of various types that were potential threats.
>

Eric, it's not so much a technique as paranoia about other traffic.
There are some tricks that all pilots should know and use: have an
absolutely clean canopy (inside and out - I'm amazed by how filthy most
pilots let their canopies get), minimize reflections and obstructions
(PDA's, big compasses, etc.), keep "inside the cockpit" tasks short,
refocus at inifinity often while scanning, look for threats, not just
passing airplanes (low or high is not very critical, what's on the
horizon is dangerous!, and ALWAYS CLEAR YOUR FLIGHTPATH), look for
motion or lack of it in the forward quadrant.

Use every tool available - call out passing planes to other gliders and
vice versa, listen to tower when passing a busy airport, look for
shadows on the ground (good in the pattern), smoke trails or glints in
the air, and sound - if anything makes the hairs on the back of your
neck stand up, the turn and look around.

Think about where the traffic will be coming from. When you are
cruising and are near the VFR hemispheric altitudes, look in the
direction the traffic will be coming from. Most power pilots will fly
at "easy" altitudes (multiples of 500').

Avoid hanging around VORs, intersections, and following major
interstates - lots of power traffic there, flying IFR (I follow roads)!

Due to the speed difference it is hard for a glider to get away from a
fast mover at close range, but if you are seen there is a good chance
he will maneuver to avoid. And your cross section is basically the
same whether turning or flying straight - it's just oriented different.
But whip into a steep turn (45 degrees either way) and you will
probably be seen - and you get to see other planes maneuver out of your
way. I've seen everything from King Airs, 737s, and F-16s respond to a
wing flash.

Of course I've also seen a 737 fly right through my thermal just
outside of Class B airspace (acturally right next to an
approach/departure extension of the B airspace. I was carefully
thermalling outside the Class B, watching the arrivals, and watched as
one guy approached from the West. When it was obvious he was going to
join me in my nice 7 knot thermal, I moved out of his way, let him by
(no noise by the way) then re-entered the thermal and continued the
climb.

I've also heard jet noise, done a check turn, and been rewarded with
the sight of 2 F-16s about a half mile away maneuvering hard to go
around me.

Final tip - if you see one jet fighter, start looking real hard for the
other one, and for the additional two in trail. And if the one you
see is going to pass about a mile to your side, then be real scared of
the one you don't see that is in one mile spread formation, watching
his leader, just like you are. Fighters almost never fly alone.

Anybody else got good suggestions/techniques/tips?

Kirk
66

[Ramy]

Wow, so many aircrafts...
In the 7 years and about 2000 hours I flew my LS4, I never saw
commercial traffic close by, and I fly most of the time in the Reno
area. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I am using a transponder?
I had one close call over airsailing with an airliner in the short time
I flew club gliders without transponders (I believe they all have
transponders now).

Ramy

kirk.stant wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > Would you write an article for Soaring magazine about your techniques?
> > It seems like an appropriate time. I know I don't see fighters soon
> > enough, and I'm sure I could miss aircraft coming up behind me. I often
> > see aircraft in the distance, but I know I haven't seen some airplanes
> > of various types that were potential threats.
> >
>
> Eric, it's not so much a technique as paranoia about other traffic.
> There are some tricks that all pilots should know and use: have an
> absolutely clean canopy (inside and out - I'm amazed by how filthy most
> pilots let their canopies get), minimize reflections and obstructions
> (PDA's, big compasses, etc.), keep "inside the cockpit" tasks short,
> refocus at inifinity often while scanning, look for threats, not just
> passing airplanes (low or high is not very critical, what's on the
> horizon is dangerous!, and ALWAYS CLEAR YOUR FLIGHTPATH), look for
> motion or lack of it in the forward quadrant.
>
> Use every tool available - call out passing planes to other gliders and
> vice versa, listen to tower when passing a busy airport, look for
> shadows on the ground (good in the pattern), smoke trails or glints in
> the air, and sound - if anything makes the hairs on the back of your
> neck stand up, the turn and look around.
>
> Think about where the traffic will be coming from. When you are
> cruising and are near the VFR hemispheric altitudes, look in the
> direction the traffic will be coming from. Most power pilots will fly
> at "easy" altitudes (multiples of 500').
>
> Avoid hanging around VORs, intersections, and following major
> interstates - lots of power traffic there, flying IFR (I follow roads)!
>
> Due to the speed difference it is hard for a glider to get away from a
> fast mover at close range, but if you are seen there is a good chance
> he will maneuver to avoid. And your cross section is basically the
> same whether turning or flying straight - it's just oriented different.
> But whip into a steep turn (45 degrees either way) and you will
> probably be seen - and you get to see other planes maneuver out of your
> way. I've seen everything from King Airs, 737s, and F-16s respond to a
> wing flash.
>
> Of course I've also seen a 737 fly right through my thermal just
> outside of Class B airspace (acturally right next to an
> approach/departure extension of the B airspace. I was carefully
> thermalling outside the Class B, watching the arrivals, and watched as
> one guy approached from the West. When it was obvious he was going to
> join me in my nice 7 knot thermal, I moved out of his way, let him by
> (no noise by the way) then re-entered the thermal and continued the
> climb.
>
> I've also heard jet noise, done a check turn, and been rewarded with
> the sight of 2 F-16s about a half mile away maneuvering hard to go
> around me.
>
> Final tip - if you see one jet fighter, start looking real hard for the
> other one, and for the additional two in trail. And if the one you
> see is going to pass about a mile to your side, then be real scared of
> the one you don't see that is in one mile spread formation, watching
> his leader, just like you are. Fighters almost never fly alone.
>
> Anybody else got good suggestions/techniques/tips?
>
> Kirk
> 66

[J. Nieuwenhuize]

Isn't there a speed limitation in class G in the USA? (In Europe it's
250 knots max)

J. N.

[Jack[_1_]]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> I've had situations where I hear piston traffic coming from
> behind while in cruise. I'm never quite sure if "throwing a
> wing up" helps me because it makes me easier to see or hurts
> me because it makes my impact cross section larger for the
> oncoming aircraft in level cruise. I've always been
> inclined towards the "it hurts me," but not with any real
> conviction one way or another.

Give the girl a break. Move the thing around a little. She might even be
looking out the window, and maybe you'll get a better view behind too.

I'd like to install a Spitfire type rear view mirror or a pair of canopy
bow mirrors like the F-4 and T-38. It might help to see up and behind in
a gaggle, or getting ready to roll on takeoff (letting somebody else do
my clearing for me with the canopy closed on the ground has always been
a little uncomfortable).


Jack

[Jack[_1_]]

J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
> Isn't there a speed limitation in class G in the USA? (In Europe it's
> 250 knots max)

91.117

250 KIAS max. below 10,000' msl., except when min. safe airspeed is higher.


Jack

[Glen Kelley]

A few additions to Kirk's excellent points - from the background of former
fighter pilot, current airline pilot, and current glider pilot:

1. We often surprise each other in sailplanes with how hard it is to see
each other. Don't expect an airline pilot to be any better at it! The
fighter pilot at least will have good visual acuity and is used to looking
for small targets.

2. Airline pilots don't carry sectionals - at the speeds we operate, there
would be little time to use them anyway. Fighter pilots will carry a low
level map and will have thought about visual traffic conflicts, wires,
terrain, etc in the planning stages. At the speeds they operate, they
aren't looking at those maps very often, once airborne.

3. The busier glider operations are notam'd and often referred to by atc
controllers. If you have an operable transponder, you will *normally* be
called out by atc and if TCAS equipped, airline pilots will be aware of your
location. They would still have to see you to maneuver away from you. (See
note 1.) Big airliners are not very maneuverable (mine - the Boeing 737 -
is limited to 2.5 g!).

4. Fighters are a different case. They don't have TCAS and only some of
them have the ability to interrogate/detect transponder targets. Some of
them have air intercept radar capability, but sailplanes are small radar
targets and will often (usually!) be filtered out because of their low
speeds and altitudes - like highway traffic. If they are at low altitude,
fighters usually operate at high speed (420 - 540 indicated, except the
A-10). As Kirk pointed out they will almost never be alone, but will be in
formations of 2 - 4. When low level (100 to 1500 agl, most commonly 300 -
500agl), they will normally *not* be receiving traffic information from ATC.
When operating in a MOA, there may be intercept controllers who can call out
glider traffic, but again, without a transponder, it is unlikely. The
formations will vary, but most pairs of flight lead and wingman will be
laterally spread by 5000 to 10000 feet, for visual lookout. The flight lead
will be spending quite a bit of his time looking forward for threat
detection and navigation, but the wingman will be spending less time looking
forward because he must maintain formation. If they see you, they have an
excellent capability to avoid you. Head on and tail on, the sailplane has
the tiny visual profile that fighter designers dream of.... In other words,
you are nearly invisible unless you have a wing up in a turn/thermal.

5. As Kirk said, the primary threat is at 6 o'clock, because it is the
hardest to see - essentially, only the overtaking aircraft has a reasonable
chance of avoiding a collision. Therefore, if you know you are operating in
a high threat area: MOA, low level route, approach corridor, VFR flyway,
near an airport etc, I would "belly check" periodically, depending on the
nature of the threat. The timing is based on the amount of time it takes for
the threat aircraft to close from outside visual range to hitting me from
the 6 o'clock position. I use visual ranges of 8nm for airliners, 5 nm for
small commercial jets (corporate and regional jets) and fighters, and 3 nm
for light aircraft - adjust as your visual acuity and experience dictate. I
use worst-case speeds as follows: airliner and small jets - 4 nm/min,
fighters - 8 nm/min, and light aircraft - 2.5 nm/min. Combing detection
ranges and times, I calculate: airliners - 2 min, small jets - 1 min and 15
sec, fighters - roughly 40 sec, and light planes - approx 1 min and 15 sec.
So... if you are straight and level for more than these times, there is
sufficient time for an aircraft to move from outside (my) visual range to
the same airspace as my (your) little pink body. As you would probably
guess, fighters are the worst case because of their relatively small size
and high closure rate. On the positive side, there are typically more
eyeballs with better acuity and better maneuverability involved.
Interestingly, small jets and light aircraft are not that far behind, as far
as detection time is concerned. In my experience they are far less likely
to see you than the fighters. The same is true for airliners, but because
of their size you have more time to see them coming...

6. How to do a belly check: No, I don't hack a stopwatch, but I keep the
above times in mind with respect to the likely threat for my area. My
primary threat is small jet/light aircraft that operate on various
highway/flyways and approach corridors. Away from these specific areas,
traffic density is extremely low. First clear your "new six" - if you are
going to turn left, look to the area behind to the right 4 - 5 oclock
position - this will be your new blind spot. Next clear your new nose
position - this is where you are going to roll out. Finally make a 45 deg
turn to the left and visually clear your "old six", which is now at your
left 7 to 8 o'clock. Often/usually, a belly check can be incorporated into
turns you are going to make anyway, for other reasons. When you visually
clear, make sure you focus on something on the horizon, otherwise you are
only visually clearing out to an arms length. If I really need to hold a
straight line, I do the belly check as a gentle 45 deg turn to each side.

7. In a thermal, periodically check to the outside of your term to clear
your "new six". If there are other sailplanes with you in the thermal, of
course they are the primary threats for midair, but you still need to check
for other aircraft. Fortunately, you are easier to see while turning - as
long as the other pilots are looking...

8. Proximity to clouds. You need to think about what you are doing when
you are near cloudbase, in proximity to likely IFR traffic. If you are 500'
below cloudbase (perfectly legal), and an airliner descends out of the cloud
at 250kt on his descent profile on collision course (perfectly legal), there
may be as little as 20 seconds to impact. If you are tail on when this
happens - good luck. I'm sure no one would ever be right at cloudbase on a
nice day, because that would violate the FARs - more importantly, you are
"rolling the bones" every time you do this on a known approach corridor.

9. Conclusion. If you fly in a high airliner/small jet threat area and
can afford a transponder it will help other people see/avoid you. If your
primary threat comes from military operations in MOAs, I would not spend the
money on a transponder unless I knew those fighters have intercept/atc
controllers passing them information. The various TPAS - type devices will
help your see/avoid efforts and should help in the case of fighters,
although the flight lead is likely the only one squawking in the formation.
Only you/your club knows the primary threats for your particular operating
area and you need to understand what they are. Taylor your altitude
awareness/cloud avoidance and belly check frequency to the nature of your
local area. Don't cede visual lookout/avoidance responsibility to someone
else - ever. Sailplane right-of-way is a myth in most situations and a
comfort only to your survivors/legal counsel.

Hope this helps.

Glen

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

Kirk... Really, all the good suggestions etc... but let's not kid ourselves,
shall we?

Please, do me a favor. Open your favorite word processor (while you are,
obviously, reading R.A.S. at some sort of a computing device). Set font to
Arial, size to 10 and zoom to 100%. Type letter o (lower case) on a blank
page. Move the blinking cursor away. Step back 10 feet. This is the same
angular size the Hawker was to the glider pilot only 20 seconds (one turn in
thermal) before impact. Can you see it? If you can, congratulations --
you've got one heckofa vision.

Now change the text color to *white*.

Any more questions?

The truth is, if you can't see this tiny *motionless* speck ...two miles
away ...in the inversion haze ...on one thermalling turn, then it is going
to hit you before you finish the next.

Let alone, where can you go in those few seconds even if you do see 'em?
--
Yuliy


"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Would you write an article for Soaring magazine about your techniques?
>> It seems like an appropriate time. I know I don't see fighters soon
>> enough, and I'm sure I could miss aircraft coming up behind me. I often
>> see aircraft in the distance, but I know I haven't seen some airplanes
>> of various types that were potential threats.
>>
>
> Eric, it's not so much a technique as paranoia about other traffic.
> There are some tricks that all pilots should know and use: have an
> absolutely clean canopy (inside and out - I'm amazed by how filthy most
> pilots let their canopies get), minimize reflections and obstructions
> (PDA's, big compasses, etc.), keep "inside the cockpit" tasks short,
> refocus at inifinity often while scanning, look for threats, not just
> passing airplanes (low or high is not very critical, what's on the
> horizon is dangerous!, and ALWAYS CLEAR YOUR FLIGHTPATH), look for
> motion or lack of it in the forward quadrant.
>
> Use every tool available - call out passing planes to other gliders and
> vice versa, listen to tower when passing a busy airport, look for
> shadows on the ground (good in the pattern), smoke trails or glints in
> the air, and sound - if anything makes the hairs on the back of your
> neck stand up, the turn and look around.
>
> Think about where the traffic will be coming from. When you are
> cruising and are near the VFR hemispheric altitudes, look in the
> direction the traffic will be coming from. Most power pilots will fly
> at "easy" altitudes (multiples of 500').
>
> Avoid hanging around VORs, intersections, and following major
> interstates - lots of power traffic there, flying IFR (I follow roads)!
>
> Due to the speed difference it is hard for a glider to get away from a
> fast mover at close range, but if you are seen there is a good chance
> he will maneuver to avoid. And your cross section is basically the
> same whether turning or flying straight - it's just oriented different.
> But whip into a steep turn (45 degrees either way) and you will
> probably be seen - and you get to see other planes maneuver out of your
> way. I've seen everything from King Airs, 737s, and F-16s respond to a
> wing flash.
>
> Of course I've also seen a 737 fly right through my thermal just
> outside of Class B airspace (acturally right next to an
> approach/departure extension of the B airspace. I was carefully
> thermalling outside the Class B, watching the arrivals, and watched as
> one guy approached from the West. When it was obvious he was going to
> join me in my nice 7 knot thermal, I moved out of his way, let him by
> (no noise by the way) then re-entered the thermal and continued the
> climb.
>
> I've also heard jet noise, done a check turn, and been rewarded with
> the sight of 2 F-16s about a half mile away maneuvering hard to go
> around me.
>
> Final tip - if you see one jet fighter, start looking real hard for the
> other one, and for the additional two in trail. And if the one you
> see is going to pass about a mile to your side, then be real scared of
> the one you don't see that is in one mile spread formation, watching
> his leader, just like you are. Fighters almost never fly alone.
>
> Anybody else got good suggestions/techniques/tips?
>
> Kirk
> 66

[Ramy]

Bravo Yuliy, perfect example!
In the meantime, Let's hope the sky stays big this Labor Day weekend,
as with the current forecast, many will be smoking the skies near
Minden :-)

Ramy

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> Kirk... Really, all the good suggestions etc... but let's not kid ourselves,
> shall we?
>
> Please, do me a favor. Open your favorite word processor (while you are,
> obviously, reading R.A.S. at some sort of a computing device). Set font to
> Arial, size to 10 and zoom to 100%. Type letter o (lower case) on a blank
> page. Move the blinking cursor away. Step back 10 feet. This is the same
> angular size the Hawker was to the glider pilot only 20 seconds (one turn in
> thermal) before impact. Can you see it? If you can, congratulations --
> you've got one heckofa vision.
>
> Now change the text color to *white*.
>
> Any more questions?
>
> The truth is, if you can't see this tiny *motionless* speck ...two miles
> away ...in the inversion haze ...on one thermalling turn, then it is going
> to hit you before you finish the next.
>
> Let alone, where can you go in those few seconds even if you do see 'em?
> --
> Yuliy
>
>
> "kirk.stant" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> Would you write an article for Soaring magazine about your techniques?
> >> It seems like an appropriate time. I know I don't see fighters soon
> >> enough, and I'm sure I could miss aircraft coming up behind me. I often
> >> see aircraft in the distance, but I know I haven't seen some airplanes
> >> of various types that were potential threats.
> >>
> >
> > Eric, it's not so much a technique as paranoia about other traffic.
> > There are some tricks that all pilots should know and use: have an
> > absolutely clean canopy (inside and out - I'm amazed by how filthy most
> > pilots let their canopies get), minimize reflections and obstructions
> > (PDA's, big compasses, etc.), keep "inside the cockpit" tasks short,
> > refocus at inifinity often while scanning, look for threats, not just
> > passing airplanes (low or high is not very critical, what's on the
> > horizon is dangerous!, and ALWAYS CLEAR YOUR FLIGHTPATH), look for
> > motion or lack of it in the forward quadrant.
> >
> > Use every tool available - call out passing planes to other gliders and
> > vice versa, listen to tower when passing a busy airport, look for
> > shadows on the ground (good in the pattern), smoke trails or glints in
> > the air, and sound - if anything makes the hairs on the back of your
> > neck stand up, the turn and look around.
> >
> > Think about where the traffic will be coming from. When you are
> > cruising and are near the VFR hemispheric altitudes, look in the
> > direction the traffic will be coming from. Most power pilots will fly
> > at "easy" altitudes (multiples of 500').
> >
> > Avoid hanging around VORs, intersections, and following major
> > interstates - lots of power traffic there, flying IFR (I follow roads)!
> >
> > Due to the speed difference it is hard for a glider to get away from a
> > fast mover at close range, but if you are seen there is a good chance
> > he will maneuver to avoid. And your cross section is basically the
> > same whether turning or flying straight - it's just oriented different.
> > But whip into a steep turn (45 degrees either way) and you will
> > probably be seen - and you get to see other planes maneuver out of your
> > way. I've seen everything from King Airs, 737s, and F-16s respond to a
> > wing flash.
> >
> > Of course I've also seen a 737 fly right through my thermal just
> > outside of Class B airspace (acturally right next to an
> > approach/departure extension of the B airspace. I was carefully
> > thermalling outside the Class B, watching the arrivals, and watched as
> > one guy approached from the West. When it was obvious he was going to
> > join me in my nice 7 knot thermal, I moved out of his way, let him by
> > (no noise by the way) then re-entered the thermal and continued the
> > climb.
> >
> > I've also heard jet noise, done a check turn, and been rewarded with
> > the sight of 2 F-16s about a half mile away maneuvering hard to go
> > around me.
> >
> > Final tip - if you see one jet fighter, start looking real hard for the
> > other one, and for the additional two in trail. And if the one you
> > see is going to pass about a mile to your side, then be real scared of
> > the one you don't see that is in one mile spread formation, watching
> > his leader, just like you are. Fighters almost never fly alone.
> >
> > Anybody else got good suggestions/techniques/tips?
> >
> > Kirk
> > 66

[Ramy]

Thanks for the excellent overview, Glen. Regarding number 3, why would
a TCAS equipped airliner pilot need to see me if the TCAS gives the
resolution? I'm pretty sure most of the airliners vectored around me
never actually see me (although I always
wave ;-)

Ramy

Glen Kelley wrote:
> A few additions to Kirk's excellent points - from the background of former
> fighter pilot, current airline pilot, and current glider pilot:
>
> 1. We often surprise each other in sailplanes with how hard it is to see
> each other. Don't expect an airline pilot to be any better at it! The
> fighter pilot at least will have good visual acuity and is used to looking
> for small targets.
>
> 2. Airline pilots don't carry sectionals - at the speeds we operate, there
> would be little time to use them anyway. Fighter pilots will carry a low
> level map and will have thought about visual traffic conflicts, wires,
> terrain, etc in the planning stages. At the speeds they operate, they
> aren't looking at those maps very often, once airborne.
>
> 3. The busier glider operations are notam'd and often referred to by atc
> controllers. If you have an operable transponder, you will *normally* be
> called out by atc and if TCAS equipped, airline pilots will be aware of your
> location. They would still have to see you to maneuver away from you. (See
> note 1.) Big airliners are not very maneuverable (mine - the Boeing 737 -
> is limited to 2.5 g!).
>
> 4. Fighters are a different case. They don't have TCAS and only some of
> them have the ability to interrogate/detect transponder targets. Some of
> them have air intercept radar capability, but sailplanes are small radar
> targets and will often (usually!) be filtered out because of their low
> speeds and altitudes - like highway traffic. If they are at low altitude,
> fighters usually operate at high speed (420 - 540 indicated, except the
> A-10). As Kirk pointed out they will almost never be alone, but will be in
> formations of 2 - 4. When low level (100 to 1500 agl, most commonly 300 -
> 500agl), they will normally *not* be receiving traffic information from ATC.
> When operating in a MOA, there may be intercept controllers who can call out
> glider traffic, but again, without a transponder, it is unlikely. The
> formations will vary, but most pairs of flight lead and wingman will be
> laterally spread by 5000 to 10000 feet, for visual lookout. The flight lead
> will be spending quite a bit of his time looking forward for threat
> detection and navigation, but the wingman will be spending less time looking
> forward because he must maintain formation. If they see you, they have an
> excellent capability to avoid you. Head on and tail on, the sailplane has
> the tiny visual profile that fighter designers dream of.... In other words,
> you are nearly invisible unless you have a wing up in a turn/thermal.
>
> 5. As Kirk said, the primary threat is at 6 o'clock, because it is the
> hardest to see - essentially, only the overtaking aircraft has a reasonable
> chance of avoiding a collision. Therefore, if you know you are operating in
> a high threat area: MOA, low level route, approach corridor, VFR flyway,
> near an airport etc, I would "belly check" periodically, depending on the
> nature of the threat. The timing is based on the amount of time it takes for
> the threat aircraft to close from outside visual range to hitting me from
> the 6 o'clock position. I use visual ranges of 8nm for airliners, 5 nm for
> small commercial jets (corporate and regional jets) and fighters, and 3 nm
> for light aircraft - adjust as your visual acuity and experience dictate. I
> use worst-case speeds as follows: airliner and small jets - 4 nm/min,
> fighters - 8 nm/min, and light aircraft - 2.5 nm/min. Combing detection
> ranges and times, I calculate: airliners - 2 min, small jets - 1 min and 15
> sec, fighters - roughly 40 sec, and light planes - approx 1 min and 15 sec.
> So... if you are straight and level for more than these times, there is
> sufficient time for an aircraft to move from outside (my) visual range to
> the same airspace as my (your) little pink body. As you would probably
> guess, fighters are the worst case because of their relatively small size
> and high closure rate. On the positive side, there are typically more
> eyeballs with better acuity and better maneuverability involved.
> Interestingly, small jets and light aircraft are not that far behind, as far
> as detection time is concerned. In my experience they are far less likely
> to see you than the fighters. The same is true for airliners, but because
> of their size you have more time to see them coming...
>
> 6. How to do a belly check: No, I don't hack a stopwatch, but I keep the
> above times in mind with respect to the likely threat for my area. My
> primary threat is small jet/light aircraft that operate on various
> highway/flyways and approach corridors. Away from these specific areas,
> traffic density is extremely low. First clear your "new six" - if you are
> going to turn left, look to the area behind to the right 4 - 5 oclock
> position - this will be your new blind spot. Next clear your new nose
> position - this is where you are going to roll out. Finally make a 45 deg
> turn to the left and visually clear your "old six", which is now at your
> left 7 to 8 o'clock. Often/usually, a belly check can be incorporated into
> turns you are going to make anyway, for other reasons. When you visually
> clear, make sure you focus on something on the horizon, otherwise you are
> only visually clearing out to an arms length. If I really need to hold a
> straight line, I do the belly check as a gentle 45 deg turn to each side.
>
> 7. In a thermal, periodically check to the outside of your term to clear
> your "new six". If there are other sailplanes with you in the thermal, of
> course they are the primary threats for midair, but you still need to check
> for other aircraft. Fortunately, you are easier to see while turning - as
> long as the other pilots are looking...
>
> 8. Proximity to clouds. You need to think about what you are doing when
> you are near cloudbase, in proximity to likely IFR traffic. If you are 500'
> below cloudbase (perfectly legal), and an airliner descends out of the cloud
> at 250kt on his descent profile on collision course (perfectly legal), there
> may be as little as 20 seconds to impact. If you are tail on when this
> happens - good luck. I'm sure no one would ever be right at cloudbase on a
> nice day, because that would violate the FARs - more importantly, you are
> "rolling the bones" every time you do this on a known approach corridor.
>
> 9. Conclusion. If you fly in a high airliner/small jet threat area and
> can afford a transponder it will help other people see/avoid you. If your
> primary threat comes from military operations in MOAs, I would not spend the
> money on a transponder unless I knew those fighters have intercept/atc
> controllers passing them information. The various TPAS - type devices will
> help your see/avoid efforts and should help in the case of fighters,
> although the flight lead is likely the only one squawking in the formation.
> Only you/your club knows the primary threats for your particular operating
> area and you need to understand what they are. Taylor your altitude
> awareness/cloud avoidance and belly check frequency to the nature of your
> local area. Don't cede visual lookout/avoidance responsibility to someone
> else - ever. Sailplane right-of-way is a myth in most situations and a
> comfort only to your survivors/legal counsel.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Glen

[Glen Kelley]

Ramy,

The problem is that TCAS will display you as a target with altitude unknown
(unless you have mode c with an encoding altimeter). Therefore, TCAS will
only call you out as traffic and display your position without generating a
Resolution Advisory (RA). We see this pretty often as VFR traffic. We will
be looking hard for the traffic, but won't necessarily maneuver the
aircraft, since we can't see altitude/heading.

If in fact, the sailplane does have mode C with an encoding altimeter, then
the RA will be generated and you should see the big bird maneuver to avoid
the conflict. Note that a TCAS RA will direct maneuvering in the vertical
only, since TCAS azimuth is considered too innacurate to generate turn-based
avoidance. Typical RAs would be "Climb,Climb, Climb - Descend, Descend,
Descend - Reduce Climb - Reduce Descent, etc".

I guess I figured most of the gliders with transponders weren't using Mode
C, so good catch.

Glen
"Ramy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Thanks for the excellent overview, Glen. Regarding number 3, why would
> a TCAS equipped airliner pilot need to see me if the TCAS gives the
> resolution? I'm pretty sure most of the airliners vectored around me
> never actually see me (although I always
> wave ;-)
>
> Ramy
>
> Glen Kelley wrote:
>> A few additions to Kirk's excellent points - from the background of
>> former
>> fighter pilot, current airline pilot, and current glider pilot:
>>
>> 1. We often surprise each other in sailplanes with how hard it is to see
>> each other. Don't expect an airline pilot to be any better at it! The
>> fighter pilot at least will have good visual acuity and is used to
>> looking
>> for small targets.
>>
>> 2. Airline pilots don't carry sectionals - at the speeds we operate,
>> there
>> would be little time to use them anyway. Fighter pilots will carry a low
>> level map and will have thought about visual traffic conflicts, wires,
>> terrain, etc in the planning stages. At the speeds they operate, they
>> aren't looking at those maps very often, once airborne.
>>
>> 3. The busier glider operations are notam'd and often referred to by atc
>> controllers. If you have an operable transponder, you will *normally* be
>> called out by atc and if TCAS equipped, airline pilots will be aware of
>> your
>> location. They would still have to see you to maneuver away from you.
>> (See
>> note 1.) Big airliners are not very maneuverable (mine - the Boeing
>> 737 -
>> is limited to 2.5 g!).
>>
>> 4. Fighters are a different case. They don't have TCAS and only some of
>> them have the ability to interrogate/detect transponder targets. Some of
>> them have air intercept radar capability, but sailplanes are small radar
>> targets and will often (usually!) be filtered out because of their low
>> speeds and altitudes - like highway traffic. If they are at low
>> altitude,
>> fighters usually operate at high speed (420 - 540 indicated, except the
>> A-10). As Kirk pointed out they will almost never be alone, but will be
>> in
>> formations of 2 - 4. When low level (100 to 1500 agl, most commonly 300 -
>> 500agl), they will normally *not* be receiving traffic information from
>> ATC.
>> When operating in a MOA, there may be intercept controllers who can call
>> out
>> glider traffic, but again, without a transponder, it is unlikely. The
>> formations will vary, but most pairs of flight lead and wingman will be
>> laterally spread by 5000 to 10000 feet, for visual lookout. The flight
>> lead
>> will be spending quite a bit of his time looking forward for threat
>> detection and navigation, but the wingman will be spending less time
>> looking
>> forward because he must maintain formation. If they see you, they have
>> an
>> excellent capability to avoid you. Head on and tail on, the sailplane
>> has
>> the tiny visual profile that fighter designers dream of.... In other
>> words,
>> you are nearly invisible unless you have a wing up in a turn/thermal.
>>
>> 5. As Kirk said, the primary threat is at 6 o'clock, because it is the
>> hardest to see - essentially, only the overtaking aircraft has a
>> reasonable
>> chance of avoiding a collision. Therefore, if you know you are operating
>> in
>> a high threat area: MOA, low level route, approach corridor, VFR flyway,
>> near an airport etc, I would "belly check" periodically, depending on the
>> nature of the threat. The timing is based on the amount of time it takes
>> for
>> the threat aircraft to close from outside visual range to hitting me from
>> the 6 o'clock position. I use visual ranges of 8nm for airliners, 5 nm
>> for
>> small commercial jets (corporate and regional jets) and fighters, and 3
>> nm
>> for light aircraft - adjust as your visual acuity and experience dictate.
>> I
>> use worst-case speeds as follows: airliner and small jets - 4 nm/min,
>> fighters - 8 nm/min, and light aircraft - 2.5 nm/min. Combing detection
>> ranges and times, I calculate: airliners - 2 min, small jets - 1 min and
>> 15
>> sec, fighters - roughly 40 sec, and light planes - approx 1 min and 15
>> sec.
>> So... if you are straight and level for more than these times, there is
>> sufficient time for an aircraft to move from outside (my) visual range to
>> the same airspace as my (your) little pink body. As you would probably
>> guess, fighters are the worst case because of their relatively small size
>> and high closure rate. On the positive side, there are typically more
>> eyeballs with better acuity and better maneuverability involved.
>> Interestingly, small jets and light aircraft are not that far behind, as
>> far
>> as detection time is concerned. In my experience they are far less
>> likely
>> to see you than the fighters. The same is true for airliners, but
>> because
>> of their size you have more time to see them coming...
>>
>> 6. How to do a belly check: No, I don't hack a stopwatch, but I keep
>> the
>> above times in mind with respect to the likely threat for my area. My
>> primary threat is small jet/light aircraft that operate on various
>> highway/flyways and approach corridors. Away from these specific areas,
>> traffic density is extremely low. First clear your "new six" - if you
>> are
>> going to turn left, look to the area behind to the right 4 - 5 oclock
>> position - this will be your new blind spot. Next clear your new nose
>> position - this is where you are going to roll out. Finally make a 45
>> deg
>> turn to the left and visually clear your "old six", which is now at your
>> left 7 to 8 o'clock. Often/usually, a belly check can be incorporated
>> into
>> turns you are going to make anyway, for other reasons. When you
>> visually
>> clear, make sure you focus on something on the horizon, otherwise you are
>> only visually clearing out to an arms length. If I really need to hold a
>> straight line, I do the belly check as a gentle 45 deg turn to each side.
>>
>> 7. In a thermal, periodically check to the outside of your term to clear
>> your "new six". If there are other sailplanes with you in the thermal,
>> of
>> course they are the primary threats for midair, but you still need to
>> check
>> for other aircraft. Fortunately, you are easier to see while turning - as
>> long as the other pilots are looking...
>>
>> 8. Proximity to clouds. You need to think about what you are doing when
>> you are near cloudbase, in proximity to likely IFR traffic. If you are
>> 500'
>> below cloudbase (perfectly legal), and an airliner descends out of the
>> cloud
>> at 250kt on his descent profile on collision course (perfectly legal),
>> there
>> may be as little as 20 seconds to impact. If you are tail on when this
>> happens - good luck. I'm sure no one would ever be right at cloudbase on
>> a
>> nice day, because that would violate the FARs - more importantly, you
>> are
>> "rolling the bones" every time you do this on a known approach corridor.
>>
>> 9. Conclusion. If you fly in a high airliner/small jet threat area and
>> can afford a transponder it will help other people see/avoid you. If
>> your
>> primary threat comes from military operations in MOAs, I would not spend
>> the
>> money on a transponder unless I knew those fighters have intercept/atc
>> controllers passing them information. The various TPAS - type devices
>> will
>> help your see/avoid efforts and should help in the case of fighters,
>> although the flight lead is likely the only one squawking in the
>> formation.
>> Only you/your club knows the primary threats for your particular
>> operating
>> area and you need to understand what they are. Taylor your altitude
>> awareness/cloud avoidance and belly check frequency to the nature of your
>> local area. Don't cede visual lookout/avoidance responsibility to
>> someone
>> else - ever. Sailplane right-of-way is a myth in most situations and a
>> comfort only to your survivors/legal counsel.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Glen
>

[Mike Schumann]

The proper conclusion is that if you are going to invest in a transponder,
make sure it is a Mode C.

Mike Schumann

"Glen Kelley" > wrote in message
news:lmNJg.476$XK4.324@trndny07...
> Ramy,
>
> The problem is that TCAS will display you as a target with altitude
> unknown (unless you have mode c with an encoding altimeter). Therefore,
> TCAS will only call you out as traffic and display your position without
> generating a Resolution Advisory (RA). We see this pretty often as VFR
> traffic. We will be looking hard for the traffic, but won't necessarily
> maneuver the aircraft, since we can't see altitude/heading.
>
> If in fact, the sailplane does have mode C with an encoding altimeter,
> then the RA will be generated and you should see the big bird maneuver to
> avoid the conflict. Note that a TCAS RA will direct maneuvering in the
> vertical only, since TCAS azimuth is considered too innacurate to generate
> turn-based avoidance. Typical RAs would be "Climb,Climb, Climb - Descend,
> Descend, Descend - Reduce Climb - Reduce Descent, etc".
>
> I guess I figured most of the gliders with transponders weren't using Mode
> C, so good catch.
>
> Glen
> "Ramy" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Thanks for the excellent overview, Glen. Regarding number 3, why would
>> a TCAS equipped airliner pilot need to see me if the TCAS gives the
>> resolution? I'm pretty sure most of the airliners vectored around me
>> never actually see me (although I always
>> wave ;-)
>>
>> Ramy
>>
>> Glen Kelley wrote:
>>> A few additions to Kirk's excellent points - from the background of
>>> former
>>> fighter pilot, current airline pilot, and current glider pilot:
>>>
>>> 1. We often surprise each other in sailplanes with how hard it is to
>>> see
>>> each other. Don't expect an airline pilot to be any better at it! The
>>> fighter pilot at least will have good visual acuity and is used to
>>> looking
>>> for small targets.
>>>
>>> 2. Airline pilots don't carry sectionals - at the speeds we operate,
>>> there
>>> would be little time to use them anyway. Fighter pilots will carry a
>>> low
>>> level map and will have thought about visual traffic conflicts, wires,
>>> terrain, etc in the planning stages. At the speeds they operate, they
>>> aren't looking at those maps very often, once airborne.
>>>
>>> 3. The busier glider operations are notam'd and often referred to by atc
>>> controllers. If you have an operable transponder, you will *normally*
>>> be
>>> called out by atc and if TCAS equipped, airline pilots will be aware of
>>> your
>>> location. They would still have to see you to maneuver away from you.
>>> (See
>>> note 1.) Big airliners are not very maneuverable (mine - the Boeing
>>> 737 -
>>> is limited to 2.5 g!).
>>>
>>> 4. Fighters are a different case. They don't have TCAS and only some
>>> of
>>> them have the ability to interrogate/detect transponder targets. Some
>>> of
>>> them have air intercept radar capability, but sailplanes are small radar
>>> targets and will often (usually!) be filtered out because of their low
>>> speeds and altitudes - like highway traffic. If they are at low
>>> altitude,
>>> fighters usually operate at high speed (420 - 540 indicated, except the
>>> A-10). As Kirk pointed out they will almost never be alone, but will be
>>> in
>>> formations of 2 - 4. When low level (100 to 1500 agl, most commonly
>>> 300 -
>>> 500agl), they will normally *not* be receiving traffic information from
>>> ATC.
>>> When operating in a MOA, there may be intercept controllers who can call
>>> out
>>> glider traffic, but again, without a transponder, it is unlikely. The
>>> formations will vary, but most pairs of flight lead and wingman will be
>>> laterally spread by 5000 to 10000 feet, for visual lookout. The flight
>>> lead
>>> will be spending quite a bit of his time looking forward for threat
>>> detection and navigation, but the wingman will be spending less time
>>> looking
>>> forward because he must maintain formation. If they see you, they have
>>> an
>>> excellent capability to avoid you. Head on and tail on, the sailplane
>>> has
>>> the tiny visual profile that fighter designers dream of.... In other
>>> words,
>>> you are nearly invisible unless you have a wing up in a turn/thermal.
>>>
>>> 5. As Kirk said, the primary threat is at 6 o'clock, because it is the
>>> hardest to see - essentially, only the overtaking aircraft has a
>>> reasonable
>>> chance of avoiding a collision. Therefore, if you know you are
>>> operating in
>>> a high threat area: MOA, low level route, approach corridor, VFR flyway,
>>> near an airport etc, I would "belly check" periodically, depending on
>>> the
>>> nature of the threat. The timing is based on the amount of time it takes
>>> for
>>> the threat aircraft to close from outside visual range to hitting me
>>> from
>>> the 6 o'clock position. I use visual ranges of 8nm for airliners, 5 nm
>>> for
>>> small commercial jets (corporate and regional jets) and fighters, and 3
>>> nm
>>> for light aircraft - adjust as your visual acuity and experience
>>> dictate. I
>>> use worst-case speeds as follows: airliner and small jets - 4 nm/min,
>>> fighters - 8 nm/min, and light aircraft - 2.5 nm/min. Combing detection
>>> ranges and times, I calculate: airliners - 2 min, small jets - 1 min
>>> and 15
>>> sec, fighters - roughly 40 sec, and light planes - approx 1 min and 15
>>> sec.
>>> So... if you are straight and level for more than these times, there is
>>> sufficient time for an aircraft to move from outside (my) visual range
>>> to
>>> the same airspace as my (your) little pink body. As you would probably
>>> guess, fighters are the worst case because of their relatively small
>>> size
>>> and high closure rate. On the positive side, there are typically more
>>> eyeballs with better acuity and better maneuverability involved.
>>> Interestingly, small jets and light aircraft are not that far behind, as
>>> far
>>> as detection time is concerned. In my experience they are far less
>>> likely
>>> to see you than the fighters. The same is true for airliners, but
>>> because
>>> of their size you have more time to see them coming...
>>>
>>> 6. How to do a belly check: No, I don't hack a stopwatch, but I keep
>>> the
>>> above times in mind with respect to the likely threat for my area. My
>>> primary threat is small jet/light aircraft that operate on various
>>> highway/flyways and approach corridors. Away from these specific areas,
>>> traffic density is extremely low. First clear your "new six" - if you
>>> are
>>> going to turn left, look to the area behind to the right 4 - 5 oclock
>>> position - this will be your new blind spot. Next clear your new nose
>>> position - this is where you are going to roll out. Finally make a 45
>>> deg
>>> turn to the left and visually clear your "old six", which is now at your
>>> left 7 to 8 o'clock. Often/usually, a belly check can be incorporated
>>> into
>>> turns you are going to make anyway, for other reasons. When you
>>> visually
>>> clear, make sure you focus on something on the horizon, otherwise you
>>> are
>>> only visually clearing out to an arms length. If I really need to hold
>>> a
>>> straight line, I do the belly check as a gentle 45 deg turn to each
>>> side.
>>>
>>> 7. In a thermal, periodically check to the outside of your term to
>>> clear
>>> your "new six". If there are other sailplanes with you in the thermal,
>>> of
>>> course they are the primary threats for midair, but you still need to
>>> check
>>> for other aircraft. Fortunately, you are easier to see while turning -
>>> as
>>> long as the other pilots are looking...
>>>
>>> 8. Proximity to clouds. You need to think about what you are doing
>>> when
>>> you are near cloudbase, in proximity to likely IFR traffic. If you are
>>> 500'
>>> below cloudbase (perfectly legal), and an airliner descends out of the
>>> cloud
>>> at 250kt on his descent profile on collision course (perfectly legal),
>>> there
>>> may be as little as 20 seconds to impact. If you are tail on when this
>>> happens - good luck. I'm sure no one would ever be right at cloudbase
>>> on a
>>> nice day, because that would violate the FARs - more importantly, you
>>> are
>>> "rolling the bones" every time you do this on a known approach corridor.
>>>
>>> 9. Conclusion. If you fly in a high airliner/small jet threat area
>>> and
>>> can afford a transponder it will help other people see/avoid you. If
>>> your
>>> primary threat comes from military operations in MOAs, I would not spend
>>> the
>>> money on a transponder unless I knew those fighters have intercept/atc
>>> controllers passing them information. The various TPAS - type devices
>>> will
>>> help your see/avoid efforts and should help in the case of fighters,
>>> although the flight lead is likely the only one squawking in the
>>> formation.
>>> Only you/your club knows the primary threats for your particular
>>> operating
>>> area and you need to understand what they are. Taylor your altitude
>>> awareness/cloud avoidance and belly check frequency to the nature of
>>> your
>>> local area. Don't cede visual lookout/avoidance responsibility to
>>> someone
>>> else - ever. Sailplane right-of-way is a myth in most situations and a
>>> comfort only to your survivors/legal counsel.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Glen
>>
>
>

[Ramy]

Thanks Glen. I am not aware of any transponder equiped glider not using
mode C. Seems like once you go through the hassle and cost of
installing a transponder, the encoder is the easy part. Mode A sounds
almost useless, more confusing then not. A mode A transponder could
signal an alert to any airline crusing at 30K above.
Which baffles me - Why aren't modern transponders already including
internal encoder??

Ramy

Glen Kelley wrote:
> Ramy,
>
> The problem is that TCAS will display you as a target with altitude unknown
> (unless you have mode c with an encoding altimeter). Therefore, TCAS will
> only call you out as traffic and display your position without generating a
> Resolution Advisory (RA). We see this pretty often as VFR traffic. We will
> be looking hard for the traffic, but won't necessarily maneuver the
> aircraft, since we can't see altitude/heading.
>
> If in fact, the sailplane does have mode C with an encoding altimeter, then
> the RA will be generated and you should see the big bird maneuver to avoid
> the conflict. Note that a TCAS RA will direct maneuvering in the vertical
> only, since TCAS azimuth is considered too innacurate to generate turn-based
> avoidance. Typical RAs would be "Climb,Climb, Climb - Descend, Descend,
> Descend - Reduce Climb - Reduce Descent, etc".
>
> I guess I figured most of the gliders with transponders weren't using Mode
> C, so good catch.
>
> Glen
> "Ramy" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Thanks for the excellent overview, Glen. Regarding number 3, why would
> > a TCAS equipped airliner pilot need to see me if the TCAS gives the
> > resolution? I'm pretty sure most of the airliners vectored around me
> > never actually see me (although I always
> > wave ;-)
> >
> > Ramy
> >
> > Glen Kelley wrote:
> >> A few additions to Kirk's excellent points - from the background of
> >> former
> >> fighter pilot, current airline pilot, and current glider pilot:
> >>
> >> 1. We often surprise each other in sailplanes with how hard it is to see
> >> each other. Don't expect an airline pilot to be any better at it! The
> >> fighter pilot at least will have good visual acuity and is used to
> >> looking
> >> for small targets.
> >>
> >> 2. Airline pilots don't carry sectionals - at the speeds we operate,
> >> there
> >> would be little time to use them anyway. Fighter pilots will carry a low
> >> level map and will have thought about visual traffic conflicts, wires,
> >> terrain, etc in the planning stages. At the speeds they operate, they
> >> aren't looking at those maps very often, once airborne.
> >>
> >> 3. The busier glider operations are notam'd and often referred to by atc
> >> controllers. If you have an operable transponder, you will *normally* be
> >> called out by atc and if TCAS equipped, airline pilots will be aware of
> >> your
> >> location. They would still have to see you to maneuver away from you.
> >> (See
> >> note 1.) Big airliners are not very maneuverable (mine - the Boeing
> >> 737 -
> >> is limited to 2.5 g!).
> >>
> >> 4. Fighters are a different case. They don't have TCAS and only some of
> >> them have the ability to interrogate/detect transponder targets. Some of
> >> them have air intercept radar capability, but sailplanes are small radar
> >> targets and will often (usually!) be filtered out because of their low
> >> speeds and altitudes - like highway traffic. If they are at low
> >> altitude,
> >> fighters usually operate at high speed (420 - 540 indicated, except the
> >> A-10). As Kirk pointed out they will almost never be alone, but will be
> >> in
> >> formations of 2 - 4. When low level (100 to 1500 agl, most commonly 300 -
> >> 500agl), they will normally *not* be receiving traffic information from
> >> ATC.
> >> When operating in a MOA, there may be intercept controllers who can call
> >> out
> >> glider traffic, but again, without a transponder, it is unlikely. The
> >> formations will vary, but most pairs of flight lead and wingman will be
> >> laterally spread by 5000 to 10000 feet, for visual lookout. The flight
> >> lead
> >> will be spending quite a bit of his time looking forward for threat
> >> detection and navigation, but the wingman will be spending less time
> >> looking
> >> forward because he must maintain formation. If they see you, they have
> >> an
> >> excellent capability to avoid you. Head on and tail on, the sailplane
> >> has
> >> the tiny visual profile that fighter designers dream of.... In other
> >> words,
> >> you are nearly invisible unless you have a wing up in a turn/thermal.
> >>
> >> 5. As Kirk said, the primary threat is at 6 o'clock, because it is the
> >> hardest to see - essentially, only the overtaking aircraft has a
> >> reasonable
> >> chance of avoiding a collision. Therefore, if you know you are operating
> >> in
> >> a high threat area: MOA, low level route, approach corridor, VFR flyway,
> >> near an airport etc, I would "belly check" periodically, depending on the
> >> nature of the threat. The timing is based on the amount of time it takes
> >> for
> >> the threat aircraft to close from outside visual range to hitting me from
> >> the 6 o'clock position. I use visual ranges of 8nm for airliners, 5 nm
> >> for
> >> small commercial jets (corporate and regional jets) and fighters, and 3
> >> nm
> >> for light aircraft - adjust as your visual acuity and experience dictate.
> >> I
> >> use worst-case speeds as follows: airliner and small jets - 4 nm/min,
> >> fighters - 8 nm/min, and light aircraft - 2.5 nm/min. Combing detection
> >> ranges and times, I calculate: airliners - 2 min, small jets - 1 min and
> >> 15
> >> sec, fighters - roughly 40 sec, and light planes - approx 1 min and 15
> >> sec.
> >> So... if you are straight and level for more than these times, there is
> >> sufficient time for an aircraft to move from outside (my) visual range to
> >> the same airspace as my (your) little pink body. As you would probably
> >> guess, fighters are the worst case because of their relatively small size
> >> and high closure rate. On the positive side, there are typically more
> >> eyeballs with better acuity and better maneuverability involved.
> >> Interestingly, small jets and light aircraft are not that far behind, as
> >> far
> >> as detection time is concerned. In my experience they are far less
> >> likely
> >> to see you than the fighters. The same is true for airliners, but
> >> because
> >> of their size you have more time to see them coming...
> >>
> >> 6. How to do a belly check: No, I don't hack a stopwatch, but I keep
> >> the
> >> above times in mind with respect to the likely threat for my area. My
> >> primary threat is small jet/light aircraft that operate on various
> >> highway/flyways and approach corridors. Away from these specific areas,
> >> traffic density is extremely low. First clear your "new six" - if you
> >> are
> >> going to turn left, look to the area behind to the right 4 - 5 oclock
> >> position - this will be your new blind spot. Next clear your new nose
> >> position - this is where you are going to roll out. Finally make a 45
> >> deg
> >> turn to the left and visually clear your "old six", which is now at your
> >> left 7 to 8 o'clock. Often/usually, a belly check can be incorporated
> >> into
> >> turns you are going to make anyway, for other reasons. When you
> >> visually
> >> clear, make sure you focus on something on the horizon, otherwise you are
> >> only visually clearing out to an arms length. If I really need to hold a
> >> straight line, I do the belly check as a gentle 45 deg turn to each side.
> >>
> >> 7. In a thermal, periodically check to the outside of your term to clear
> >> your "new six". If there are other sailplanes with you in the thermal,
> >> of
> >> course they are the primary threats for midair, but you still need to
> >> check
> >> for other aircraft. Fortunately, you are easier to see while turning - as
> >> long as the other pilots are looking...
> >>
> >> 8. Proximity to clouds. You need to think about what you are doing when
> >> you are near cloudbase, in proximity to likely IFR traffic. If you are
> >> 500'
> >> below cloudbase (perfectly legal), and an airliner descends out of the
> >> cloud
> >> at 250kt on his descent profile on collision course (perfectly legal),
> >> there
> >> may be as little as 20 seconds to impact. If you are tail on when this
> >> happens - good luck. I'm sure no one would ever be right at cloudbase on
> >> a
> >> nice day, because that would violate the FARs - more importantly, you
> >> are
> >> "rolling the bones" every time you do this on a known approach corridor.
> >>
> >> 9. Conclusion. If you fly in a high airliner/small jet threat area and
> >> can afford a transponder it will help other people see/avoid you. If
> >> your
> >> primary threat comes from military operations in MOAs, I would not spend
> >> the
> >> money on a transponder unless I knew those fighters have intercept/atc
> >> controllers passing them information. The various TPAS - type devices
> >> will
> >> help your see/avoid efforts and should help in the case of fighters,
> >> although the flight lead is likely the only one squawking in the
> >> formation.
> >> Only you/your club knows the primary threats for your particular
> >> operating
> >> area and you need to understand what they are. Taylor your altitude
> >> awareness/cloud avoidance and belly check frequency to the nature of your
> >> local area. Don't cede visual lookout/avoidance responsibility to
> >> someone
> >> else - ever. Sailplane right-of-way is a myth in most situations and a
> >> comfort only to your survivors/legal counsel.
> >>
> >> Hope this helps.
> >>
> >> Glen
> >

[Jack[_4_]]

I just spent the time to read this whole thread,. Only my friend and
former hangar mate, the Mosquito pilot from Houston, makes real sence.
If you cannot see and avoid in visual flight rules area... SLOW DOWN.
Failure to do so is irresponsible. We don't need transponders if we all
avoid each other and that requires time to see and react. To me this is
the equivalent of riding with my brother in Phoenix who likes to drive
90 on the freeway, tailgating impossibly close, and passing on both
shoulders. It's crazy. I only go with him if I'm driving these days.
What I fear is the jet pilot's neglegence will be paid for by lost
flying priviledges in the soaring community. The other piece is going
into an area of reputed heavy glider traffic. Shouldn't she have known
that? Perhaps slowing them down isn't realistic. Demanding that at
least one of them have his/her head out of the cockpit isn't, in my
opinion.

Jack Womack
PIK-20B N77MA (TE)

[Glen Kelley]

Ramy, I would agree. Mode A isn't completely worthless, since at least the
airliner knows you are around. Clearly Mode C provides more "protection".

Glen
"Ramy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thanks Glen. I am not aware of any transponder equiped glider not using
> mode C. Seems like once you go through the hassle and cost of
> installing a transponder, the encoder is the easy part. Mode A sounds
> almost useless, more confusing then not. A mode A transponder could
> signal an alert to any airline crusing at 30K above.
> Which baffles me - Why aren't modern transponders already including
> internal encoder??
>
> Ramy
>
> Glen Kelley wrote:
>> Ramy,
>>
>> The problem is that TCAS will display you as a target with altitude
>> unknown
>> (unless you have mode c with an encoding altimeter). Therefore, TCAS
>> will
>> only call you out as traffic and display your position without generating
>> a
>> Resolution Advisory (RA). We see this pretty often as VFR traffic. We
>> will
>> be looking hard for the traffic, but won't necessarily maneuver the
>> aircraft, since we can't see altitude/heading.
>>
>> If in fact, the sailplane does have mode C with an encoding altimeter,
>> then
>> the RA will be generated and you should see the big bird maneuver to
>> avoid
>> the conflict. Note that a TCAS RA will direct maneuvering in the
>> vertical
>> only, since TCAS azimuth is considered too innacurate to generate
>> turn-based
>> avoidance. Typical RAs would be "Climb,Climb, Climb - Descend, Descend,
>> Descend - Reduce Climb - Reduce Descent, etc".
>>
>> I guess I figured most of the gliders with transponders weren't using
>> Mode
>> C, so good catch.
>>
>> Glen
>> "Ramy" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > Thanks for the excellent overview, Glen. Regarding number 3, why would
>> > a TCAS equipped airliner pilot need to see me if the TCAS gives the
>> > resolution? I'm pretty sure most of the airliners vectored around me
>> > never actually see me (although I always
>> > wave ;-)
>> >
>> > Ramy
>> >
>> > Glen Kelley wrote:
>> >> A few additions to Kirk's excellent points - from the background of
>> >> former
>> >> fighter pilot, current airline pilot, and current glider pilot:
>> >>
>> >> 1. We often surprise each other in sailplanes with how hard it is to
>> >> see
>> >> each other. Don't expect an airline pilot to be any better at it!
>> >> The
>> >> fighter pilot at least will have good visual acuity and is used to
>> >> looking
>> >> for small targets.
>> >>
>> >> 2. Airline pilots don't carry sectionals - at the speeds we operate,
>> >> there
>> >> would be little time to use them anyway. Fighter pilots will carry a
>> >> low
>> >> level map and will have thought about visual traffic conflicts, wires,
>> >> terrain, etc in the planning stages. At the speeds they operate, they
>> >> aren't looking at those maps very often, once airborne.
>> >>
>> >> 3. The busier glider operations are notam'd and often referred to by
>> >> atc
>> >> controllers. If you have an operable transponder, you will *normally*
>> >> be
>> >> called out by atc and if TCAS equipped, airline pilots will be aware
>> >> of
>> >> your
>> >> location. They would still have to see you to maneuver away from you.
>> >> (See
>> >> note 1.) Big airliners are not very maneuverable (mine - the Boeing
>> >> 737 -
>> >> is limited to 2.5 g!).
>> >>
>> >> 4. Fighters are a different case. They don't have TCAS and only some
>> >> of
>> >> them have the ability to interrogate/detect transponder targets. Some
>> >> of
>> >> them have air intercept radar capability, but sailplanes are small
>> >> radar
>> >> targets and will often (usually!) be filtered out because of their low
>> >> speeds and altitudes - like highway traffic. If they are at low
>> >> altitude,
>> >> fighters usually operate at high speed (420 - 540 indicated, except
>> >> the
>> >> A-10). As Kirk pointed out they will almost never be alone, but will
>> >> be
>> >> in
>> >> formations of 2 - 4. When low level (100 to 1500 agl, most commonly
>> >> 300 -
>> >> 500agl), they will normally *not* be receiving traffic information
>> >> from
>> >> ATC.
>> >> When operating in a MOA, there may be intercept controllers who can
>> >> call
>> >> out
>> >> glider traffic, but again, without a transponder, it is unlikely. The
>> >> formations will vary, but most pairs of flight lead and wingman will
>> >> be
>> >> laterally spread by 5000 to 10000 feet, for visual lookout. The
>> >> flight
>> >> lead
>> >> will be spending quite a bit of his time looking forward for threat
>> >> detection and navigation, but the wingman will be spending less time
>> >> looking
>> >> forward because he must maintain formation. If they see you, they
>> >> have
>> >> an
>> >> excellent capability to avoid you. Head on and tail on, the sailplane
>> >> has
>> >> the tiny visual profile that fighter designers dream of.... In other
>> >> words,
>> >> you are nearly invisible unless you have a wing up in a turn/thermal.
>> >>
>> >> 5. As Kirk said, the primary threat is at 6 o'clock, because it is
>> >> the
>> >> hardest to see - essentially, only the overtaking aircraft has a
>> >> reasonable
>> >> chance of avoiding a collision. Therefore, if you know you are
>> >> operating
>> >> in
>> >> a high threat area: MOA, low level route, approach corridor, VFR
>> >> flyway,
>> >> near an airport etc, I would "belly check" periodically, depending on
>> >> the
>> >> nature of the threat. The timing is based on the amount of time it
>> >> takes
>> >> for
>> >> the threat aircraft to close from outside visual range to hitting me
>> >> from
>> >> the 6 o'clock position. I use visual ranges of 8nm for airliners, 5
>> >> nm
>> >> for
>> >> small commercial jets (corporate and regional jets) and fighters, and
>> >> 3
>> >> nm
>> >> for light aircraft - adjust as your visual acuity and experience
>> >> dictate.
>> >> I
>> >> use worst-case speeds as follows: airliner and small jets - 4 nm/min,
>> >> fighters - 8 nm/min, and light aircraft - 2.5 nm/min. Combing
>> >> detection
>> >> ranges and times, I calculate: airliners - 2 min, small jets - 1 min
>> >> and
>> >> 15
>> >> sec, fighters - roughly 40 sec, and light planes - approx 1 min and 15
>> >> sec.
>> >> So... if you are straight and level for more than these times, there
>> >> is
>> >> sufficient time for an aircraft to move from outside (my) visual range
>> >> to
>> >> the same airspace as my (your) little pink body. As you would probably
>> >> guess, fighters are the worst case because of their relatively small
>> >> size
>> >> and high closure rate. On the positive side, there are typically more
>> >> eyeballs with better acuity and better maneuverability involved.
>> >> Interestingly, small jets and light aircraft are not that far behind,
>> >> as
>> >> far
>> >> as detection time is concerned. In my experience they are far less
>> >> likely
>> >> to see you than the fighters. The same is true for airliners, but
>> >> because
>> >> of their size you have more time to see them coming...
>> >>
>> >> 6. How to do a belly check: No, I don't hack a stopwatch, but I keep
>> >> the
>> >> above times in mind with respect to the likely threat for my area. My
>> >> primary threat is small jet/light aircraft that operate on various
>> >> highway/flyways and approach corridors. Away from these specific
>> >> areas,
>> >> traffic density is extremely low. First clear your "new six" - if you
>> >> are
>> >> going to turn left, look to the area behind to the right 4 - 5 oclock
>> >> position - this will be your new blind spot. Next clear your new nose
>> >> position - this is where you are going to roll out. Finally make a 45
>> >> deg
>> >> turn to the left and visually clear your "old six", which is now at
>> >> your
>> >> left 7 to 8 o'clock. Often/usually, a belly check can be incorporated
>> >> into
>> >> turns you are going to make anyway, for other reasons. When you
>> >> visually
>> >> clear, make sure you focus on something on the horizon, otherwise you
>> >> are
>> >> only visually clearing out to an arms length. If I really need to
>> >> hold a
>> >> straight line, I do the belly check as a gentle 45 deg turn to each
>> >> side.
>> >>
>> >> 7. In a thermal, periodically check to the outside of your term to
>> >> clear
>> >> your "new six". If there are other sailplanes with you in the
>> >> thermal,
>> >> of
>> >> course they are the primary threats for midair, but you still need to
>> >> check
>> >> for other aircraft. Fortunately, you are easier to see while turning -
>> >> as
>> >> long as the other pilots are looking...
>> >>
>> >> 8. Proximity to clouds. You need to think about what you are doing
>> >> when
>> >> you are near cloudbase, in proximity to likely IFR traffic. If you
>> >> are
>> >> 500'
>> >> below cloudbase (perfectly legal), and an airliner descends out of the
>> >> cloud
>> >> at 250kt on his descent profile on collision course (perfectly legal),
>> >> there
>> >> may be as little as 20 seconds to impact. If you are tail on when
>> >> this
>> >> happens - good luck. I'm sure no one would ever be right at cloudbase
>> >> on
>> >> a
>> >> nice day, because that would violate the FARs - more importantly, you
>> >> are
>> >> "rolling the bones" every time you do this on a known approach
>> >> corridor.
>> >>
>> >> 9. Conclusion. If you fly in a high airliner/small jet threat area
>> >> and
>> >> can afford a transponder it will help other people see/avoid you. If
>> >> your
>> >> primary threat comes from military operations in MOAs, I would not
>> >> spend
>> >> the
>> >> money on a transponder unless I knew those fighters have intercept/atc
>> >> controllers passing them information. The various TPAS - type devices
>> >> will
>> >> help your see/avoid efforts and should help in the case of fighters,
>> >> although the flight lead is likely the only one squawking in the
>> >> formation.
>> >> Only you/your club knows the primary threats for your particular
>> >> operating
>> >> area and you need to understand what they are. Taylor your altitude
>> >> awareness/cloud avoidance and belly check frequency to the nature of
>> >> your
>> >> local area. Don't cede visual lookout/avoidance responsibility to
>> >> someone
>> >> else - ever. Sailplane right-of-way is a myth in most situations and
>> >> a
>> >> comfort only to your survivors/legal counsel.
>> >>
>> >> Hope this helps.
>> >>
>> >> Glen
>> >
>

[Glen Kelley]

Jack, I can't agree that this is negligence on the jet pilot's part - at
least not until the investigation is complete.

Sailplanes are very hard to see. We surprise each other from time to time
at much slower closure rates than any jet is going to see closing with a
sailplane. Failure to maintain visual separation is a given, but negligence
is a stretch until someone shows the Captain/FO of the corporate jet were
reading the newspaper, serving drinks to the pax, or something equally
unlikely in the descent phase.

As far as airliner speeds and routing go, who do you think is going to win
if the airline industry is going to have to slow down or otherwise adjust to
blend with sailplane traffic (read that burn more gas and arrive later)? My
bet is with the airlines and flying public. Think about all the airports
that are closed after new housing encroaches on the airport boundaries. As
a small interest group we need to pick our battles.

I have never flown at Minden, but it sounds like the local crowd clearly
understands what is at stake and have tried to be good neighbors. Since no
one was seriously hurt, perhaps the flying environment won't change much.

Glen



"Jack" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>I just spent the time to read this whole thread,. Only my friend and
> former hangar mate, the Mosquito pilot from Houston, makes real sence.
> If you cannot see and avoid in visual flight rules area... SLOW DOWN.
> Failure to do so is irresponsible. We don't need transponders if we all
> avoid each other and that requires time to see and react. To me this is
> the equivalent of riding with my brother in Phoenix who likes to drive
> 90 on the freeway, tailgating impossibly close, and passing on both
> shoulders. It's crazy. I only go with him if I'm driving these days.
> What I fear is the jet pilot's neglegence will be paid for by lost
> flying priviledges in the soaring community. The other piece is going
> into an area of reputed heavy glider traffic. Shouldn't she have known
> that? Perhaps slowing them down isn't realistic. Demanding that at
> least one of them have his/her head out of the cockpit isn't, in my
> opinion.
>
> Jack Womack
> PIK-20B N77MA (TE)
>

[Bob C]

Like Jack, I just read the whole thread. 4 comments:

1. Remember, the most important glass in a glass cockpit
is above the instrument panel. I used to quote this
to airline pilots, but these days I find it appropos
for many gadget-oriented glider drivers.

2. If you're not seeing much traffic, you're just not
looking hard enough.

3. I tried the 10 point font 'o' at ten feet. Even
in light blue it was clearly visible. At age 46, it's
actually harder to see it at 10 inches! I see another
aircraft at 10 miles, I wish I could read my altimeter
to tell ATC where I am ;o)

4. The rules are see and avoid, and give way to the
glider. The PIC is responsible for knowing all pertinent
information about the intended flight. Adjusting speed
or flight path to avoid heavy glider traffic is not
just a good idea, it's the law.



At 04:42 01 September 2006, Glen Kelley wrote:
>Ramy, I would agree. Mode A isn't completely worthless,
>since at least the
>airliner knows you are around. Clearly Mode C provides
>more 'protection'.
>
>Glen
>'Ramy' wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Thanks Glen. I am not aware of any transponder equiped
>>glider not using
>> mode C. Seems like once you go through the hassle
>>and cost of
>> installing a transponder, the encoder is the easy
>>part. Mode A sounds
>> almost useless, more confusing then not. A mode A
>>transponder could
>> signal an alert to any airline crusing at 30K above.
>> Which baffles me - Why aren't modern transponders
>>already including
>> internal encoder??
>>
>> Ramy
>>
>> Glen Kelley wrote:
>>> Ramy,
>>>
>>> The problem is that TCAS will display you as a target
>>>with altitude
>>> unknown
>>> (unless you have mode c with an encoding altimeter).
>>> Therefore, TCAS
>>> will
>>> only call you out as traffic and display your position
>>>without generating
>>> a
>>> Resolution Advisory (RA). We see this pretty often
>>>as VFR traffic. We
>>> will
>>> be looking hard for the traffic, but won't necessarily
>>>maneuver the
>>> aircraft, since we can't see altitude/heading.
>>>
>>> If in fact, the sailplane does have mode C with an
>>>encoding altimeter,
>>> then
>>> the RA will be generated and you should see the big
>>>bird maneuver to
>>> avoid
>>> the conflict. Note that a TCAS RA will direct maneuvering
>>>in the
>>> vertical
>>> only, since TCAS azimuth is considered too innacurate
>>>to generate
>>> turn-based
>>> avoidance. Typical RAs would be 'Climb,Climb, Climb
>>>- Descend, Descend,
>>> Descend - Reduce Climb - Reduce Descent, etc'.
>>>
>>> I guess I figured most of the gliders with transponders
>>>weren't using
>>> Mode
>>> C, so good catch.
>>>
>>> Glen
>>> 'Ramy' wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>> > Thanks for the excellent overview, Glen. Regarding
>>>>number 3, why would
>>> > a TCAS equipped airliner pilot need to see me if
>>>>the TCAS gives the
>>> > resolution? I'm pretty sure most of the airliners
>>>>vectored around me
>>> > never actually see me (although I always
>>> > wave ;-)
>>> >
>>> > Ramy
>>> >
>>> > Glen Kelley wrote:
>>> >> A few additions to Kirk's excellent points - from
>>>>>the background of
>>> >> former
>>> >> fighter pilot, current airline pilot, and current
>>>>>glider pilot:
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. We often surprise each other in sailplanes with
>>>>>how hard it is to
>>> >> see
>>> >> each other. Don't expect an airline pilot to be
>>>>>any better at it!
>>> >> The
>>> >> fighter pilot at least will have good visual acuity
>>>>>and is used to
>>> >> looking
>>> >> for small targets.
>>> >>
>>> >> 2. Airline pilots don't carry sectionals - at the
>>>>>speeds we operate,
>>> >> there
>>> >> would be little time to use them anyway. Fighter
>>>>>pilots will carry a
>>> >> low
>>> >> level map and will have thought about visual traffic
>>>>>conflicts, wires,
>>> >> terrain, etc in the planning stages. At the speeds
>>>>>they operate, they
>>> >> aren't looking at those maps very often, once airborne.
>>> >>
>>> >> 3. The busier glider operations are notam'd and often
>>>>>referred to by
>>> >> atc
>>> >> controllers. If you have an operable transponder,
>>>>>you will *normally*
>>> >> be
>>> >> called out by atc and if TCAS equipped, airline pilots
>>>>>will be aware
>>> >> of
>>> >> your
>>> >> location. They would still have to see you to maneuver
>>>>>away from you.
>>> >> (See
>>> >> note 1.) Big airliners are not very maneuverable
>>>>>(mine - the Boeing
>>> >> 737 -
>>> >> is limited to 2.5 g!).
>>> >>
>>> >> 4. Fighters are a different case. They don't have
>>>>>TCAS and only some
>>> >> of
>>> >> them have the ability to interrogate/detect transponder
>>>>>targets. Some
>>> >> of
>>> >> them have air intercept radar capability, but sailplanes
>>>>>are small
>>> >> radar
>>> >> targets and will often (usually!) be filtered out
>>>>>because of their low
>>> >> speeds and altitudes - like highway traffic. If
>>>>>they are at low
>>> >> altitude,
>>> >> fighters usually operate at high speed (420 - 540
>>>>>indicated, except
>>> >> the
>>> >> A-10). As Kirk pointed out they will almost never
>>>>>be alone, but will
>>> >> be
>>> >> in
>>> >> formations of 2 - 4. When low level (100 to 1500
>>>>>agl, most commonly
>>> >> 300 -
>>> >> 500agl), they will normally *not* be receiving traffic
>>>>>information
>>> >> from
>>> >> ATC.
>>> >> When operating in a MOA, there may be intercept controllers
>>>>>who can
>>> >> call
>>> >> out
>>> >> glider traffic, but again, without a transponder,
>>>>>it is unlikely. The
>>> >> formations will vary, but most pairs of flight lead
>>>>>and wingman will
>>> >> be
>>> >> laterally spread by 5000 to 10000 feet, for visual
>>>>>lookout. The
>>> >> flight
>>> >> lead
>>> >> will be spending quite a bit of his time looking
>>>>>forward for threat
>>> >> detection and navigation, but the wingman will be
>>>>>spending less time
>>> >> looking
>>> >> forward because he must maintain formation. If they
>>>>>see you, they
>>> >> have
>>> >> an
>>> >> excellent capability to avoid you. Head on and tail
>>>>>on, the sailplane
>>> >> has
>>> >> the tiny visual profile that fighter designers dream
>>>>>of.... In other
>>> >> words,
>>> >> you are nearly invisible unless you have a wing up
>>>>>in a turn/thermal.
>>> >>
>>> >> 5. As Kirk said, the primary threat is at 6 o'clock,
>>>>>because it is
>>> >> the
>>> >> hardest to see - essentially, only the overtaking
>>>>>aircraft has a
>>> >> reasonable
>>> >> chance of avoiding a collision. Therefore, if you
>>>>>know you are
>>> >> operating
>>> >> in
>>> >> a high threat area: MOA, low level route, approach
>>>>>corridor, VFR
>>> >> flyway,
>>> >> near an airport etc, I would 'belly check' periodically,
>>>>>depending on
>>> >> the
>>> >> nature of the threat. The timing is based on the
>>>>>amount of time it
>>> >> takes
>>> >> for
>>> >> the threat aircraft to close from outside visual
>>>>>range to hitting me
>>> >> from
>>> >> the 6 o'clock position. I use visual ranges of 8nm
>>>>>for airliners, 5
>>> >> nm
>>> >> for
>>> >> small commercial jets (corporate and regional jets)
>>>>>and fighters, and
>>> >> 3
>>> >> nm
>>> >> for light aircraft - adjust as your visual acuity
>>>>>and experience
>>> >> dictate.
>>> >> I
>>> >> use worst-case speeds as follows: airliner and small
>>>>>jets - 4 nm/min,
>>> >> fighters - 8 nm/min, and light aircraft - 2.5 nm/min.
>>>>> Combing
>>> >> detection
>>> >> ranges and times, I calculate: airliners - 2 min,
>>>>>small jets - 1 min
>>> >> and
>>> >> 15
>>> >> sec, fighters - roughly 40 sec, and light planes
>>>>>- approx 1 min and 15
>>> >> sec.
>>> >> So... if you are straight and level for more than
>>>>>these times, there
>>> >> is
>>> >> sufficient time for an aircraft to move from outside
>>>>>(my) visual range
>>> >> to
>>> >> the same airspace as my (your) little pink body.
>>>>>As you would probably
>>> >> guess, fighters are the worst case because of their
>>>>>relatively small
>>> >> size
>>> >> and high closure rate. On the positive side, there
>>>>>are typically more
>>> >> eyeballs with better acuity and better maneuverability
>>>>>involved.
>>> >> Interestingly, small jets and light aircraft are
>>>>>not that far behind,
>>> >> as
>>> >> far
>>> >> as detection time is concerned. In my experience
>>>>>they are far less
>>> >> likely
>>> >> to see you than the fighters. The same is true for
>>>>>airliners, but
>>> >> because
>>> >> of their size you have more time to see them coming...
>>> >>
>>> >> 6. How to do a belly check: No, I don't hack a
>>>>>stopwatch, but I keep
>>> >> the
>>> >> above times in mind with respect to the likely threat
>>>>>for my area. My
>>> >> primary threat is small jet/light aircraft that operate
>>>>>on various
>>> >> highway/flyways and approach corridors. Away from
>>>>>these specific
>>> >> areas,
>>> >> traffic density is extremely low. First clear your
>>>>>'new six' - if you
>>> >> are
>>> >> going to turn left, look to the area behind to the
>>>>>right 4 - 5 oclock
>>> >> position - this will be your new blind spot. Next
>>>>>clear your new nose
>>> >> position - this is where you are going to roll out.
>>>>> Finally make a 45
>>> >> deg
>>> >> turn to the left and visually clear your 'old six',
>>>>>which is now at
>>> >> your
>>> >> left 7 to 8 o'clock. Often/usually, a belly check
>>>>>can be incorporated
>>> >> into
>>> >> turns you are going to make anyway, for other reasons.
>>>>> When you
>>> >> visually
>>> >> clear, make sure you focus on something on the horizon,
>>>>>otherwise you
>>> >> are
>>> >> only visually clearing out to an arms length. If
>>>>>I really need to
>>> >> hold a
>>> >> straight line, I do the belly check as a gentle 45
>>>>>deg turn to each
>>> >> side.
>>> >>
>>> >> 7. In a thermal, periodically check to the outside
>>>>>of your term to
>>> >> clear
>>> >> your 'new six'. If there are other sailplanes with
>>>>>you in the
>>> >> thermal,
>>> >> of
>>> >> course they are the primary threats for midair, but
>>>>>you still need to
>>> >> check
>>> >> for other aircraft. Fortunately, you are easier to
>>>>>see while turning -
>>> >> as
>>> >> long as the other pilots are looking...
>>> >>
>>> >> 8. Proximity to clouds. You need to think about
>>>>>what you are doing
>>> >> when
>>> >> you are near cloudbase, in proximity to likely IFR
>>>>>traffic. If you
>>> >> are
>>> >> 500'
>>> >> below cloudbase (perfectly legal), and an airliner
>>>>>descends out of the
>>> >> cloud
>>> >> at 250kt on his descent profile on collision course
>>>>>(perfectly legal),
>>> >> there
>>> >> may be as little as 20 seconds to impact. If you
>>>>>are tail on when
>>> >> this
>>> >> happens - good luck. I'm sure no one would ever
>>>>>be right at cloudbase
>>> >> on
>>> >> a
>>> >> nice day, because that would violate the FARs -
>>>>>more importantly, you
>>> >> are
>>> >> 'rolling the bones' every time you do this on a known
>>>>>approach
>>> >> corridor.
>>> >>
>>> >> 9. Conclusion. If you fly in a high airliner/small
>>>>>jet threat area
>>> >> and
>>> >> can afford a transponder it will help other people
>>>>>see/avoid you. If
>>> >> your
>>> >> primary threat comes from military operations in
>>>>>MOAs, I would not
>>> >> spend
>>> >> the
>>> >> money on a transponder unless I knew those fighters
>>>>>have intercept/atc
>>> >> controllers passing them information. The various
>>>>>TPAS - type devices
>>> >> will
>>> >> help your see/avoid efforts and should help in the
>>>>>case of fighters,
>>> >> although the flight lead is likely the only one squawking
>>>>>in the
>>> >> formation.
>>> >> Only you/your club knows the primary threats for
>>>>>your particular
>>> >> operating
>>> >> area and you need to understand what they are. Taylor
>>>>>your altitude
>>> >> awareness/cloud avoidance and belly check frequency
>>>>>to the nature of
>>> >> your
>>> >> local area. Don't cede visual lookout/avoidance
>>>>>responsibility to
>>> >> someone
>>> >> else - ever. Sailplane right-of-way is a myth in
>>>>>most situations and
>>> >> a
>>> >> comfort only to your survivors/legal counsel.
>>> >>
>>> >> Hope this helps.
>>> >>
>>> >> Glen
>>> >
>>
>
>
>

[Graeme Cant]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>
> The truth is, if you can't see this tiny *motionless* speck ...two miles
> away ...in the inversion haze ...on one thermalling turn, then it is going
> to hit you before you finish the next.

No. YOU are going to hit it.

Ok, I'll accept "we'll hit each other" but I can't let the arrogance of
"it is going to hit you" pass without comment.

Powered aircraft are only one user of airspace.

GC

[Graeme Cant]

Graeme Cant wrote:
> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>>
>> The truth is, if you can't see this tiny *motionless* speck ...two
>> miles away ...in the inversion haze ...on one thermalling turn, then
>> it is going to hit you before you finish the next.
>
> No. YOU are going to hit it.
>
> Ok, I'll accept "we'll hit each other" but I can't let the arrogance of
> "it is going to hit you" pass without comment.
>
> Powered aircraft are only one user of airspace.

My apologies, Yuliy. I misread your post as coming from a power pilot
with the "How can I possibly be expected to get out of a glider's road?"
point of view. when I re-read your post I'm 180 degrees wrong! Sorry!

GC

> GC

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

All the transponders currently listed by Filser
http://www.filser.de/onlineshop/english/ are modes A/C and S, and have
extended squitter; they all have an integral alticoder. These are probably
the cheapest on the UK market http://www.lxavionics.co.uk/ .

I would be surprised if this is not true of other makes, I am sure it soon
will be.

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

>
> "Ramy" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Thanks Glen. I am not aware of any transponder equiped glider not using
> mode C. Seems like once you go through the hassle and cost of
> installing a transponder, the encoder is the easy part. Mode A sounds
> almost useless, more confusing then not. A mode A transponder could
> signal an alert to any airline crusing at 30K above.
> Which baffles me - Why aren't modern transponders already including
> internal encoder??
>
> Ramy
>

[snoop]

Ramy, With regard to the "signal an alert to any airline cruising at
30K above", most TCAS equipment will only show targets 10k above or
below their own ship, and that is selectable. On our TCAS the
selections are "above, auto, below'.
I will typically in cruise, select the below feature, especially if
negotiating weather, to see which way the other guys are going. Plus in
the descent it's nice for planning purposes, you can see where the
traffic your descending into is.


Ramy wrote:
> Thanks Glen. I am not aware of any transponder equiped glider not using
> mode C. Seems like once you go through the hassle and cost of
> installing a transponder, the encoder is the easy part. Mode A sounds
> almost useless, more confusing then not. A mode A transponder could
> signal an alert to any airline crusing at 30K above.
> Which baffles me - Why aren't modern transponders already including
> internal encoder??
>
> Ramy
>
> Glen Kelley wrote:
> > Ramy,
> >
> > The problem is that TCAS will display you as a target with altitude unknown
> > (unless you have mode c with an encoding altimeter). Therefore, TCAS will
> > only call you out as traffic and display your position without generating a
> > Resolution Advisory (RA). We see this pretty often as VFR traffic. We will
> > be looking hard for the traffic, but won't necessarily maneuver the
> > aircraft, since we can't see altitude/heading.
> >
> > If in fact, the sailplane does have mode C with an encoding altimeter, then
> > the RA will be generated and you should see the big bird maneuver to avoid
> > the conflict. Note that a TCAS RA will direct maneuvering in the vertical
> > only, since TCAS azimuth is considered too innacurate to generate turn-based
> > avoidance. Typical RAs would be "Climb,Climb, Climb - Descend, Descend,
> > Descend - Reduce Climb - Reduce Descent, etc".
> >
> > I guess I figured most of the gliders with transponders weren't using Mode
> > C, so good catch.
> >
> > Glen
> > "Ramy" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > > Thanks for the excellent overview, Glen. Regarding number 3, why would
> > > a TCAS equipped airliner pilot need to see me if the TCAS gives the
> > > resolution? I'm pretty sure most of the airliners vectored around me
> > > never actually see me (although I always
> > > wave ;-)
> > >
> > > Ramy
> > >
> > > Glen Kelley wrote:
> > >> A few additions to Kirk's excellent points - from the background of
> > >> former
> > >> fighter pilot, current airline pilot, and current glider pilot:
> > >>
> > >> 1. We often surprise each other in sailplanes with how hard it is to see
> > >> each other. Don't expect an airline pilot to be any better at it! The
> > >> fighter pilot at least will have good visual acuity and is used to
> > >> looking
> > >> for small targets.
> > >>
> > >> 2. Airline pilots don't carry sectionals - at the speeds we operate,
> > >> there
> > >> would be little time to use them anyway. Fighter pilots will carry a low
> > >> level map and will have thought about visual traffic conflicts, wires,
> > >> terrain, etc in the planning stages. At the speeds they operate, they
> > >> aren't looking at those maps very often, once airborne.
> > >>
> > >> 3. The busier glider operations are notam'd and often referred to by atc
> > >> controllers. If you have an operable transponder, you will *normally* be
> > >> called out by atc and if TCAS equipped, airline pilots will be aware of
> > >> your
> > >> location. They would still have to see you to maneuver away from you.
> > >> (See
> > >> note 1.) Big airliners are not very maneuverable (mine - the Boeing
> > >> 737 -
> > >> is limited to 2.5 g!).
> > >>
> > >> 4. Fighters are a different case. They don't have TCAS and only some of
> > >> them have the ability to interrogate/detect transponder targets. Some of
> > >> them have air intercept radar capability, but sailplanes are small radar
> > >> targets and will often (usually!) be filtered out because of their low
> > >> speeds and altitudes - like highway traffic. If they are at low
> > >> altitude,
> > >> fighters usually operate at high speed (420 - 540 indicated, except the
> > >> A-10). As Kirk pointed out they will almost never be alone, but will be
> > >> in
> > >> formations of 2 - 4. When low level (100 to 1500 agl, most commonly 300 -
> > >> 500agl), they will normally *not* be receiving traffic information from
> > >> ATC.
> > >> When operating in a MOA, there may be intercept controllers who can call
> > >> out
> > >> glider traffic, but again, without a transponder, it is unlikely. The
> > >> formations will vary, but most pairs of flight lead and wingman will be
> > >> laterally spread by 5000 to 10000 feet, for visual lookout. The flight
> > >> lead
> > >> will be spending quite a bit of his time looking forward for threat
> > >> detection and navigation, but the wingman will be spending less time
> > >> looking
> > >> forward because he must maintain formation. If they see you, they have
> > >> an
> > >> excellent capability to avoid you. Head on and tail on, the sailplane
> > >> has
> > >> the tiny visual profile that fighter designers dream of.... In other
> > >> words,
> > >> you are nearly invisible unless you have a wing up in a turn/thermal.
> > >>
> > >> 5. As Kirk said, the primary threat is at 6 o'clock, because it is the
> > >> hardest to see - essentially, only the overtaking aircraft has a
> > >> reasonable
> > >> chance of avoiding a collision. Therefore, if you know you are operating
> > >> in
> > >> a high threat area: MOA, low level route, approach corridor, VFR flyway,
> > >> near an airport etc, I would "belly check" periodically, depending on the
> > >> nature of the threat. The timing is based on the amount of time it takes
> > >> for
> > >> the threat aircraft to close from outside visual range to hitting me from
> > >> the 6 o'clock position. I use visual ranges of 8nm for airliners, 5 nm
> > >> for
> > >> small commercial jets (corporate and regional jets) and fighters, and 3
> > >> nm
> > >> for light aircraft - adjust as your visual acuity and experience dictate.
> > >> I
> > >> use worst-case speeds as follows: airliner and small jets - 4 nm/min,
> > >> fighters - 8 nm/min, and light aircraft - 2.5 nm/min. Combing detection
> > >> ranges and times, I calculate: airliners - 2 min, small jets - 1 min and
> > >> 15
> > >> sec, fighters - roughly 40 sec, and light planes - approx 1 min and 15
> > >> sec.
> > >> So... if you are straight and level for more than these times, there is
> > >> sufficient time for an aircraft to move from outside (my) visual range to
> > >> the same airspace as my (your) little pink body. As you would probably
> > >> guess, fighters are the worst case because of their relatively small size
> > >> and high closure rate. On the positive side, there are typically more
> > >> eyeballs with better acuity and better maneuverability involved.
> > >> Interestingly, small jets and light aircraft are not that far behind, as
> > >> far
> > >> as detection time is concerned. In my experience they are far less
> > >> likely
> > >> to see you than the fighters. The same is true for airliners, but
> > >> because
> > >> of their size you have more time to see them coming...
> > >>
> > >> 6. How to do a belly check: No, I don't hack a stopwatch, but I keep
> > >> the
> > >> above times in mind with respect to the likely threat for my area. My
> > >> primary threat is small jet/light aircraft that operate on various
> > >> highway/flyways and approach corridors. Away from these specific areas,
> > >> traffic density is extremely low. First clear your "new six" - if you
> > >> are
> > >> going to turn left, look to the area behind to the right 4 - 5 oclock
> > >> position - this will be your new blind spot. Next clear your new nose
> > >> position - this is where you are going to roll out. Finally make a 45
> > >> deg
> > >> turn to the left and visually clear your "old six", which is now at your
> > >> left 7 to 8 o'clock. Often/usually, a belly check can be incorporated
> > >> into
> > >> turns you are going to make anyway, for other reasons. When you
> > >> visually
> > >> clear, make sure you focus on something on the horizon, otherwise you are
> > >> only visually clearing out to an arms length. If I really need to hold a
> > >> straight line, I do the belly check as a gentle 45 deg turn to each side.
> > >>
> > >> 7. In a thermal, periodically check to the outside of your term to clear
> > >> your "new six". If there are other sailplanes with you in the thermal,
> > >> of
> > >> course they are the primary threats for midair, but you still need to
> > >> check
> > >> for other aircraft. Fortunately, you are easier to see while turning - as
> > >> long as the other pilots are looking...
> > >>
> > >> 8. Proximity to clouds. You need to think about what you are doing when
> > >> you are near cloudbase, in proximity to likely IFR traffic. If you are
> > >> 500'
> > >> below cloudbase (perfectly legal), and an airliner descends out of the
> > >> cloud
> > >> at 250kt on his descent profile on collision course (perfectly legal),
> > >> there
> > >> may be as little as 20 seconds to impact. If you are tail on when this
> > >> happens - good luck. I'm sure no one would ever be right at cloudbase on
> > >> a
> > >> nice day, because that would violate the FARs - more importantly, you
> > >> are
> > >> "rolling the bones" every time you do this on a known approach corridor.
> > >>
> > >> 9. Conclusion. If you fly in a high airliner/small jet threat area and
> > >> can afford a transponder it will help other people see/avoid you. If
> > >> your
> > >> primary threat comes from military operations in MOAs, I would not spend
> > >> the
> > >> money on a transponder unless I knew those fighters have intercept/atc
> > >> controllers passing them information. The various TPAS - type devices
> > >> will
> > >> help your see/avoid efforts and should help in the case of fighters,
> > >> although the flight lead is likely the only one squawking in the
> > >> formation.
> > >> Only you/your club knows the primary threats for your particular
> > >> operating
> > >> area and you need to understand what they are. Taylor your altitude
> > >> awareness/cloud avoidance and belly check frequency to the nature of your
> > >> local area. Don't cede visual lookout/avoidance responsibility to
> > >> someone
> > >> else - ever. Sailplane right-of-way is a myth in most situations and a
> > >> comfort only to your survivors/legal counsel.
> > >>
> > >> Hope this helps.
> > >>
> > >> Glen
> > >

[snoop]

Jack, Glen is right. Airplanes were made to go fast. In fact some of
the stated speeds in these posts have been underspoken, if that's a
word. Sometimes coming into the DFW airpsace, say for instance on the
GREGG5 arrival, there is a fix where they mandate us to slow to 250
knots for spacing with other traffic.
During the quiet time of the day, the controller might say, "no speed
restriction", which tells the crew, hey I'm still above 10000msl, let's
go fast. That means I'm legally allowed to run it up to, VMO, the max
indicated airspeed for that altitude/aircraft. If I'm at 11000'msl, I'm
cleared to run it up to 340 knots for a short time, anticipating that
all of a sudden the controller is going to come back with a "descend to
5000" command, and I'm going to cold cock the thrust levers, pull out
the spoilers, and slow to the 250knots required below 10000'.
Jack are you coming for Labor Day Races?

Glen Kelley wrote:
> Jack, I can't agree that this is negligence on the jet pilot's part - at
> least not until the investigation is complete.
>
> Sailplanes are very hard to see. We surprise each other from time to time
> at much slower closure rates than any jet is going to see closing with a
> sailplane. Failure to maintain visual separation is a given, but negligence
> is a stretch until someone shows the Captain/FO of the corporate jet were
> reading the newspaper, serving drinks to the pax, or something equally
> unlikely in the descent phase.
>
> As far as airliner speeds and routing go, who do you think is going to win
> if the airline industry is going to have to slow down or otherwise adjust to
> blend with sailplane traffic (read that burn more gas and arrive later)? My
> bet is with the airlines and flying public. Think about all the airports
> that are closed after new housing encroaches on the airport boundaries. As
> a small interest group we need to pick our battles.
>
> I have never flown at Minden, but it sounds like the local crowd clearly
> understands what is at stake and have tried to be good neighbors. Since no
> one was seriously hurt, perhaps the flying environment won't change much.
>
> Glen
>
>
>
> "Jack" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >I just spent the time to read this whole thread,. Only my friend and
> > former hangar mate, the Mosquito pilot from Houston, makes real sence.
> > If you cannot see and avoid in visual flight rules area... SLOW DOWN.
> > Failure to do so is irresponsible. We don't need transponders if we all
> > avoid each other and that requires time to see and react. To me this is
> > the equivalent of riding with my brother in Phoenix who likes to drive
> > 90 on the freeway, tailgating impossibly close, and passing on both
> > shoulders. It's crazy. I only go with him if I'm driving these days.
> > What I fear is the jet pilot's neglegence will be paid for by lost
> > flying priviledges in the soaring community. The other piece is going
> > into an area of reputed heavy glider traffic. Shouldn't she have known
> > that? Perhaps slowing them down isn't realistic. Demanding that at
> > least one of them have his/her head out of the cockpit isn't, in my
> > opinion.
> >
> > Jack Womack
> > PIK-20B N77MA (TE)
> >

[snoop]

Bob, I know what your saying with regard to the aging eyes. It stinks.
With regard to the glass cockpit, the automation is wonderful stuff,
and if more people would learn to set it up, use it and look out the
window more, we'd all be better off. This means all of us,
powered/glider, as I too am guilty of playing with my glider toys while
zipping along on task.
Unfortunately, a lot of our pro pilot friends don't take the time to
fly wonderful GenAv ships like our gliders, and taildraggers, so what
do they want to do when they get to work, shut off the automation and
hand fly the beast. Been in the business for almost thirty years,
watching someone, now head down, hand fly an aircraft with millions of
dollars worth of automation play the High and the Mighty is not
impressive anymore.
When I go to work after a weekend of glider/taildragger play, at 200'
off the deck it's "autopilot on", until 50' over the numbers where I
disengage to land. We brief the approach while still in cruise, yes,
nitpickers, there is always the chance of change of runway, then it's
automation all the way down, keeping eyes going outside. For a VNAV
descent it's only two key strokes, for a FLC descent it's one. If
properly managed it's a thing of beauty to see how little the crew has
to do other than manage, and look outside. Watching guys who want to
play pilot, and turn off the automation in the terminal area, well now
your having to watch him/her, and the airplane. Just easier, to use the
automation at work, then go yank/bank the toys on the weekends!
With regard to item #4, I think "give way" applies to everybody,
especially who ever sees the other guy first, if there's time. Let's
not be "dead right" in interpreting the rules. Avoidance requires
insight provided by all parties involved. If we in our glider take off
thinking, those doggone engine powered beasts better get out of the
way, because the "law" says I own the road, then were as good as dead.
Pick up the phone, mike, our heads, and fly defensively.

Bob C wrote:
> Like Jack, I just read the whole thread. 4 comments:
>
> 1. Remember, the most important glass in a glass cockpit
> is above the instrument panel. I used to quote this
> to airline pilots, but these days I find it appropos
> for many gadget-oriented glider drivers.
>
> 2. If you're not seeing much traffic, you're just not
> looking hard enough.
>
> 3. I tried the 10 point font 'o' at ten feet. Even
> in light blue it was clearly visible. At age 46, it's
> actually harder to see it at 10 inches! I see another
> aircraft at 10 miles, I wish I could read my altimeter
> to tell ATC where I am ;o)
>
> 4. The rules are see and avoid, and give way to the
> glider. The PIC is responsible for knowing all pertinent
> information about the intended flight. Adjusting speed
> or flight path to avoid heavy glider traffic is not
> just a good idea, it's the law.
>
>
>
> At 04:42 01 September 2006, Glen Kelley wrote:
> >Ramy, I would agree. Mode A isn't completely worthless,
> >since at least the
> >airliner knows you are around. Clearly Mode C provides
> >more 'protection'.
> >
> >Glen
> >'Ramy' wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >> Thanks Glen. I am not aware of any transponder equiped
> >>glider not using
> >> mode C. Seems like once you go through the hassle
> >>and cost of
> >> installing a transponder, the encoder is the easy
> >>part. Mode A sounds
> >> almost useless, more confusing then not. A mode A
> >>transponder could
> >> signal an alert to any airline crusing at 30K above.
> >> Which baffles me - Why aren't modern transponders
> >>already including
> >> internal encoder??
> >>
> >> Ramy
> >>
> >> Glen Kelley wrote:
> >>> Ramy,
> >>>
> >>> The problem is that TCAS will display you as a target
> >>>with altitude
> >>> unknown
> >>> (unless you have mode c with an encoding altimeter).
> >>> Therefore, TCAS
> >>> will
> >>> only call you out as traffic and display your position
> >>>without generating
> >>> a
> >>> Resolution Advisory (RA). We see this pretty often
> >>>as VFR traffic. We
> >>> will
> >>> be looking hard for the traffic, but won't necessarily
> >>>maneuver the
> >>> aircraft, since we can't see altitude/heading.
> >>>
> >>> If in fact, the sailplane does have mode C with an
> >>>encoding altimeter,
> >>> then
> >>> the RA will be generated and you should see the big
> >>>bird maneuver to
> >>> avoid
> >>> the conflict. Note that a TCAS RA will direct maneuvering
> >>>in the
> >>> vertical
> >>> only, since TCAS azimuth is considered too innacurate
> >>>to generate
> >>> turn-based
> >>> avoidance. Typical RAs would be 'Climb,Climb, Climb
> >>>- Descend, Descend,
> >>> Descend - Reduce Climb - Reduce Descent, etc'.
> >>>
> >>> I guess I figured most of the gliders with transponders
> >>>weren't using
> >>> Mode
> >>> C, so good catch.
> >>>
> >>> Glen
> >>> 'Ramy' wrote in message
> >>> ups.com...
> >>> > Thanks for the excellent overview, Glen. Regarding
> >>>>number 3, why would
> >>> > a TCAS equipped airliner pilot need to see me if
> >>>>the TCAS gives the
> >>> > resolution? I'm pretty sure most of the airliners
> >>>>vectored around me
> >>> > never actually see me (although I always
> >>> > wave ;-)
> >>> >
> >>> > Ramy
> >>> >
> >>> > Glen Kelley wrote:
> >>> >> A few additions to Kirk's excellent points - from
> >>>>>the background of
> >>> >> former
> >>> >> fighter pilot, current airline pilot, and current
> >>>>>glider pilot:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 1. We often surprise each other in sailplanes with
> >>>>>how hard it is to
> >>> >> see
> >>> >> each other. Don't expect an airline pilot to be
> >>>>>any better at it!
> >>> >> The
> >>> >> fighter pilot at least will have good visual acuity
> >>>>>and is used to
> >>> >> looking
> >>> >> for small targets.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 2. Airline pilots don't carry sectionals - at the
> >>>>>speeds we operate,
> >>> >> there
> >>> >> would be little time to use them anyway. Fighter
> >>>>>pilots will carry a
> >>> >> low
> >>> >> level map and will have thought about visual traffic
> >>>>>conflicts, wires,
> >>> >> terrain, etc in the planning stages. At the speeds
> >>>>>they operate, they
> >>> >> aren't looking at those maps very often, once airborne.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 3. The busier glider operations are notam'd and often
> >>>>>referred to by
> >>> >> atc
> >>> >> controllers. If you have an operable transponder,
> >>>>>you will *normally*
> >>> >> be
> >>> >> called out by atc and if TCAS equipped, airline pilots
> >>>>>will be aware
> >>> >> of
> >>> >> your
> >>> >> location. They would still have to see you to maneuver
> >>>>>away from you.
> >>> >> (See
> >>> >> note 1.) Big airliners are not very maneuverable
> >>>>>(mine - the Boeing
> >>> >> 737 -
> >>> >> is limited to 2.5 g!).
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 4. Fighters are a different case. They don't have
> >>>>>TCAS and only some
> >>> >> of
> >>> >> them have the ability to interrogate/detect transponder
> >>>>>targets. Some
> >>> >> of
> >>> >> them have air intercept radar capability, but sailplanes
> >>>>>are small
> >>> >> radar
> >>> >> targets and will often (usually!) be filtered out
> >>>>>because of their low
> >>> >> speeds and altitudes - like highway traffic. If
> >>>>>they are at low
> >>> >> altitude,
> >>> >> fighters usually operate at high speed (420 - 540
> >>>>>indicated, except
> >>> >> the
> >>> >> A-10). As Kirk pointed out they will almost never
> >>>>>be alone, but will
> >>> >> be
> >>> >> in
> >>> >> formations of 2 - 4. When low level (100 to 1500
> >>>>>agl, most commonly
> >>> >> 300 -
> >>> >> 500agl), they will normally *not* be receiving traffic
> >>>>>information
> >>> >> from
> >>> >> ATC.
> >>> >> When operating in a MOA, there may be intercept controllers
> >>>>>who can
> >>> >> call
> >>> >> out
> >>> >> glider traffic, but again, without a transponder,
> >>>>>it is unlikely. The
> >>> >> formations will vary, but most pairs of flight lead
> >>>>>and wingman will
> >>> >> be
> >>> >> laterally spread by 5000 to 10000 feet, for visual
> >>>>>lookout. The
> >>> >> flight
> >>> >> lead
> >>> >> will be spending quite a bit of his time looking
> >>>>>forward for threat
> >>> >> detection and navigation, but the wingman will be
> >>>>>spending less time
> >>> >> looking
> >>> >> forward because he must maintain formation. If they
> >>>>>see you, they
> >>> >> have
> >>> >> an
> >>> >> excellent capability to avoid you. Head on and tail
> >>>>>on, the sailplane
> >>> >> has
> >>> >> the tiny visual profile that fighter designers dream
> >>>>>of.... In other
> >>> >> words,
> >>> >> you are nearly invisible unless you have a wing up
> >>>>>in a turn/thermal.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 5. As Kirk said, the primary threat is at 6 o'clock,
> >>>>>because it is
> >>> >> the
> >>> >> hardest to see - essentially, only the overtaking
> >>>>>aircraft has a
> >>> >> reasonable
> >>> >> chance of avoiding a collision. Therefore, if you
> >>>>>know you are
> >>> >> operating
> >>> >> in
> >>> >> a high threat area: MOA, low level route, approach
> >>>>>corridor, VFR
> >>> >> flyway,
> >>> >> near an airport etc, I would 'belly check' periodically,
> >>>>>depending on
> >>> >> the
> >>> >> nature of the threat. The timing is based on the
> >>>>>amount of time it
> >>> >> takes
> >>> >> for
> >>> >> the threat aircraft to close from outside visual
> >>>>>range to hitting me
> >>> >> from
> >>> >> the 6 o'clock position. I use visual ranges of 8nm
> >>>>>for airliners, 5
> >>> >> nm
> >>> >> for
> >>> >> small commercial jets (corporate and regional jets)
> >>>>>and fighters, and
> >>> >> 3
> >>> >> nm
> >>> >> for light aircraft - adjust as your visual acuity
> >>>>>and experience
> >>> >> dictate.
> >>> >> I
> >>> >> use worst-case speeds as follows: airliner and small
> >>>>>jets - 4 nm/min,
> >>> >> fighters - 8 nm/min, and light aircraft - 2.5 nm/min.
> >>>>> Combing
> >>> >> detection
> >>> >> ranges and times, I calculate: airliners - 2 min,
> >>>>>small jets - 1 min
> >>> >> and
> >>> >> 15
> >>> >> sec, fighters - roughly 40 sec, and light planes
> >>>>>- approx 1 min and 15
> >>> >> sec.
> >>> >> So... if you are straight and level for more than
> >>>>>these times, there
> >>> >> is
> >>> >> sufficient time for an aircraft to move from outside
> >>>>>(my) visual range
> >>> >> to
> >>> >> the same airspace as my (your) little pink body.
> >>>>>As you would probably
> >>> >> guess, fighters are the worst case because of their
> >>>>>relatively small
> >>> >> size
> >>> >> and high closure rate. On the positive side, there
> >>>>>are typically more
> >>> >> eyeballs with better acuity and better maneuverability
> >>>>>involved.
> >>> >> Interestingly, small jets and light aircraft are
> >>>>>not that far behind,
> >>> >> as
> >>> >> far
> >>> >> as detection time is concerned. In my experience
> >>>>>they are far less
> >>> >> likely
> >>> >> to see you than the fighters. The same is true for
> >>>>>airliners, but
> >>> >> because
> >>> >> of their size you have more time to see them coming...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 6. How to do a belly check: No, I don't hack a
> >>>>>stopwatch, but I keep
> >>> >> the
> >>> >> above times in mind with respect to the likely threat
> >>>>>for my area. My
> >>> >> primary threat is small jet/light aircraft that operate
> >>>>>on various
> >>> >> highway/flyways and approach corridors. Away from
> >>>>>these specific
> >>> >> areas,
> >>> >> traffic density is extremely low. First clear your
> >>>>>'new six' - if you
> >>> >> are
> >>> >> going to turn left, look to the area behind to the
> >>>>>right 4 - 5 oclock
> >>> >> position - this will be your new blind spot. Next
> >>>>>clear your new nose
> >>> >> position - this is where you are going to roll out.
> >>>>> Finally make a 45
> >>> >> deg
> >>> >> turn to the left and visually clear your 'old six',
> >>>>>which is now at
> >>> >> your
> >>> >> left 7 to 8 o'clock. Often/usually, a belly check
> >>>>>can be incorporated
> >>> >> into
> >>> >> turns you are going to make anyway, for other reasons.
> >>>>> When you
> >>> >> visually
> >>> >> clear, make sure you focus on something on the horizon,
> >>>>>otherwise you
> >>> >> are
> >>> >> only visually clearing out to an arms length. If
> >>>>>I really need to
> >>> >> hold a
> >>> >> straight line, I do the belly check as a gentle 45
> >>>>>deg turn to each
> >>> >> side.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 7. In a thermal, periodically check to the outside
> >>>>>of your term to
> >>> >> clear
> >>> >> your 'new six'. If there are other sailplanes with
> >>>>>you in the
> >>> >> thermal,
> >>> >> of
> >>> >> course they are the primary threats for midair, but
> >>>>>you still need to
> >>> >> check
> >>> >> for other aircraft. Fortunately, you are easier to
> >>>>>see while turning -
> >>> >> as
> >>> >> long as the other pilots are looking...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 8. Proximity to clouds. You need to think about
> >>>>>what you are doing
> >>> >> when
> >>> >> you are near cloudbase, in proximity to likely IFR
> >>>>>traffic. If you
> >>> >> are
> >>> >> 500'
> >>> >> below cloudbase (perfectly legal), and an airliner
> >>>>>descends out of the
> >>> >> cloud
> >>> >> at 250kt on his descent profile on collision course
> >>>>>(perfectly legal),
> >>> >> there
> >>> >> may be as little as 20 seconds to impact. If you
> >>>>>are tail on when
> >>> >> this
> >>> >> happens - good luck. I'm sure no one would ever
> >>>>>be right at cloudbase
> >>> >> on
> >>> >> a
> >>> >> nice day, because that would violate the FARs -
> >>>>>more importantly, you
> >>> >> are
> >>> >> 'rolling the bones' every time you do this on a known
> >>>>>approach
> >>> >> corridor.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 9. Conclusion. If you fly in a high airliner/small
> >>>>>jet threat area
> >>> >> and
> >>> >> can afford a transponder it will help other people
> >>>>>see/avoid you. If
> >>> >> your
> >>> >> primary threat comes from military operations in
> >>>>>MOAs, I would not
> >>> >> spend
> >>> >> the
> >>> >> money on a transponder unless I knew those fighters
> >>>>>have intercept/atc
> >>> >> controllers passing them information. The various
> >>>>>TPAS - type devices
> >>> >> will
> >>> >> help your see/avoid efforts and should help in the
> >>>>>case of fighters,
> >>> >> although the flight lead is likely the only one squawking
> >>>>>in the
> >>> >> formation.
> >>> >> Only you/your club knows the primary threats for
> >>>>>your particular
> >>> >> operating
> >>> >> area and you need to understand what they are. Taylor
> >>>>>your altitude
> >>> >> awareness/cloud avoidance and belly check frequency
> >>>>>to the nature of
> >>> >> your
> >>> >> local area. Don't cede visual lookout/avoidance
> >>>>>responsibility to
> >>> >> someone
> >>> >> else - ever. Sailplane right-of-way is a myth in
> >>>>>most situations and
> >>> >> a
> >>> >> comfort only to your survivors/legal counsel.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hope this helps.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Glen
> >>> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >

[Derek Copeland]

They are still 2000 Euros or £1500 before fitting,
testing, licensing and Value Added Tax. You can buy
a decent airworthy wooden glider for far less than
that in the UK!

If any anti-collision device of about the size, cost
and power consumption of a small portable GPS unit
becomes available, then I might be prepared to buy
one, especially if it doesn't require an externally
mounted aerial that reduces glider performance.

Derek Copeland

At 11:30 01 September 2006, W.J. \bill\ Dean \u.K.\.
wrote:
>All the transponders currently listed by Filser
>http://www.filser.de/onlineshop/english/ are modes
>A/C and S, and have
>extended squitter; they all have an integral alticoder.
> These are probably
>the cheapest on the UK market http://www.lxavionics.co.uk/
>.
>
>I would be surprised if this is not true of other makes,
>I am sure it soon
>will be.
>
>W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
>Remove 'ic' to reply.
>
>>
>> 'Ramy' wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>> Thanks Glen. I am not aware of any transponder equiped
>>glider not using
>> mode C. Seems like once you go through the hassle
>>and cost of
>> installing a transponder, the encoder is the easy
>>part. Mode A sounds
>> almost useless, more confusing then not. A mode A
>>transponder could
>> signal an alert to any airline crusing at 30K above.
>> Which baffles me - Why aren't modern transponders
>>already including
>> internal encoder??
>>
>> Ramy
>>
>
>
>

[Jack[_1_]]

Derek Copeland wrote:

> If any anti-collision device of about the size, cost
> and power consumption of a small portable GPS unit
> becomes available, then I might be prepared to buy
> one, especially if it doesn't require an externally
> mounted aerial that reduces glider performance.


Derek, on how many of your best days of the year could you tell the
difference with a tiny external 1030-1090 MHz antenna? Yes, it's
expensive, but let's not get silly about performance degradation.

Not keeping the pieces of the glider flying in close formation will
degrade your personal performance considerably.


Jack

[Derek Copeland]

Jack,

I know that a UK pilot removed a transponder aerial
from his glider part way through a Nationals competition
because he was losing too much performance in relation
to his competitors in similar gliders. Also I fly a
Standard Cirrus, so I need all the performance I can
get!

Derek Copeland

At 17:42 01 September 2006, Jack wrote:
>Derek Copeland wrote:
>
>> If any anti-collision device of about the size, cost
>> and power consumption of a small portable GPS unit
>> becomes available, then I might be prepared to buy
>> one, especially if it doesn't require an externally
>> mounted aerial that reduces glider performance.
>
>
>Derek, on how many of your best days of the year could
>you tell the
>difference with a tiny external 1030-1090 MHz antenna?
>Yes, it's
>expensive, but let's not get silly about performance
>degradation.
>
>Not keeping the pieces of the glider flying in close
>formation will
>degrade your personal performance considerably.
>
>
>Jack
>

[Ramy]

snoop, I was referring to mode A only. Without altitude, will TCAS know
how far below I am to filter me out? Does it determine it by direction
and distance?

Ramy

snoop wrote:
> Ramy, With regard to the "signal an alert to any airline cruising at
> 30K above", most TCAS equipment will only show targets 10k above or
> below their own ship, and that is selectable. On our TCAS the
> selections are "above, auto, below'.
> I will typically in cruise, select the below feature, especially if
> negotiating weather, to see which way the other guys are going. Plus in
> the descent it's nice for planning purposes, you can see where the
> traffic your descending into is.
>
>
> Ramy wrote:
> > Thanks Glen. I am not aware of any transponder equiped glider not using
> > mode C. Seems like once you go through the hassle and cost of
> > installing a transponder, the encoder is the easy part. Mode A sounds
> > almost useless, more confusing then not. A mode A transponder could
> > signal an alert to any airline crusing at 30K above.
> > Which baffles me - Why aren't modern transponders already including
> > internal encoder??
> >
> > Ramy
> >
> > Glen Kelley wrote:
> > > Ramy,
> > >
> > > The problem is that TCAS will display you as a target with altitude unknown
> > > (unless you have mode c with an encoding altimeter). Therefore, TCAS will
> > > only call you out as traffic and display your position without generating a
> > > Resolution Advisory (RA). We see this pretty often as VFR traffic. We will
> > > be looking hard for the traffic, but won't necessarily maneuver the
> > > aircraft, since we can't see altitude/heading.
> > >
> > > If in fact, the sailplane does have mode C with an encoding altimeter, then
> > > the RA will be generated and you should see the big bird maneuver to avoid
> > > the conflict. Note that a TCAS RA will direct maneuvering in the vertical
> > > only, since TCAS azimuth is considered too innacurate to generate turn-based
> > > avoidance. Typical RAs would be "Climb,Climb, Climb - Descend, Descend,
> > > Descend - Reduce Climb - Reduce Descent, etc".
> > >
> > > I guess I figured most of the gliders with transponders weren't using Mode
> > > C, so good catch.
> > >
> > > Glen
> > > "Ramy" > wrote in message
> > > ups.com...
> > > > Thanks for the excellent overview, Glen. Regarding number 3, why would
> > > > a TCAS equipped airliner pilot need to see me if the TCAS gives the
> > > > resolution? I'm pretty sure most of the airliners vectored around me
> > > > never actually see me (although I always
> > > > wave ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Ramy
> > > >
> > > > Glen Kelley wrote:
> > > >> A few additions to Kirk's excellent points - from the background of
> > > >> former
> > > >> fighter pilot, current airline pilot, and current glider pilot:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. We often surprise each other in sailplanes with how hard it is to see
> > > >> each other. Don't expect an airline pilot to be any better at it! The
> > > >> fighter pilot at least will have good visual acuity and is used to
> > > >> looking
> > > >> for small targets.
> > > >>
> > > >> 2. Airline pilots don't carry sectionals - at the speeds we operate,
> > > >> there
> > > >> would be little time to use them anyway. Fighter pilots will carry a low
> > > >> level map and will have thought about visual traffic conflicts, wires,
> > > >> terrain, etc in the planning stages. At the speeds they operate, they
> > > >> aren't looking at those maps very often, once airborne.
> > > >>
> > > >> 3. The busier glider operations are notam'd and often referred to by atc
> > > >> controllers. If you have an operable transponder, you will *normally* be
> > > >> called out by atc and if TCAS equipped, airline pilots will be aware of
> > > >> your
> > > >> location. They would still have to see you to maneuver away from you.
> > > >> (See
> > > >> note 1.) Big airliners are not very maneuverable (mine - the Boeing
> > > >> 737 -
> > > >> is limited to 2.5 g!).
> > > >>
> > > >> 4. Fighters are a different case. They don't have TCAS and only some of
> > > >> them have the ability to interrogate/detect transponder targets. Some of
> > > >> them have air intercept radar capability, but sailplanes are small radar
> > > >> targets and will often (usually!) be filtered out because of their low
> > > >> speeds and altitudes - like highway traffic. If they are at low
> > > >> altitude,
> > > >> fighters usually operate at high speed (420 - 540 indicated, except the
> > > >> A-10). As Kirk pointed out they will almost never be alone, but will be
> > > >> in
> > > >> formations of 2 - 4. When low level (100 to 1500 agl, most commonly 300 -
> > > >> 500agl), they will normally *not* be receiving traffic information from
> > > >> ATC.
> > > >> When operating in a MOA, there may be intercept controllers who can call
> > > >> out
> > > >> glider traffic, but again, without a transponder, it is unlikely. The
> > > >> formations will vary, but most pairs of flight lead and wingman will be
> > > >> laterally spread by 5000 to 10000 feet, for visual lookout. The flight
> > > >> lead
> > > >> will be spending quite a bit of his time looking forward for threat
> > > >> detection and navigation, but the wingman will be spending less time
> > > >> looking
> > > >> forward because he must maintain formation. If they see you, they have
> > > >> an
> > > >> excellent capability to avoid you. Head on and tail on, the sailplane
> > > >> has
> > > >> the tiny visual profile that fighter designers dream of.... In other
> > > >> words,
> > > >> you are nearly invisible unless you have a wing up in a turn/thermal.
> > > >>
> > > >> 5. As Kirk said, the primary threat is at 6 o'clock, because it is the
> > > >> hardest to see - essentially, only the overtaking aircraft has a
> > > >> reasonable
> > > >> chance of avoiding a collision. Therefore, if you know you are operating
> > > >> in
> > > >> a high threat area: MOA, low level route, approach corridor, VFR flyway,
> > > >> near an airport etc, I would "belly check" periodically, depending on the
> > > >> nature of the threat. The timing is based on the amount of time it takes
> > > >> for
> > > >> the threat aircraft to close from outside visual range to hitting me from
> > > >> the 6 o'clock position. I use visual ranges of 8nm for airliners, 5 nm
> > > >> for
> > > >> small commercial jets (corporate and regional jets) and fighters, and 3
> > > >> nm
> > > >> for light aircraft - adjust as your visual acuity and experience dictate.
> > > >> I
> > > >> use worst-case speeds as follows: airliner and small jets - 4 nm/min,
> > > >> fighters - 8 nm/min, and light aircraft - 2.5 nm/min. Combing detection
> > > >> ranges and times, I calculate: airliners - 2 min, small jets - 1 min and
> > > >> 15
> > > >> sec, fighters - roughly 40 sec, and light planes - approx 1 min and 15
> > > >> sec.
> > > >> So... if you are straight and level for more than these times, there is
> > > >> sufficient time for an aircraft to move from outside (my) visual range to
> > > >> the same airspace as my (your) little pink body. As you would probably
> > > >> guess, fighters are the worst case because of their relatively small size
> > > >> and high closure rate. On the positive side, there are typically more
> > > >> eyeballs with better acuity and better maneuverability involved.
> > > >> Interestingly, small jets and light aircraft are not that far behind, as
> > > >> far
> > > >> as detection time is concerned. In my experience they are far less
> > > >> likely
> > > >> to see you than the fighters. The same is true for airliners, but
> > > >> because
> > > >> of their size you have more time to see them coming...
> > > >>
> > > >> 6. How to do a belly check: No, I don't hack a stopwatch, but I keep
> > > >> the
> > > >> above times in mind with respect to the likely threat for my area. My
> > > >> primary threat is small jet/light aircraft that operate on various
> > > >> highway/flyways and approach corridors. Away from these specific areas,
> > > >> traffic density is extremely low. First clear your "new six" - if you
> > > >> are
> > > >> going to turn left, look to the area behind to the right 4 - 5 oclock
> > > >> position - this will be your new blind spot. Next clear your new nose
> > > >> position - this is where you are going to roll out. Finally make a 45
> > > >> deg
> > > >> turn to the left and visually clear your "old six", which is now at your
> > > >> left 7 to 8 o'clock. Often/usually, a belly check can be incorporated
> > > >> into
> > > >> turns you are going to make anyway, for other reasons. When you
> > > >> visually
> > > >> clear, make sure you focus on something on the horizon, otherwise you are
> > > >> only visually clearing out to an arms length. If I really need to hold a
> > > >> straight line, I do the belly check as a gentle 45 deg turn to each side.
> > > >>
> > > >> 7. In a thermal, periodically check to the outside of your term to clear
> > > >> your "new six". If there are other sailplanes with you in the thermal,
> > > >> of
> > > >> course they are the primary threats for midair, but you still need to
> > > >> check
> > > >> for other aircraft. Fortunately, you are easier to see while turning - as
> > > >> long as the other pilots are looking...
> > > >>
> > > >> 8. Proximity to clouds. You need to think about what you are doing when
> > > >> you are near cloudbase, in proximity to likely IFR traffic. If you are
> > > >> 500'
> > > >> below cloudbase (perfectly legal), and an airliner descends out of the
> > > >> cloud
> > > >> at 250kt on his descent profile on collision course (perfectly legal),
> > > >> there
> > > >> may be as little as 20 seconds to impact. If you are tail on when this
> > > >> happens - good luck. I'm sure no one would ever be right at cloudbase on
> > > >> a
> > > >> nice day, because that would violate the FARs - more importantly, you
> > > >> are
> > > >> "rolling the bones" every time you do this on a known approach corridor.
> > > >>
> > > >> 9. Conclusion. If you fly in a high airliner/small jet threat area and
> > > >> can afford a transponder it will help other people see/avoid you. If
> > > >> your
> > > >> primary threat comes from military operations in MOAs, I would not spend
> > > >> the
> > > >> money on a transponder unless I knew those fighters have intercept/atc
> > > >> controllers passing them information. The various TPAS - type devices
> > > >> will
> > > >> help your see/avoid efforts and should help in the case of fighters,
> > > >> although the flight lead is likely the only one squawking in the
> > > >> formation.
> > > >> Only you/your club knows the primary threats for your particular
> > > >> operating
> > > >> area and you need to understand what they are. Taylor your altitude
> > > >> awareness/cloud avoidance and belly check frequency to the nature of your
> > > >> local area. Don't cede visual lookout/avoidance responsibility to
> > > >> someone
> > > >> else - ever. Sailplane right-of-way is a myth in most situations and a
> > > >> comfort only to your survivors/legal counsel.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hope this helps.
> > > >>
> > > >> Glen
> > > >

[Jack[_1_]]

Derek Copeland wrote:

> I know that a UK pilot removed a transponder aerial
> from his glider part way through a Nationals competition
> because he was losing too much performance in relation
> to his competitors in similar gliders.

What serious competitors will do to gain a perceived (or imagined)
edge would stun Ripley's most jaded researchers.

Though the difference may be quantifiable by theoretical
aerodynamicists, are the numbers measurable in actual performance? I
am always open to citations of flight tests which may demonstrate such
differences.

Here we should be addressing the cost/benefit relationship for
ourselves. I fear that it will require government mandate and
resulting high production levels to bring the unit price down. But we
could do that ourselves to some degree by establishing a demand to
serve our own safety interests.

I have ordered a PCAS (less than $500 from Tim Mara at Wings and
Wheels <http://www.wingsandwheels.com/page4.htm>) Now the problem is
where to place it in my 1-26E. I may have to buy a different glider
just to accommodate the new PCAS unit. ;>

I'd buy a Standard Cirrus like yours, but I'm addicted to Aluminum.


Jack

------


> At 17:42 01 September 2006, Jack wrote:
>> Derek Copeland wrote:
>>
>>> If any anti-collision device of about the size, cost
>>> and power consumption of a small portable GPS unit
>>> becomes available, then I might be prepared to buy
>>> one, especially if it doesn't require an externally
>>> mounted aerial that reduces glider performance.
>>
>> Derek, on how many of your best days of the year could
>> you tell the
>> difference with a tiny external 1030-1090 MHz antenna?
>> Yes, it's
>> expensive, but let's not get silly about performance
>> degradation.
>>
>> Not keeping the pieces of the glider flying in close
>> formation will
>> degrade your personal performance considerably.
>>
>>
>> Jack

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Derek Copeland wrote:
> Jack,
>
> I know that a UK pilot removed a transponder aerial
> from his glider part way through a Nationals competition
> because he was losing too much performance in relation
> to his competitors in similar gliders. Also I fly a
> Standard Cirrus, so I need all the performance I can
> get!

You can't measure the performance loss that a transponder antenna on
your Std Cirrus, the drag is so little; nonetheless, the fiberglass
fuselage will let you mount one internally. The big advantage is it's
protected from ground and handling damage.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Jack[_4_]]

Snoop,

Not going to make the lap races at TSA...DRAT!!! Work and family stuff
got in the way at the last minute. I understand what the rest of you
said about the airlines, flying public, and picking your battles.
Sorry, it was more af a rant than anything...

Jack Womack


Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Derek Copeland wrote:
> > Jack,
> >
> > I know that a UK pilot removed a transponder aerial
> > from his glider part way through a Nationals competition
> > because he was losing too much performance in relation
> > to his competitors in similar gliders. Also I fly a
> > Standard Cirrus, so I need all the performance I can
> > get!
>
> You can't measure the performance loss that a transponder antenna on
> your Std Cirrus, the drag is so little; nonetheless, the fiberglass
> fuselage will let you mount one internally. The big advantage is it's
> protected from ground and handling damage.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
> Operation"

[Derek Copeland]

Whether I would be able to mount the aerial internally
or not would depend on the engineer certifying the
installation. I understand that the latest generation
sailplanes with carbon fibre fuselages will have to
have externally mounted aerials, probably top or bottom
so that they will transmit both up tp TCAS equipped
airliners and down to Air Traffic Control. Although
the aerials are quite short, they do produce a significant
amount of drag. Remember that a 500 kg glider with
a 50:1 glide angle will only have a drag of 10 kg at
best glide speed.

I am not a tehnofreak, but I understand that Transponder
aerials have to be base loaded and require a metal
ground plane to work properly. Obviously not a problem
for a spam can or a metal Schweitzer glider, but something
else that has to fitted into the already crowded centre
section of a FRP sailplane.

Derek Copeland

At 01:12 02 September 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Derek Copeland wrote:
>> Jack,
>>
>> I know that a UK pilot removed a transponder aerial
>> from his glider part way through a Nationals competition
>> because he was losing too much performance in relation
>> to his competitors in similar gliders. Also I fly
>>a
>> Standard Cirrus, so I need all the performance I can
>> get!
>
>You can't measure the performance loss that a transponder
>antenna on
>your Std Cirrus, the drag is so little; nonetheless,
>the fiberglass
>fuselage will let you mount one internally. The big
>advantage is it's
>protected from ground and handling damage.
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
>www.motorglider.org - Download 'A Guide to Self-launching
>Sailplane
>Operation'
>

[[email protected]]

Derek Copeland wrote:
> Whether I would be able to mount the aerial internally
> or not would depend on the engineer certifying the
> installation. I understand that the latest generation
> sailplanes with carbon fibre fuselages will have to
> have externally mounted aerials, probably top or bottom
> so that they will transmit both up tp TCAS equipped
> airliners and down to Air Traffic Control. Although
> the aerials are quite short, they do produce a significant
> amount of drag. Remember that a 500 kg glider with
> a 50:1 glide angle will only have a drag of 10 kg at
> best glide speed.

Here is what an aeronautical engineer wrote on our ASH 26 E newsgroup,
responding to the same concern of another owner:

"As a sanity check assume 1/8" by 2" wire (projected area .25 square
inch) with a drag coefficient of 1 (normally a round wire is less) then
the
drag is (.25/144)*1*60*60/295 = 0.02 lbs at 60 knots or 0.08 lbs at 120
kots. (At 60 knots the flat plate drag is about 12 lbs per square
foot).
Even if the antenna was twice as long or twice as thick we are still
looking
at around .04 pounds at 60 knots or 0.16 lbs at 120 knots."

That's very small compared to 10 kg, and it's at 120 knots!

>
> I am not a tehnofreak, but I understand that Transponder
> aerials have to be base loaded and require a metal
> ground plane to work properly. Obviously not a problem
> for a spam can or a metal Schweitzer glider, but something
> else that has to fitted into the already crowded centre
> section of a FRP sailplane.

The ground plane can be as small a 6" in diameter, and internal
antennas have been installed sucessfully in gliders with less room and
tighter access than the Std Cirrus. Drag is not a valid concern for
your situation, but it sounds like you can't/won't afford the
considerable cost.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download 'A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation'

[Mike the Strike]

..... and it creates a lot less drag than will occur when your wing is
ripped off by a bizjet!

Mike


> "As a sanity check assume 1/8" by 2" wire (projected area .25 square
> inch) with a drag coefficient of 1 (normally a round wire is less) then
> the
> drag is (.25/144)*1*60*60/295 = 0.02 lbs at 60 knots or 0.08 lbs at 120
> kots. (At 60 knots the flat plate drag is about 12 lbs per square
> foot).
> Even if the antenna was twice as long or twice as thick we are still
> looking
> at around .04 pounds at 60 knots or 0.16 lbs at 120 knots."
>
> That's very small compared to 10 kg, and it's at 120 knots!
>

[jcarlyle]

I'm not in the market for a transponder, but I do like the low current
draw, the built-in encoder, and the maximum 35,000 foot reporting
alititude of the Filser TRT800. The problem for me would be that it
isn't approved for use in the US.

Does anyone know what the hang-up is with regard to US certification of
the Filser transponder?

-John

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
> All the transponders currently listed by Filser
> http://www.filser.de/onlineshop/english/ are modes A/C and S, and have
> extended squitter; they all have an integral alticoder. These are probably
> the cheapest on the UK market http://www.lxavionics.co.uk/ .
>
> I would be surprised if this is not true of other makes, I am sure it soon
> will be.

[kirk.stant]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:

> The truth is, if you can't see this tiny *motionless* speck ...two miles
> away ...in the inversion haze ...on one thermalling turn, then it is going
> to hit you before you finish the next.

Yuliy,

Interesting test, but I don't think it anyway replicates real life.
Airplanes at a distance, co-altitude on the horizon, are going to be
black dots almost all the time. What you have to train yourself to
look for is a moving black dot against the background. Worse, you have
to also find the black dot that isn't moving - because that is the one
on a perfect collision course. That situation is tought, but not
impossible. If you turn at all, you break the collision course, and
generate motion on the canopy.

Plus, 20 seconds is an eternity when it comes to getting out of the
way.

So I don't buy your analogy - it just doesn't correlate with my
personal experience.

See and avoid is not the best solution, but it does work - if everybody
does it correctly. I'm starting to think that many pilots have never
been trained how to look for traffic - the basic physiological and
environmental facts that have to be understood in order to scan
succesfully for traffic. Scary!

These are great discussions, IMHO - makes us all think about how we fly
and how others fly.

And I know I need to spend less time with MCU and even more time
scanning!

Kirk

[kirk.stant]

Ramy wrote:
> Wow, so many aircrafts...
> In the 7 years and about 2000 hours I flew my LS4, I never saw
> commercial traffic close by, and I fly most of the time in the Reno
> area. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I am using a transponder?
> I had one close call over airsailing with an airliner in the short time
> I flew club gliders without transponders (I believe they all have
> transponders now).
>

Could be where you fly - in the Phoenix area (and most of NW AZ), there
is a lot of traffic. Then again, It doesn't bother me to be around
other airplanes - it's kind of neat to watch a big old airliner cruise
by (and wonder if anyone in it saw me), or get checked out in a thermal
by a couple of AV-8 (which happened to me up by the Grand Canyon - they
altered course and came over to where I was thermalling at about
15,000', went by on either side of the thermal. I waved at them, of
course).

But just cuz you don't see it, don't mean it aint there!

Kirk

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

Eric,

The pilot who removed his transponder antenna is a friend of mine, and I
talked with him about it at the time.

The glider is an ASW27, he was flying in competition with other pilots in
ASW27s who were well known to him as people and as pilots. Some were
members of his club.

He has a transponder fitted (Becker Mode A/C, not Mode S) because he
frequently flies high in wave, particularly in Scotland, where it is
necessary to talk to an air traffic controller and either a great help or
essential to have a transponder. He is also a professional airline pilot.

During the competition the transponder would not have been turned on. He
started with the antenna fitted because he did not realise the difference in
performance it caused. After two or three days, with his ship not going as
well compared with the others as he expected, he removed it. The
difference was immediate and obvious, he described to me the difference with
it fitted as turning the ASW27 into an ASW20! Remember, he had been flying
with the antenna for some time, it was only in contest against other similar
gliders with good pilots that he saw the difference.

Please do not talk as if flying in UK contests involves the same collision
risk with CAT as flying in the high skies around Minden (I have never done
that, alas!). I understand that there has not been an actual collision in
the UK between a glider and CAT or the military since 1947.

To anyone buying a new modern machine from Schleicher, Schempp or the
others, the cost of fitting a transponder is only a small percentage of the
total cost, but would still involve finding panel space, and sufficient
power (particularly if the transponder is to be on whenever airborne). But
there are still a lot of low value gliders in use in the UK, and a lot of
gliding being done where the actual collision risk where a transponder would
make a difference is very small. In the USA, I wonder how many of the 1-26
fleet are fitted?

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

>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> news:HQ4Kg.227$m36.105@trnddc02...
>
>>
>> Derek Copeland wrote:
>> Jack,
>>
>> I know that a UK pilot removed a transponder aerial
>> from his glider part way through a Nationals competition
>> because he was losing too much performance in relation
>> to his competitors in similar gliders. Also I fly a
>> Standard Cirrus, so I need all the performance I can
>> get!
>>
>
> You can't measure the performance loss that a transponder antenna on your
> Std Cirrus, the drag is so little; nonetheless, the fiberglass fuselage
> will let you mount one internally. The big advantage is it's protected
> from ground and handling damage.
>
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
> Operation"
>

[Eric Greenwell]

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:

> After two or three days, with his ship not going as
> well compared with the others as he expected, he removed it. The
> difference was immediate and obvious, he described to me the difference with
> it fitted as turning the ASW27 into an ASW20! Remember, he had been flying
> with the antenna for some time, it was only in contest against other similar
> gliders with good pilots that he saw the difference.

I remain skeptical: I sure didn't see any difference at all when I
fitted a transponder antenna to my ASH 26 E, flying against gliders I'd
flown with for years, nor have I heard of anyone else noticing a
difference. Perhaps something unusual was occurring in his case.
>
> Please do not talk as if flying in UK contests involves the same collision
> risk with CAT as flying in the high skies around Minden (I have never done
> that, alas!).

I won't, and I didn't. My remarks were directed at a Std Cirrus pilot
who felt he needed every crumb of performance, and that was why he
wouldn't consider a transponder. My belief the drag increase is
insgnificant, so it shouldn't be a factor in his decision. The need for
it and the cost are the most important factors, I think.

>
> To anyone buying a new modern machine from Schleicher, Schempp or the
> others, the cost of fitting a transponder is only a small percentage of the
> total cost, but would still involve finding panel space, and sufficient
> power (particularly if the transponder is to be on whenever airborne). But
> there are still a lot of low value gliders in use in the UK, and a lot of
> gliding being done where the actual collision risk where a transponder would
> make a difference is very small.

Also the situation in much of the USA. Though, I don't think the value
of the glider should be a factor in the decision to install a
transponder. I realize you are using the glider value as a proxy for the
spare cash the owner has, but I'd rather the focus was on the collision
risk, the value of reducing it, and the cost of installing a transponder.

> In the USA, I wonder how many of the 1-26 fleet are fitted?

I don't know, but some do have them in the Minden area.

Are you allowed to fly in airways in the UK (as we do in the US), and
would having a transponder give you greater access to them?

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Derek Copeland]

In the UK we are not allowed to fly Gliders in Class
A or Airways, full stop, period! We can sometimes access
Class B and Class D with an ATC clearance by radio.
The vast majority of gliding is done in Glass G airspace
where we are largely segregated from commercial air
traffic. However the latter are increasingly starting
to use the Class G around the smaller regional airports,
which is probably why the CAA wants the compulsory
fitting of Mode S transponders. The other issue is
the use of the open airspace by UAVs (mostly by the
US Military as far as I can find out). There is no
mandatory requirement for fitting airband radios at
the moment, so I don't expect to get any improved access
to controlled airspace by fitting transponders.

In the US the fitting of transponders appears to be
voluntary, if the owners/pilots consider it necessary
in their local airspace. If the CAA gets its way, Mode
S will be compulsory for all aircraft in the UK, including
low value vintage machine that only occasionally fly,
and even when they do stay local to the airfield. Basically
these beautiful machines will probably have to be placed
in museums or scrapped, which in my opinion would be
a great shame. We currently have a thriving vintage
glider movement in the UK.

The UK is a damp little island with far too much cloud,
often with a very low base. To successfully fly cross-country
you really do need all the glide performance you can
get.

Mode S transponders can only give collision warnings
to ACAS/TCAS equipped aircraft, or via radio messages
from radar equipped ATC. They are virtually useless
for preventing collisions between gliders or GA aircraft.
If we have to fit anything, I would prefer to wait
for ADS-B or some development of FLARM, which is of
general use to all pilots. Transponders are crude,
old fashioned, WW2 technology!

Derek Copeland


At 15:24 05 September 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
>
>> After two or three days, with his ship not going as
>> well compared with the others as he expected, he removed
>>it. The
>> difference was immediate and obvious, he described
>>to me the difference with
>> it fitted as turning the ASW27 into an ASW20! Remember,
>>he had been flying
>> with the antenna for some time, it was only in contest
>>against other similar
>> gliders with good pilots that he saw the difference.
>
>I remain skeptical: I sure didn't see any difference
>at all when I
>fitted a transponder antenna to my ASH 26 E, flying
>against gliders I'd
>flown with for years, nor have I heard of anyone else
>noticing a
>difference. Perhaps something unusual was occurring
>in his case.
>>
>> Please do not talk as if flying in UK contests involves
>>the same collision
>> risk with CAT as flying in the high skies around Minden
>>(I have never done
>> that, alas!).
>
>I won't, and I didn't. My remarks were directed at
>a Std Cirrus pilot
>who felt he needed every crumb of performance, and
>that was why he
>wouldn't consider a transponder. My belief the drag
>increase is
>insgnificant, so it shouldn't be a factor in his decision.
>The need for
>it and the cost are the most important factors, I think.
>
>>
>> To anyone buying a new modern machine from Schleicher,
>>Schempp or the
>> others, the cost of fitting a transponder is only
>>a small percentage of the
>> total cost, but would still involve finding panel
>>space, and sufficient
>> power (particularly if the transponder is to be on
>>whenever airborne). But
>> there are still a lot of low value gliders in use
>>in the UK, and a lot of
>> gliding being done where the actual collision risk
>>where a transponder would
>> make a difference is very small.
>
>Also the situation in much of the USA. Though, I don't
>think the value
>of the glider should be a factor in the decision to
>install a
>transponder. I realize you are using the glider value
>as a proxy for the
>spare cash the owner has, but I'd rather the focus
>was on the collision
>risk, the value of reducing it, and the cost of installing
>a transponder.
>
>> In the USA, I wonder how many of the 1-26 fleet are
>>fitted?
>
>I don't know, but some do have them in the Minden area.
>
>Are you allowed to fly in airways in the UK (as we
>do in the US), and
>would having a transponder give you greater access
>to them?
>
>--
>Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
> Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
>'Transponders in Sailplanes' on the Soaring Safety
>Foundation website
> www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
>'A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation' at
>www.motorglider.org
>

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Derek Copeland wrote:
> > Whether I would be able to mount the aerial internally
> > or not would depend on the engineer certifying the
> > installation. I understand that the latest generation
> > sailplanes with carbon fibre fuselages will have to
> > have externally mounted aerials, probably top or bottom
> > so that they will transmit both up tp TCAS equipped
> > airliners and down to Air Traffic Control. Although
> > the aerials are quite short, they do produce a significant
> > amount of drag. Remember that a 500 kg glider with
> > a 50:1 glide angle will only have a drag of 10 kg at
> > best glide speed.
>
> Here is what an aeronautical engineer wrote on our ASH 26 E newsgroup,
> responding to the same concern of another owner:
>
> "As a sanity check assume 1/8" by 2" wire (projected area .25 square
> inch) with a drag coefficient of 1 (normally a round wire is less) then
> the
> drag is (.25/144)*1*60*60/295 = 0.02 lbs at 60 knots or 0.08 lbs at 120
> kots. (At 60 knots the flat plate drag is about 12 lbs per square
> foot).
> Even if the antenna was twice as long or twice as thick we are still
> looking
> at around .04 pounds at 60 knots or 0.16 lbs at 120 knots."
>
> That's very small compared to 10 kg, and it's at 120 knots!
>

But it is not the drag, but the drag relative to the lift.

NO Antenna
500 kg glider
10 kg drag
L/D = 50.0

Antenna
500.2 kg glider (add antenna weight, liberal guess)
assume shape of antenna is straght wire, no tip (as above)
assume drag is 0.16 lbs = 0.073 kg
assume no interferance drag
L/D = 500.2/10.073 = 49.66

A third of a point loss is significant for those who know how to use it
(I am told).
Fine tune these results with a real antenna and try again.

(Standard Cirrus
330 kg
L/D = 35
9.43 kg drag

L/D w/antenna:
330/(9.43+0.073)=34.73
Noticable if you have done all your gap work, sealing, airfoil tuning,
etc...?)


John Gilbert - Washington State, USA
Std. Cirrus s/n 266

>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> www.motorglider.org - Download 'A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
> Operation'

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

>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> news:XygLg.26301$CL6.23010@trnddc06...
>
>>
>> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.) wrote:
>>
>> After two or three days, with his ship not going as well compared with
>> the others as he expected, he removed it. The difference was immediate
>> and obvious, he described to me the difference with it fitted as turning
>> the ASW27 into an ASW20! Remember, he had been flying with the antenna
>> for some time, it was only in contest against other similar gliders with
>> good pilots that he saw the difference.
>>
>
> I remain sceptical: I sure didn't see any difference at all when I fitted
> a transponder antenna to my ASH 26 E, flying against gliders I'd flown
> with for years, nor have I heard of anyone else noticing a difference.
> Perhaps something unusual was occurring in his case.
>

He was flying in a very competitive Nationals (entry of 35) against 11 other
gliders of identical type. Some 5 of the competitors have represented the
UK in Worlds, including one current world champion. See
http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk/comps/results/15m2006.htm . The antenna
was fitted on the port side underneath, close to the wheel door. It was
the type with a short wire and a sphere on the end.

>
>>
>> Please do not talk as if flying in UK contests involves the same
>> collision risk with CAT as flying in the high skies around Minden (I have
>> never done that, alas!).
>
> I won't, and I didn't. My remarks were directed at a Std Cirrus pilot
> who felt he needed every crumb of performance, and that was why he
> wouldn't consider a transponder. My belief the drag increase is
> insignificant, so it shouldn't be a factor in his decision. The need for
> it and the cost are the most important factors, I think.
>
>>
>> To anyone buying a new modern machine from Schleicher, Schempp or the
>> others, the cost of fitting a transponder is only a small percentage of
>> the total cost, but would still involve finding panel space, and
>> sufficient power (particularly if the transponder is to be on whenever
>> airborne). But there are still a lot of low value gliders in use in
>> the UK, and a lot of gliding being done where the actual collision risk
>> where a transponder would make a difference is very small.
>>
>
> Also the situation in much of the USA. Though, I don't think the value
> of the glider should be a factor in the decision to install a transponder.
> I realize you are using the glider value as a proxy for the spare cash the
> owner has, but I'd rather the focus was on the collision risk, the value
> of reducing it, and the cost of installing a transponder.
>

It is the cost of the instrument, of the cabling and antenna, of the extra
battery power, and of the installation. It is not only the cost in cash,
but also the cost in space needed, and in loss of disposable weight.

It also has to do with how the glider will be flown. Fitting a transponder
would do hardly anything to reduce collision risk for most gliding in the
UK. It will only help those who can and want to fly high in wave. From
the posts I have been reading the situation is quite different in the Minden
area, though even there it seems that the routeing of CAT into and out of
airfields could be improved.

>
>>
>> In the USA, I wonder how many of the 1-26 fleet are fitted?
>>
>
> I don't know, but some do have them in the Minden area.
>
> Are you allowed to fly in airways in the UK (as we do in the US), and
> would having a transponder give you greater access to them?
>

For UK ATS Airspace Classifications see
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/ATS_Classifications.pdf , one page.

For the CAA publication "Guide to Visual Flight Rules in the UK" see
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/DAP_ACD_VFR_Guide.pdf 40 pages.
The section "Gliders" is on page 23.

Note that nowhere is there any mention of transponders. In class A and B
airspace the controller will be helped if a transponder is fitted and used,
which is why some UK pilots are carrying them. Obviously a controller is
more likely to help if the glider can squawk.

>
> Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
> www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org
>

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

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> wrote:
>> Derek Copeland wrote:
>>> Whether I would be able to mount the aerial internally
>>> or not would depend on the engineer certifying the
>>> installation. I understand that the latest generation
>>> sailplanes with carbon fibre fuselages will have to
>>> have externally mounted aerials, probably top or bottom
>>> so that they will transmit both up tp TCAS equipped
>>> airliners and down to Air Traffic Control. Although
>>> the aerials are quite short, they do produce a significant
>>> amount of drag. Remember that a 500 kg glider with
>>> a 50:1 glide angle will only have a drag of 10 kg at
>>> best glide speed.
>> Here is what an aeronautical engineer wrote on our ASH 26 E newsgroup,
>> responding to the same concern of another owner:
>>
>> "As a sanity check assume 1/8" by 2" wire (projected area .25 square
>> inch) with a drag coefficient of 1 (normally a round wire is less) then
>> the
>> drag is (.25/144)*1*60*60/295 = 0.02 lbs at 60 knots or 0.08 lbs at 120
>> kots. (At 60 knots the flat plate drag is about 12 lbs per square
>> foot).
>> Even if the antenna was twice as long or twice as thick we are still
>> looking
>> at around .04 pounds at 60 knots or 0.16 lbs at 120 knots."
>>
>> That's very small compared to 10 kg, and it's at 120 knots!
>>
>
> But it is not the drag, but the drag relative to the lift.
>
> NO Antenna
> 500 kg glider
> 10 kg drag
> L/D = 50.0
>
> Antenna
> 500.2 kg glider (add antenna weight, liberal guess)
> assume shape of antenna is straght wire, no tip (as above)
> assume drag is 0.16 lbs = 0.073 kg
> assume no interferance drag
> L/D = 500.2/10.073 = 49.66
>
> A third of a point loss is significant for those who know how to use it
> (I am told).
> Fine tune these results with a real antenna and try again.
>
> (Standard Cirrus
> 330 kg
> L/D = 35
> 9.43 kg drag
>
> L/D w/antenna:
> 330/(9.43+0.073)=34.73
> Noticable if you have done all your gap work, sealing, airfoil tuning,
> etc...?)

The .073kg is at 120 knots, so at 60 knots best L/D, it would be 0.01825
for an L/D of 34.927. At thermalling speeds, where induced drag
dominates, it's insignifcant (one extra bug may cause more loss!), but
perhaps that's a good enough calculation for the UK, where you probably
aren't batting along in a Std Cirrus fast enough to make profile drag
the dominant factor.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

If I remember my fluid dynamics courses correctly, spheres and round rods
produce a relatively large amount of drag when compared with teardrop or
flared objects. The low cost "stub" antennas are popular transponder
antennas because of their low cost. However, it is my belief that the more
expensive "shark fin" or "blade" antennas will produce much less drag, even
though they are a bit larger. They also look much nicer on a glider. You
can see examples here:
http://www.soarmn.com/cumulus/comant.htm

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:2gpLg.4072$%k5.472@trnddc08...
> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Derek Copeland wrote:
>>>> Whether I would be able to mount the aerial internally
>>>> or not would depend on the engineer certifying the
>>>> installation. I understand that the latest generation
>>>> sailplanes with carbon fibre fuselages will have to
>>>> have externally mounted aerials, probably top or bottom
>>>> so that they will transmit both up tp TCAS equipped
>>>> airliners and down to Air Traffic Control. Although
>>>> the aerials are quite short, they do produce a significant
>>>> amount of drag. Remember that a 500 kg glider with
>>>> a 50:1 glide angle will only have a drag of 10 kg at
>>>> best glide speed.
>>> Here is what an aeronautical engineer wrote on our ASH 26 E newsgroup,
>>> responding to the same concern of another owner:
>>>
>>> "As a sanity check assume 1/8" by 2" wire (projected area .25 square
>>> inch) with a drag coefficient of 1 (normally a round wire is less) then
>>> the
>>> drag is (.25/144)*1*60*60/295 = 0.02 lbs at 60 knots or 0.08 lbs at 120
>>> kots. (At 60 knots the flat plate drag is about 12 lbs per square
>>> foot).
>>> Even if the antenna was twice as long or twice as thick we are still
>>> looking
>>> at around .04 pounds at 60 knots or 0.16 lbs at 120 knots."
>>>
>>> That's very small compared to 10 kg, and it's at 120 knots!
>>>
>>
>> But it is not the drag, but the drag relative to the lift.
>>
>> NO Antenna
>> 500 kg glider
>> 10 kg drag
>> L/D = 50.0
>>
>> Antenna
>> 500.2 kg glider (add antenna weight, liberal guess)
>> assume shape of antenna is straght wire, no tip (as above)
>> assume drag is 0.16 lbs = 0.073 kg
>> assume no interferance drag
>> L/D = 500.2/10.073 = 49.66
>>
>> A third of a point loss is significant for those who know how to use it
>> (I am told).
>> Fine tune these results with a real antenna and try again.
>>
>> (Standard Cirrus
>> 330 kg
>> L/D = 35
>> 9.43 kg drag
>>
>> L/D w/antenna:
>> 330/(9.43+0.073)=34.73
>> Noticable if you have done all your gap work, sealing, airfoil tuning,
>> etc...?)
>
> The .073kg is at 120 knots, so at 60 knots best L/D, it would be 0.01825
> for an L/D of 34.927. At thermalling speeds, where induced drag dominates,
> it's insignifcant (one extra bug may cause more loss!), but perhaps that's
> a good enough calculation for the UK, where you probably aren't batting
> along in a Std Cirrus fast enough to make profile drag the dominant
> factor.
>
> --
> Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
> www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Rory O'Conor[_1_]]

Oh really?

Please read
http://www.scottishglidingcentre.co.uk/downloads/Airspace%20MoU%20BGA%20
2005%20lores.pdf
And then re-comment.

Rory

------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroup: rec.aviation.soaring
Subject: Re: Mode S Transponders....
Author: Derek Copeland >
Date/Time: 17:20 05 September 2006
------------------------------------------------------------
In the UK we are not allowed to fly Gliders in Class A or Airways, full
stop, period!

[Derek Copeland]

OK, OK. So the Jocks have a couple of wave windows
that can be activated in advance by a telephone call
in accordance with a local agreement. We have nothing
like that in Southern England!

I do hope you are not in favour of mandatory Mode S
Transponders in all aircraft (includes gliders, hang
gliders, paragliders and balloons).

Derek Copeland



At 09:12 06 September 2006, Rory O'Conor wrote:
>Oh really?
>
>Please read
>http://www.scottishglidingcentre.co.uk/downloads/Airspace%20MoU%20
>>BGA%20
>2005%20lores.pdf
>And then re-comment.
>
>Rory
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Newsgroup: rec.aviation.soaring
>Subject: Re: Mode S Transponders....
>Author: Derek Copeland
>Date/Time: 17:20 05 September 2006
>------------------------------------------------------------
>In the UK we are not allowed to fly Gliders in Class
>A or Airways, full
>stop, period!
>
>
>
>
>

[Mike Schumann]

The only significant reason to oppose such a proposal are the costs
involved. What is really needed is a concerted effort to come up with a
truely low cost transponder or ADS-B transmitter (~$200), so that it becomes
a no brainer to carry one on everything that flies.

Mike Schumann

"Derek Copeland" > wrote in
message ...
> OK, OK. So the Jocks have a couple of wave windows
> that can be activated in advance by a telephone call
> in accordance with a local agreement. We have nothing
> like that in Southern England!
>
> I do hope you are not in favour of mandatory Mode S
> Transponders in all aircraft (includes gliders, hang
> gliders, paragliders and balloons).
>
> Derek Copeland
>
>
>
> At 09:12 06 September 2006, Rory O'Conor wrote:
>>Oh really?
>>
>>Please read
>>http://www.scottishglidingcentre.co.uk/downloads/Airspace%20MoU%20
>>>BGA%20
>>2005%20lores.pdf
>>And then re-comment.
>>
>>Rory
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>Newsgroup: rec.aviation.soaring
>>Subject: Re: Mode S Transponders....
>>Author: Derek Copeland
>>Date/Time: 17:20 05 September 2006
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>In the UK we are not allowed to fly Gliders in Class
>>A or Airways, full
>>stop, period!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Derek Copeland]

There are other issues at stake. These include the
possibility of airspace charging, the cost of an approved
installation now that EASA has so kindly taken us under
its control and the risk of being fined or grounded
should we inadvertantly infringe controlled airspace
even if only by a few metres.

Will we be breaking the law if we forget to turn the
transponders on, or if they or the batteries fail in
flight? One of the main characteristics of our current
New Labour Government is the number of usually stupid
new laws they have introduced that it is now possible
to fall foul of!

As to the safety issue, the Air Traffic Controllers
at our local airport have already admitted that they
will almost certainly filter out our returns to reduce
clutter on their radar screens! The only possible gains
we get from all this cost and hassle are slightly reduced
risks of being knocked out of the sky by a TCAS/ACAS
equipped airliners or UAVs. As there has never been
such a collision in the UK, is a reduction of an almost
zero risk really that worthwhile? Mode S does nothing
to reduce the much more probable risk of colliding
with another glider or light aircraft!

Derek Copeland

At 13:12 06 September 2006, Mike Schumann wrote:
>The only significant reason to oppose such a proposal
>are the costs
>involved. What is really needed is a concerted effort
>to come up with a
>truely low cost transponder or ADS-B transmitter (~$200),
>so that it becomes
>a no brainer to carry one on everything that flies.
>
>Mike Schumann
>
>'Derek Copeland' wrote in
>message ...
>> OK, OK. So the Jocks have a couple of wave windows
>> that can be activated in advance by a telephone call
>> in accordance with a local agreement. We have nothing
>> like that in Southern England!
>>
>> I do hope you are not in favour of mandatory Mode
>>S
>> Transponders in all aircraft (includes gliders, hang
>> gliders, paragliders and balloons).
>>
>> Derek Copeland
>>
>>
>>
>> At 09:12 06 September 2006, Rory O'Conor wrote:
>>>Oh really?
>>>
>>>Please read
>>>http://www.scottishglidingcentre.co.uk/downloads/Airspace%20MoU%20
>>>>
>>>>BGA%20
>>>2005%20lores.pdf
>>>And then re-comment.
>>>
>>>Rory
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Newsgroup: rec.aviation.soaring
>>>Subject: Re: Mode S Transponders....
>>>Author: Derek Copeland
>>>Date/Time: 17:20 05 September 2006
>>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>>In the UK we are not allowed to fly Gliders in Class
>>>A or Airways, full
>>>stop, period!
>>>

[John Smith]

Pity that Derek does not appear to have read the references provided by
Rory. The items on the SGU website relate to the Scottish TMA around
Edinburgh and a local agreement between the SGU and NATS Edinburgh that
permits easier access to the South though defined routes, an agreement
between the BGA, SGU and Scottish Air Traffic relating to crossing the
airwayS viz P600 andB226 subject to prior notification and radio calls, and
an agreement between the BGA, SGU and the Scottish Control centre that
permits gliders from Portmoak access to the Northern part of the Scottish
TMA and southern part of P600 at weekends. No mention of the Scottish Wave
boxes in any of these.

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> The only significant reason to oppose such a proposal are the costs
> involved. What is really needed is a concerted effort to come up with a
> truely low cost transponder or ADS-B transmitter (~$200), so that it becomes
> a no brainer to carry one on everything that flies.
>
Not quite. It also needs to:
- contain the equivalent of a PCAS receiver
- fit a single panel position (preferably 57mm like the Filser
and Microair mode-S transponders do)

In addition is should probably:
- be light (under 900 grams)
- have a low power requirement, ideally no more than a glider radio
but certainly under 600 mA average


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

[Tom Gardner[_1_]]

"W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)." > wrote in
:

> Fitting a transponder
> would do hardly anything to reduce collision risk for most gliding in the
> UK. It will only help those who can and want to fly high in wave.

I note that there are moves to have unmanned aircraft (UAVs)
flying in UK airspace, e.g.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5198364.stm>

The current rules and procedures presume that all
aircraft contain functioning eyeballs and brains
that can look out the window. If they don't then
the rules and procedures have to be rethought.

Anybody see a connection with mandatory transponders?

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

Yes, we all see the connection.

How are they planning to avoid hang and paragliders?

The BGA has made a response as an organisation to the recent PRIA, it is to
be found at http://www.gliding.co.uk/forms/BGARIAResponseFinal.doc for the
response document, and at
http://www.gliding.co.uk/forms/EmailBGACoverLetterRIA.pdf for the covering
letter. There were some 3,000 responses sent to the DAP.

On UAVs the BGA says in Response 1 Issue 6: "Issue 6. The BGA believes
strongly that it is totally unacceptable that existing airspace users should
be disadvantaged or burdened as UAV traffic develops in the future."

It is confounded cheek for commercial interests to think they can fly UAVs
wherever they like and we shall just have to suffer the inconvenience or
worse to accommodate them. They would never dream of doing this on the
roads, why in the sky?

As to the example quoted in the BBC of an UAV "seeing" something the human
eye would have missed, this can equally easily be done with sensors fitted
to manned aircraft. The military use UAVs partly to avoid people being
shot down in a war situation.

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

>
> "Tom Gardner" > wrote in message
> 43.53...
>
>>
>> "W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)." > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> Fitting a transponder
>> would do hardly anything to reduce collision risk for most gliding in the
>> UK. It will only help those who can and want to fly high in wave.
>>
>
> I note that there are moves to have unmanned aircraft (UAVs)
> flying in UK airspace, e.g.
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5198364.stm>
>
> The current rules and procedures presume that all
> aircraft contain functioning eyeballs and brains
> that can look out the window. If they don't then
> the rules and procedures have to be rethought.
>
> Anybody see a connection with mandatory transponders?
>

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Plus, 20 seconds is an eternity when it comes to getting out of the
> way.

I asked this question several times, and never saw a convincing answer:
exactly how do you use even the 20 seconds if you have them to avoid
something coming at you at 300 (or, it was suggested, possibly much more)
knots? If you start in a thermalling glider at minimum sink speed, you can't
seem to run fast enough far enough given the rate of closure -- and the lack
of time to estimate relative motion precisely enough. We don't have
targeting radars in most of the gliders (not sure about Space Shuttle
though).
--
Yuliy

[Iwo Mergler]

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:

> Yes, we all see the connection.
>
> How are they planning to avoid hang and paragliders?

By mandating mode-S + ADS-B transponders for them too.
There is some exemption clause for paragliders until
the technology catches up. Probably until some avionics
marketeer says so.

I'm really looking forward to carrying a 600W microwave
transmitter and associated battery. :-(

Iwo

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> "kirk.stant" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> Plus, 20 seconds is an eternity when it comes to getting out of the
>> way.
>
> I asked this question several times, and never saw a convincing answer:
> exactly how do you use even the 20 seconds if you have them to avoid
> something coming at you at 300 (or, it was suggested, possibly much more)
> knots?
>
Stop turning and stick the nose down steeply at the same time.

That's about the quickest way to exit a given volume of air that I can
think of if you're starting from a low airspeed. I'll be interested to
hear of anything that would be faster and/or of something what would
work if you're too low to dive away from the threat.


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

[Derek Copeland]

To clarify the points raised by Rory O’ Conor and John
Smith

Gliders in the UK are not generally allowed to fly
in IFR only airspace, such as Class A and airways.
However some gliding clubs who are situated in or
close to Class A or Class D airspace (e.g. Portmoak
and Dunstable) have local letters of agreements that
allow some access to controlled airspace by their members
under defined conditions. These agreements do not apply
to glider pilots from other clubs who happen to be
transiting the area and can be withdrawn at any time,
so they are not exactly rights but are better than
nothing. There are also some wave soaring boxes that
can be opened by an advance telephone call and then
a radio request in flight.

When I first started flying X-country, you were allowed
to cross Airways, provided you crossed them approximately
at right angles in VMC and kept a good lookout. This
right was removed sometime in the 1990’s when a wave
soaring glider got a bit too close to an airliner somewhere
over South Wales.

Derek Copeland


At 16:48 06 September 2006, John Smith wrote:
>Pity that Derek does not appear to have read the references
>provided by
>Rory. The items on the SGU website relate to the Scottish
>TMA around
>Edinburgh and a local agreement between the SGU and
>NATS Edinburgh that
>permits easier access to the South though defined routes,
>an agreement
>between the BGA, SGU and Scottish Air Traffic relating
>to crossing the
>airwayS viz P600 andB226 subject to prior notification
>and radio calls, and
>an agreement between the BGA, SGU and the Scottish
>Control centre that
>permits gliders from Portmoak access to the Northern
>part of the Scottish
>TMA and southern part of P600 at weekends. No mention
>of the Scottish Wave
>boxes in any of these.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Edward Winchester]

At 14:30 07 September 2006, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>> 'kirk.stant' wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>> Plus, 20 seconds is an eternity when it comes to getting
>>>out of the
>>> way.
>>
>> I asked this question several times, and never saw
>>a convincing answer:
>> exactly how do you use even the 20 seconds if you
>>have them to avoid
>> something coming at you at 300 (or, it was suggested,
>>possibly much more)
>> knots?
> >
>Stop turning and stick the nose down steeply at the
>same time.
>
>That's about the quickest way to exit a given volume
>of air that I can
>think of if you're starting from a low airspeed. I'll
>be interested to
>hear of anything that would be faster and/or of something
>what would
>work if you're too low to dive away from the threat.
>
>
>--
>martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>org |
>

Kirk,

I agree with Martin, but for the thermalling case,
I'd amend that to put the top rudder on the floor and
the stick in the opposite corner, at least at first.
You'll lose hundreds of feet in 10 seconds, and not
gain a ridiculous amount of airspeed.

If you're cruising fast between thermals, it may work
better to put the stick in your lap, which would zoom
you at least a couple hundred feet. (don't ask me
how I know this.)

In either case, if you were really on a collision course
before, that will get you out of the way.

Regarding Martin's case of being too low, that would
imply that you're on the ridge, on tow, or on final
approach. If the ridge, it's almost certainly another
glider, so follow the rule about whoever can turn right
away from the ridge does that. If it turns out that
the other guy has the burden of turning, but he doesn't
see you, it seems to me that it's always possible to
descend a few feet, wings level, which is enough to
avoid the collision. If that isn't possible, you're
flying too damn close to the ridge.

On final, the interfering traffic is probably an airplane
taking off, maybe dive to duck under him, then use
the speed to get to a safe landing after the offending
plane passes over. On tow, radio call to warn the
tow pilot, release, treat it like a rope break. That's
the toughest one.

Ed

[Edward Winchester]

At 14:30 07 September 2006, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>> 'kirk.stant' wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>> Plus, 20 seconds is an eternity when it comes to getting
>>>out of the
>>> way.
>>
>> I asked this question several times, and never saw
>>a convincing answer:
>> exactly how do you use even the 20 seconds if you
>>have them to avoid
>> something coming at you at 300 (or, it was suggested,
>>possibly much more)
>> knots?
> >
>Stop turning and stick the nose down steeply at the
>same time.
>
>That's about the quickest way to exit a given volume
>of air that I can
>think of if you're starting from a low airspeed. I'll
>be interested to
>hear of anything that would be faster and/or of something
>what would
>work if you're too low to dive away from the threat.
>
>
>--
>martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>org |
>

Kirk,

I agree with Martin, but for the thermalling case,
I'd amend that to put the top rudder on the floor and
the stick in the opposite corner, at least at first.
You'll lose hundreds of feet in 10 seconds, and not
gain a ridiculous amount of airspeed.

If you're cruising fast between thermals, it may work
better to put the stick in your lap, which would zoom
you at least a couple hundred feet. (don't ask me
how I know this.)

In either case, if you were really on a collision course
before, that will get you out of the way.

Regarding Martin's case of being too low, that would
imply that you're on the ridge, on tow, or on final
approach. If the ridge, it's almost certainly another
glider, so follow the rule about whoever can turn right
away from the ridge does that. If it turns out that
the other guy has the burden of turning, but he doesn't
see you, it seems to me that it's always possible to
descend a few feet, wings level, which is enough to
avoid the collision. If that isn't possible, you're
flying too damn close to the ridge.

On final, the interfering traffic is probably an airplane
taking off, maybe dive to duck under him, then use
the speed to get to a safe landing after the offending
plane passes over. On tow, radio call to warn the
tow pilot, release, treat it like a rope break. That's
the toughest one.

Ed

[Mike Schumann]

If you are on a collision course, how are you going to know whether going
down is the right solution? He might be 50 ft below you, and you are going
to dive right into him. Or he might also decide to descend.

This brings to mind an interesting suggestion that I was taught when I got
my power license about avoiding collisions with birds: Always climb, as the
birds will tend to dive.

Mike Schumann

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>> "kirk.stant" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>> Plus, 20 seconds is an eternity when it comes to getting out of the
>>> way.
>>
>> I asked this question several times, and never saw a convincing answer:
>> exactly how do you use even the 20 seconds if you have them to avoid
>> something coming at you at 300 (or, it was suggested, possibly much more)
>> knots?
> >
> Stop turning and stick the nose down steeply at the same time.
>
> That's about the quickest way to exit a given volume of air that I can
> think of if you're starting from a low airspeed. I'll be interested to
> hear of anything that would be faster and/or of something what would work
> if you're too low to dive away from the threat.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

[Edward Winchester]

At 14:30 07 September 2006, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>> 'kirk.stant' wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>> Plus, 20 seconds is an eternity when it comes to getting
>>>out of the
>>> way.
>>
>> I asked this question several times, and never saw
>>a convincing answer:
>> exactly how do you use even the 20 seconds if you
>>have them to avoid
>> something coming at you at 300 (or, it was suggested,
>>possibly much more)
>> knots?
> >
>Stop turning and stick the nose down steeply at the
>same time.
>
>That's about the quickest way to exit a given volume
>of air that I can
>think of if you're starting from a low airspeed. I'll
>be interested to
>hear of anything that would be faster and/or of something
>what would
>work if you're too low to dive away from the threat.
>
>
>--
>martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>org |
>

Kirk,

I agree with Martin, but for the thermalling case,
I'd amend that to put the top rudder on the floor and
the stick in the opposite corner, at least at first.
You'll lose hundreds of feet in 10 seconds, and not
gain a ridiculous amount of airspeed.

If you're cruising fast between thermals, it may work
better to put the stick in your lap, which would zoom
you at least a couple hundred feet. (don't ask me
how I know this.)

In either case, if you were really on a collision course
before, that will get you out of the way.

Regarding Martin's case of being too low, that would
imply that you're on the ridge, on tow, or on final
approach. If the ridge, it's almost certainly another
glider, so follow the rule about whoever can turn right
away from the ridge does that. If it turns out that
the other guy has the burden of turning, but he doesn't
see you, it seems to me that it's always possible to
descend a few feet, wings level, which is enough to
avoid the collision. If that isn't possible, you're
flying too damn close to the ridge.

On final, the interfering traffic is probably an airplane
taking off, maybe dive to duck under him, then use
the speed to get to a safe landing after the offending
plane passes over. On tow, radio call to warn the
tow pilot, release, treat it like a rope break. That's
the toughest one.

Ed

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> If you are on a collision course, how are you going to know whether going
> down is the right solution? He might be 50 ft below you, and you are going
> to dive right into him. Or he might also decide to descend.
>
If you need to get out from in front while thermalling, you'll need some
more airspeed to do so and that means lowering the nose to accelerate
while, hopefully, turning to aim off to one side of him.

The opposition has first to see you in order to decide to descend. If we
assign equal probabilities to him climbing, turning or diving then
anything you do to move away from his current course has a 75% chance of
being right.

Now lets be generous and give him a 50% chance of seeing you.
Probabilities multiply when they are combined, so that gives you an 87%
chance of being right.

> This brings to mind an interesting suggestion that I was taught when I got
> my power license about avoiding collisions with birds: Always climb, as the
> birds will tend to dive.
>
That's only useful if you have an engine or airspeed. If you're
thermalling and try that you'll end up descending about 2 seconds later
and, if the opposition saw you pull up, he'll be down there waiting for
you. Besides, if he read the same book you're quoting he'll be more
likely to pull up than to dive.

In any case, you didn't say what you'd do, so I'll ask again. What would
you do that's better than diving out of the way?


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

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Edward Winchester wrote:

> I agree with Martin, but for the thermalling case,
> I'd amend that to put the top rudder on the floor and
> the stick in the opposite corner, at least at first.
> You'll lose hundreds of feet in 10 seconds, and not
> gain a ridiculous amount of airspeed.
>
I like that! Must add it to my mental store and/or try it with plenty
of height and an empty sky. I've had a very similar maneuver demoed in a
Puchacz but don't know what my Libelle would do.

> If you're cruising fast between thermals, it may work
> better to put the stick in your lap, which would zoom
> you at least a couple hundred feet. (don't ask me
> how I know this.)
>
That makes sense.

> Regarding Martin's case of being too low, that would
> imply that you're on the ridge, on tow, or on final
> approach.
>
I was thinking more of being nearer circuit height, maybe working on a
low save, but anyway the sort of situation were a loss of a few hundred
feet would be at best put you in a situation you wouldn't choose to be
in: if you can no longer reach a sensible landing area you may not be
all that much better off despite having avoided the collision.


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

[588]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> If you are on a collision course, how are you going to know whether going
> down is the right solution? He might be 50 ft below you, and you are going
> to dive right into him. Or he might also decide to descend.

Or you could just sit there with your eyes closed and do nothing, if
you have trouble making decisions. If you don't have the eye to know
what is the best move fairly quickly, almost instinctively, either
aviation is not for you, or else you need more hours in the air with
an experienced PIC. Get into the ball sports where an appreciation for
spatial relationships, hand-eye coordination, relative motion on all
planes, and accelerations is programmed into your brain -- though this
is best begun at a very early age.

---

Going down is good if you have the space; turning can work -- I have
most often done both; going up is a very limited option in a glider so
it's here that your timing and judgment are most critical.

If I had to suggest a rule of thumb, it would be to maneuver to a
position behind and below the traffic, and do not delay. The most
natural tendency seems to be to go up as an initial fright response,
so I would anticipate the other pilot will do that, if anything. By
the time you have identified the threat as necessitating an avoidance
reaction and begun your maneuver, his opportunity to make the
situation either better or worse has probably already been
considerably reduced. Of course there is always somebody out there who
is both slow to react and also tends to make exactly the wrong move.
But, if you are doing your part in the see-and-avoid dance you should
already have solved both his problem and yours. Early awareness goes a
long way toward simplifying the decision and enhancing your execution.


> This brings to mind an interesting suggestion that I was taught when I got
> my power license about avoiding collisions with birds: Always climb, as the
> birds will tend to dive.

The birds don't always dive, I promise you. If they are as good at
see-and-avoid as they should be, they frequently do so. Some of them
aren't any better than some of us, however, when it comes to traffic
awareness. The lone hunters tend to be the sharpest, not surprisingly.
The flockers, not so much.


Jack

[588]

Edward Winchester wrote, re traffic avoidance:

> ...for the thermalling case,
> I'd amend that to put the top rudder on the floor and
> the stick in the opposite corner, at least at first.
> You'll lose hundreds of feet in 10 seconds, and not
> gain a ridiculous amount of airspeed.

The quickest directional change comes from your elevator. With the
ailerons and rudder, put the vertical axis of your ship on the same
plane as the place you want to be, and pull, or push, the nose to that
point with the stick. The wings are designed to produce positive-g
lift -- they do it very well -- use them that way. If negative-g is
all you have time for, then push. You'll create separation with
traffic a lot faster this way than you will by entering an
uncoordinated maneuver.

If a slip entry is what you are describing, you are asking the ship to
enter a gravity-powered trajectory in which you are abdicating most of
your directional control, and committing yourself to a relatively slow
change of direction, when in fact a quicker change is what you need.
Why take "ten seconds" to accomplish what can be done in a small
portion of that time with a coordinated maneuver using the momentum of
the ship to take you where you want to go?

Soaring is all about energy management, so use yours to get you to a
safe place, rather than waiting for gravity, or grace, to save you.


Jack

[Mike Schumann]

My point is not to try to avoid the collision, but show how big of a problem
it is when you get too close to some fast iron. It really gets to be
problematic to figure out what the best evasive maneuver is when you have a
very high closure rate.

The best solution is to try to avoid getting into this situation in the 1st
place. Having an operational transponder would be a good way to start.

Mike Schumann

"588" > wrote in message
t...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> If you are on a collision course, how are you going to know whether going
>> down is the right solution? He might be 50 ft below you, and you are
>> going to dive right into him. Or he might also decide to descend.
>
> Or you could just sit there with your eyes closed and do nothing, if you
> have trouble making decisions. If you don't have the eye to know what is
> the best move fairly quickly, almost instinctively, either aviation is not
> for you, or else you need more hours in the air with an experienced PIC.
> Get into the ball sports where an appreciation for spatial relationships,
> hand-eye coordination, relative motion on all planes, and accelerations is
> programmed into your brain -- though this is best begun at a very early
> age.
>
> ---
>
> Going down is good if you have the space; turning can work -- I have most
> often done both; going up is a very limited option in a glider so it's
> here that your timing and judgment are most critical.
>
> If I had to suggest a rule of thumb, it would be to maneuver to a position
> behind and below the traffic, and do not delay. The most natural tendency
> seems to be to go up as an initial fright response, so I would anticipate
> the other pilot will do that, if anything. By the time you have identified
> the threat as necessitating an avoidance reaction and begun your maneuver,
> his opportunity to make the situation either better or worse has probably
> already been considerably reduced. Of course there is always somebody out
> there who is both slow to react and also tends to make exactly the wrong
> move. But, if you are doing your part in the see-and-avoid dance you
> should already have solved both his problem and yours. Early awareness
> goes a long way toward simplifying the decision and enhancing your
> execution.
>
>
>> This brings to mind an interesting suggestion that I was taught when I
>> got my power license about avoiding collisions with birds: Always climb,
>> as the birds will tend to dive.
>
> The birds don't always dive, I promise you. If they are as good at
> see-and-avoid as they should be, they frequently do so. Some of them
> aren't any better than some of us, however, when it comes to traffic
> awareness. The lone hunters tend to be the sharpest, not surprisingly. The
> flockers, not so much.
>
>
> Jack

[588]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> My point is not to try to avoid the collision, but show how big of a problem
> it is when you get too close to some fast iron. It really gets to be
> problematic to figure out what the best evasive maneuver is when you have a
> very high closure rate.
>
> The best solution is to try to avoid getting into this situation in the 1st
> place. Having an operational transponder would be a good way to start.


Start with PCAS it's cheaper, uses less power, and helps you control
your own destiny -- if you only have room for one unit. However, the
transponder/PCAS combination gives you everything you need to avoid
the scary big fast airplanes, AND the friendly little gliders in your
own club which are the ships you are most likely to hit. If all
gliders were so equipped we would all be safer.

Stall/spin in the pattern, midair anywhere -- these are the things
that kill glider pilots.

I suspect that after a pilot has flown with PCAS for awhile and has
come to realize how much traffic there is that he was not aware of
before, that pilot will be even more likely to want the transponder, too.


Jack

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> Stop turning and stick the nose down steeply at the same time.
>
> That's about the quickest way to exit a given volume of air that I can
> think of if you're starting from a low airspeed.

That's precisely the problem: exactly what volume of air do I need to exit?
At those distances and rates of closure it is very difficult to estimate the
point of impact in 3D, especially given the extremely limited time for
decision. No ball game that I know comes close to the order of magnitude of
parameters that we deal with here. This is closer to dodging bullets than it
is to any ball game.

Oh, and by the way, from the other side this situation does not look nearly
as dramatic. If initiated 20 seconds before impact, a mere 2g pull (in
either direction) for 5 seconds (followed by straight flight) puts the jet's
trajectory nearly a mile from the point of impact -- the distance that
glider can not possibly cover in the same time even in the worst case. This
assumes the jet speed of 300 kts.

(Could this possibly have been at least the part of the logic behind giving
gliders right-of-way over powered aircrafts?)
--
Yuliy

[Rory O'Conor[_1_]]

Zooms maintain total energy, assuming no losses.

Total energy = potential energy + kinetic energy = mgh + 1/2 mv2.

If v(elocity) reduced from 80 knots to 50 knots then
Gain in h (eight) = 170 feet.
From 100 knots to 50 knots then gain = 330 feet.

Hence those pull-ups into thermals and after racing finishes.

If you were at 80 knots and dived 350 feet, then you would
Accelerate to 120 knots.

However if you are low and slow at 50kts then a pull up
Will only give you 40 feet before you stall at 40 knots.

Rory


Author: Edward Winchester >
Date/Time: 16:10 07 September 2006
------------------------------------------------------------

If you're cruising fast between thermals, it may work better to put the
stick in your lap, which would zoom you at least a couple hundred feet.
(don't ask me how I know this.)

[Mike Lindsay]

In article >, Martin Gregorie
> writes
>Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>> "kirk.stant" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>> Plus, 20 seconds is an eternity when it comes to getting out of the
>>> way.
>>
>> I asked this question several times, and never saw a convincing answer:
>> exactly how do you use even the 20 seconds if you have them to avoid
>> something coming at you at 300 (or, it was suggested, possibly much more)
>> knots?
> >
>Stop turning and stick the nose down steeply at the same time.
>
>That's about the quickest way to exit a given volume of air that I can
>think of if you're starting from a low airspeed. I'll be interested to
>hear of anything that would be faster and/or of something what would
>work if you're too low to dive away from the threat.
>
>
Yebbut, what if the threat is coming from below? This happened to me
when I spotted what I took to be a glider and tug combination, below and
at my 10 o'clock, which rather too rapidly resolved itself into 2 A-10s
climbing to my level. They went by about 100 feet higher, one each side.
I filed an airmiss report, but by the time it was investigated, the A-10
drivers concerned had returned home across the Pond.
--
Mike Lindsay

[Mike Lindsay]

In article >, Martin Gregorie
> writes
>Mike Schumann wrote:
>> If you are on a collision course, how are you going to know whether going
>> down is the right solution? He might be 50 ft below you, and you are going
>> to dive right into him. Or he might also decide to descend.
>>
>If you need to get out from in front while thermalling, you'll need some
>more airspeed to do so and that means lowering the nose to accelerate
>while, hopefully, turning to aim off to one side of him.
>
>The opposition has first to see you in order to decide to descend. If we
>assign equal probabilities to him climbing, turning or diving then
>anything you do to move away from his current course has a 75% chance of
>being right.
>
>Now lets be generous and give him a 50% chance of seeing you.
>Probabilities multiply when they are combined, so that gives you an 87%
> chance of being right.
>
>> This brings to mind an interesting suggestion that I was taught when I got
>> my power license about avoiding collisions with birds: Always climb, as the
>> birds will tend to dive.
>>
>That's only useful if you have an engine or airspeed. If you're
>thermalling and try that you'll end up descending about 2 seconds later
>and, if the opposition saw you pull up, he'll be down there waiting for
>you. Besides, if he read the same book you're quoting he'll be more
>likely to pull up than to dive.
>
>In any case, you didn't say what you'd do, so I'll ask again. What would
>you do that's better than diving out of the way?
>

Most of the threats round these parts find it a lot easier to
avoid you at the last second by pulling up, so I reckon Martin's advice
is the best going.

One day about 15 years ago I was downwind to land on 03 in the
tug. I saw an A-10 passing west to east about at 500ft over the approach
to this runway. Of course, he would be long gone by the time I got
there, so no problem.

When I landed, people rushed up and said "Did you see him?"
"Who?"
"The A-10"
"Oh, yes, but he was half a mile away over the end of the
airfield"
"No, not him. The other one, which we saw screaming towards you
when you were downwind. He must have seen you at the last moment, he
pulled up and missed you by about 5 feet. We thought we'd be looking to
get a new tug."

I never saw the second A-10. But I'm glad they all went home
when the cold war ended.
>

--
Mike Lindsay

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Edward Winchester wrote:
>
>> I agree with Martin, but for the thermalling case,
>> I'd amend that to put the top rudder on the floor and
>> the stick in the opposite corner, at least at first.
>> You'll lose hundreds of feet in 10 seconds, and not
>> gain a ridiculous amount of airspeed.
> I like that! Must add it to my mental store and/or try it with plenty
> of height and an empty sky. I've had a very similar maneuver demoed in a
> Puchacz but don't know what my Libelle would do.
>
Following up on that:

Yesterday I tried that in both the Puchacz and then in my Std. Libelle
and the answer as to whether its a good idea is "it depends".

In either gliders the descent rate didn't feel particularly rapid. I had
a logger running in the Libelle, which showed the descent rate to be
somewhere around 1000 ft/min., or 166 ft in 10 seconds - respectable
though hardly "hundreds of feet in 10 seconds".

Its easily controlled in the Puchacz, thanks to its large side area and
huge rudder: exit speed was essentially the same as entry speed and the
flight path during the descent was a gentle curve toward the side with
the canopy on it.

The Libelle is a different case. It hasn't enough side area or rudder
power to control your speed unless you also have some back stick and
that makes your descent path into a spiral rather than a gentle curve.
Although its a fairly controllable descent mode I don't think I'd use it
again in a Libelle.



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

[Roger Worden]

Assigning equal probabilities won't always work. In the case of the Hawker
collision, the jet was descending, so diving would not have increased
separation as fast as climbing. In that particular region, jets are more
likely to be descending than climbing, so maybe the choice should be
influenced by what one knows about likely traffic in the area. South of
Reno, climb. North of Reno, dive. 'Course, that depends on which way ATC is
directing traffic... which is why Minden's glider educational materials tell
us to listen to ATC once in a while.

But that aside, on average it seems to me that (in a glider) diving would be
better because one will accelerate over time, increasing the distance from
where one started out. Zooming would not be as effective because speed will
decay, so the separation will initially grow but then will not grow so much.
Then one will either have to stay up there or descend back down through the
original altitude.

Since both pilots are nearly equally likely to choose climbing or diving,
leaving a 50% chance of ending up near each others' altitude, it seems to me
that diverting horizontally 90 degrees (perpendicular to the approaching
aircraft's heading) will help just as much as as changing altitude. Again,
both pilots could choose to turn the same way, so a 50% chance of still
being on a collision course. So turn AND climb/dive, and you end up with
more like a 25% chance of being in each others' way.

Roger (who's only had close encounters of the feathered kind)

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
> > If you are on a collision course, how are you going to know whether
going
> > down is the right solution? He might be 50 ft below you, and you are
going
> > to dive right into him. Or he might also decide to descend.
> >
> If you need to get out from in front while thermalling, you'll need some
> more airspeed to do so and that means lowering the nose to accelerate
> while, hopefully, turning to aim off to one side of him.
>
> The opposition has first to see you in order to decide to descend. If we
> assign equal probabilities to him climbing, turning or diving then
> anything you do to move away from his current course has a 75% chance of
> being right.
>
> Now lets be generous and give him a 50% chance of seeing you.
> Probabilities multiply when they are combined, so that gives you an 87%
> chance of being right.
>
> > This brings to mind an interesting suggestion that I was taught when I
got
> > my power license about avoiding collisions with birds: Always climb, as
the
> > birds will tend to dive.
> >
> That's only useful if you have an engine or airspeed. If you're
> thermalling and try that you'll end up descending about 2 seconds later
> and, if the opposition saw you pull up, he'll be down there waiting for
> you. Besides, if he read the same book you're quoting he'll be more
> likely to pull up than to dive.
>
> In any case, you didn't say what you'd do, so I'll ask again. What would
> you do that's better than diving out of the way?
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |
>

[bumper]

Considering that the glider in question was in a left thermalling turn, that
the pilot caught just a brief glimpse of the inbound jet, just enough to
identify it as having two engines, before it tore into his glider, and that
the Hawker hit his upper wing about mid-span (or so I'm told), pulling up
may not have been such a good idea (g).

As someone else posted, most power pilots are trained to pull up for birds,
as the bird will invariably fold its wings and dive. I'd venture to say that
absent definitive altitude information about the threat, most power pilots
will pull up to avoid an impact.

My choice goes to diving to avoid a collision while flying a glider. If one
is thermalling at a relatively low speed, there's not going to be a lot of
energy to climb much, or fast.

bumper


"Roger Worden" > wrote in message
. net...
> Assigning equal probabilities won't always work. In the case of the Hawker
> collision, the jet was descending, so diving would not have increased
> separation as fast as climbing. In that particular region, jets are more
> likely to be descending than climbing, so maybe the choice should be
> influenced by what one knows about likely traffic in the area. South of
> Reno, climb. North of Reno, dive. 'Course, that depends on which way ATC
> is
> directing traffic... which is why Minden's glider educational materials
> tell
> us to listen to ATC once in a while.
>
> But that aside, on average it seems to me that (in a glider) diving would
> be
> better because one will accelerate over time, increasing the distance from
> where one started out. Zooming would not be as effective because speed
> will
> decay, so the separation will initially grow but then will not grow so
> much.
> Then one will either have to stay up there or descend back down through
> the
> original altitude.
>
> Since both pilots are nearly equally likely to choose climbing or diving,
> leaving a 50% chance of ending up near each others' altitude, it seems to
> me
> that diverting horizontally 90 degrees (perpendicular to the approaching
> aircraft's heading) will help just as much as as changing altitude. Again,
> both pilots could choose to turn the same way, so a 50% chance of still
> being on a collision course. So turn AND climb/dive, and you end up with
> more like a 25% chance of being in each others' way.
>
> Roger (who's only had close encounters of the feathered kind)
>
> "Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> > If you are on a collision course, how are you going to know whether
> going
>> > down is the right solution? He might be 50 ft below you, and you are
> going
>> > to dive right into him. Or he might also decide to descend.
>> >
>> If you need to get out from in front while thermalling, you'll need some
>> more airspeed to do so and that means lowering the nose to accelerate
>> while, hopefully, turning to aim off to one side of him.
>>
>> The opposition has first to see you in order to decide to descend. If we
>> assign equal probabilities to him climbing, turning or diving then
>> anything you do to move away from his current course has a 75% chance of
>> being right.
>>
>> Now lets be generous and give him a 50% chance of seeing you.
>> Probabilities multiply when they are combined, so that gives you an 87%
>> chance of being right.
>>
>> > This brings to mind an interesting suggestion that I was taught when I
> got
>> > my power license about avoiding collisions with birds: Always climb,
>> > as
> the
>> > birds will tend to dive.
>> >
>> That's only useful if you have an engine or airspeed. If you're
>> thermalling and try that you'll end up descending about 2 seconds later
>> and, if the opposition saw you pull up, he'll be down there waiting for
>> you. Besides, if he read the same book you're quoting he'll be more
>> likely to pull up than to dive.
>>
>> In any case, you didn't say what you'd do, so I'll ask again. What would
>> you do that's better than diving out of the way?
>>
>>
>> --
>> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>> gregorie. | Essex, UK
>> org |
>>
>
>

[588]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:

> That's precisely the problem: exactly what volume of air do I need to exit?

Only that volume of air (the size of your glider) through which the
traffic is about to pass. Quite small, really.


> At those distances and rates of closure it is very difficult to estimate the
> point of impact in 3D, especially given the extremely limited time for
> decision.

Difficult? Limited? Relative to what?


> No ball game that I know comes close to the order of magnitude of
> parameters that we deal with here.

Then you don't know Baseball.

If you'd ever stood in the batter's box and had a good pitcher throw a
fast ball high and inside, and then compared that experience with a
high speed closure with another aircraft, you'd find that the numbers
don't really tell the story. No number can describe the actual
experience -- you just have to be there, in the game or in the cockpit.

But if you do prefer numbers, here they are: at 420 kts closure with
another aircraft (708.8667 fps) from only 1/2 nm out (3038 feet) you
have a leisurely period of 4.2857 seconds which you can use to avoid
impact; compare this with the release of the baseball from the pitcher's
hand at considerably less than the nominal 60' 6" to the plate (but call
it 60 feet) at 90 mph (132 fps, and 13 mph SLOWER than the fastest
recorded pitch) which gives you 0.4545 seconds until impact (hopefully
with your bat and not your head). If this gives you renewed respect for
Ted Williams (life time batting average .344) as a baseball player as
well as a fighter pilot, that's good too. Of course, we need to bat
1.000 when it comes to traffic avoidance, but even with only 0.5 nm
separation at 420 kts we have almost ten times as long as we would when
standing in the batter's box to decide what to do, and make our move.

I assume you have already found out that you can hear a powered
aircraft from the cockpit of your glider. You can hear that baseball
coming too, which adds to the fun. And, you will remember that sound
also, but only if the ball misses your head.


> This is closer to dodging bullets than it
> is to any ball game.

At a muzzle velocity of 860 fps, the .45 pistol bullet is traveling at
509.5458 kts, or about 21% faster than the aircraft in this example.
However, it has a diameter of 0.45 inch whereas the cross section of the
Hawker 800XP is a 2-3 meter oval, sans wings and tail. Not at all
comparable. I'll take the Hawker 800XP challenge at a half mile every
time over the .45 ACP challenge at 20 paces. YMMV. As for the baseball,
at ~three inches in diameter, it's a better deal than the 230 gr FMJ,
but the Hawker 800XP is still the easiest of all to deal with, by far.

None of these three "sports" is for the indecisive, or the feint of
heart. The advantage is very definitely to the observant, the trained,
and the confidant. One must deal successfully with the numbers, and the
experience -- and it can be done.


Jack

[Mike Schumann]

I don't share your confidence in your ability to avoid a Hawker. Not only
do you have to luck out and see him in time, but you need to be able to tell
exactly where he is going compared to your airspace, not only if he
continues on a straight path, but also if he sees you and tries to maneuver.

The best strategy is to get and use a transponder so you never get close to
this situation.

Mike Schumann

"588" > wrote in message
m...
> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>
>> That's precisely the problem: exactly what volume of air do I need to
>> exit?
>
> Only that volume of air (the size of your glider) through which the
> traffic is about to pass. Quite small, really.
>
>
>> At those distances and rates of closure it is very difficult to estimate
>> the point of impact in 3D, especially given the extremely limited time
>> for decision.
>
> Difficult? Limited? Relative to what?
>
>
>> No ball game that I know comes close to the order of magnitude of
>> parameters that we deal with here.
>
> Then you don't know Baseball.
>
> If you'd ever stood in the batter's box and had a good pitcher throw a
> fast ball high and inside, and then compared that experience with a
> high speed closure with another aircraft, you'd find that the numbers
> don't really tell the story. No number can describe the actual
> experience -- you just have to be there, in the game or in the cockpit.
>
> But if you do prefer numbers, here they are: at 420 kts closure with
> another aircraft (708.8667 fps) from only 1/2 nm out (3038 feet) you have
> a leisurely period of 4.2857 seconds which you can use to avoid impact;
> compare this with the release of the baseball from the pitcher's hand at
> considerably less than the nominal 60' 6" to the plate (but call it 60
> feet) at 90 mph (132 fps, and 13 mph SLOWER than the fastest
> recorded pitch) which gives you 0.4545 seconds until impact (hopefully
> with your bat and not your head). If this gives you renewed respect for
> Ted Williams (life time batting average .344) as a baseball player as well
> as a fighter pilot, that's good too. Of course, we need to bat 1.000 when
> it comes to traffic avoidance, but even with only 0.5 nm separation at 420
> kts we have almost ten times as long as we would when standing in the
> batter's box to decide what to do, and make our move.
>
> I assume you have already found out that you can hear a powered
> aircraft from the cockpit of your glider. You can hear that baseball
> coming too, which adds to the fun. And, you will remember that sound also,
> but only if the ball misses your head.
>
>
> > This is closer to dodging bullets than it
> > is to any ball game.
>
> At a muzzle velocity of 860 fps, the .45 pistol bullet is traveling at
> 509.5458 kts, or about 21% faster than the aircraft in this example.
> However, it has a diameter of 0.45 inch whereas the cross section of the
> Hawker 800XP is a 2-3 meter oval, sans wings and tail. Not at all
> comparable. I'll take the Hawker 800XP challenge at a half mile every time
> over the .45 ACP challenge at 20 paces. YMMV. As for the baseball, at
> ~three inches in diameter, it's a better deal than the 230 gr FMJ, but the
> Hawker 800XP is still the easiest of all to deal with, by far.
>
> None of these three "sports" is for the indecisive, or the feint of heart.
> The advantage is very definitely to the observant, the trained, and the
> confidant. One must deal successfully with the numbers, and the
> experience -- and it can be done.
>
>
> Jack
>
>

[588]

Mike Schumann wrote:

> I don't share your confidence in your ability to avoid a Hawker.
> Not only do you have to luck out and see him in time, but you
> need to be able to tell exactly where he is going compared to
> your airspace, not only if he continues on a straight path, but
> also if he sees you and tries to maneuver.

I don't have as much confidence in my ability to avoid a Hawker as I
would like to have. But I do have more confidence in that than in my
ability to "dodge a bullet", or a baseball, which are the comparisons I
made in response to another poster's implication that there was little
difference between a Hawker and a bullet. There is more to it than a
comparison of numbers, but if you are going to compare the numbers then
compare all of them -- and while doing so, season it all with a bit of
common sense, and experience, to ferret out the reality with which we
must deal in the cockpit.

As far as "lucking out", I'm sure the harder I work the luckier I will
get when it comes to spotting traffic. I continue to advocate the PCAS
as one way to enhance that process, and there are others. If you run
right out and install a transponder -- and I think you should -- I will
know where you are. You won't know where I am but that apparently
doesn't bother you, so I will take care of both of us if I can.

You say you can't judge closure. Yes, it does get harder the faster
everybody is moving and the smaller is the target. I must ask you then,
how have you survived this long? Or have you? I've been assuming here
that you have some flight time. Either you and Yuliy have never seen
another aircraft in the sky or you both have been extremely fortunate
in that the other pilot, or the big-sky concept, saved you. Because,
according to each of you, the problem of judging closure is
insurmountable. Please, stay at home if that is the case for you.

If you wish to have a realistic learning process take place here (and I
hope to benefit from it) then we are going to have to deal with
specifics, and with outcomes. You know, those unintended consequence
things; those unanticipated little complications and inadequacies that
make the best planned lays go away.


> The best strategy is to get and use a transponder so you never
> get close to this situation.

Apparently, you know of a transponder which will erect an impenetrable
shield around your aircraft. I hadn't heard of it.

But, I hope you do get a transponder, because I'm sure it will help in
some situations. And please let us know if you gain some insight into
the other 90 % of the traffic avoidance problem, because that will still
exist. You are failing to address the other 90% when you put all your
faith in a transponder.

If we are not willing to understand the whole problem of traffic
avoidance, if we do not believe it can be done without ceding control of
our flight to another entity, which is the only way that
Universal-Transponderism by itself can work, then we have no business
getting into a cockpit. Ultimately, we are saying that our sport cannot
survive. Psychiatrists should have a field day with all of that.

As I pointed out with a comparison of numbers in my response to Yuliy,
the problem of visual traffic avoidance is substantial, but not
impossible. What it takes to make it work has already been discussed
here ad infinitum, occasionally by knowledgeable posters, but still
hasn't gotten through to some. There is no way to replace the human eye,
and the motivation to use it and all the other tools available to the
pilot, by a simple reliance on technology and central control.

So let's take it one step at a time. Explain to us, if you don't mind,
what will be the result of every glider having a working transponder. A
simple question, no?


Jack

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

> "588" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>>
>>> That's precisely the problem: exactly what volume of air do I need to
>>> exit?
>> Only that volume of air (the size of your glider) through which the
>> traffic is about to pass. Quite small, really.
>>
>>
>>> At those distances and rates of closure it is very difficult to estimate
>>> the point of impact in 3D, especially given the extremely limited time
>>> for decision.
>> Difficult? Limited? Relative to what?
>>
>>
>>> No ball game that I know comes close to the order of magnitude of
>>> parameters that we deal with here.
>> Then you don't know Baseball.
>>
>> If you'd ever stood in the batter's box and had a good pitcher throw a
>> fast ball high and inside, and then compared that experience with a
>> high speed closure with another aircraft, you'd find that the numbers
>> don't really tell the story. No number can describe the actual
>> experience -- you just have to be there, in the game or in the cockpit.
>>
>> But if you do prefer numbers, here they are: at 420 kts closure with
>> another aircraft (708.8667 fps) from only 1/2 nm out (3038 feet) you have
>> a leisurely period of 4.2857 seconds which you can use to avoid impact;
>> compare this with the release of the baseball from the pitcher's hand at
>> considerably less than the nominal 60' 6" to the plate (but call it 60
>> feet) at 90 mph (132 fps, and 13 mph SLOWER than the fastest
>> recorded pitch) which gives you 0.4545 seconds until impact (hopefully
>> with your bat and not your head). If this gives you renewed respect for
>> Ted Williams (life time batting average .344) as a baseball player as well
>> as a fighter pilot, that's good too. Of course, we need to bat 1.000 when
>> it comes to traffic avoidance, but even with only 0.5 nm separation at 420
>> kts we have almost ten times as long as we would when standing in the
>> batter's box to decide what to do, and make our move.
>>
>> I assume you have already found out that you can hear a powered
>> aircraft from the cockpit of your glider. You can hear that baseball
>> coming too, which adds to the fun. And, you will remember that sound also,
>> but only if the ball misses your head.
>>
>>
>>> This is closer to dodging bullets than it
>>> is to any ball game.
>> At a muzzle velocity of 860 fps, the .45 pistol bullet is traveling at
>> 509.5458 kts, or about 21% faster than the aircraft in this example.
>> However, it has a diameter of 0.45 inch whereas the cross section of the
>> Hawker 800XP is a 2-3 meter oval, sans wings and tail. Not at all
>> comparable. I'll take the Hawker 800XP challenge at a half mile every time
>> over the .45 ACP challenge at 20 paces. YMMV. As for the baseball, at
>> ~three inches in diameter, it's a better deal than the 230 gr FMJ, but the
>> Hawker 800XP is still the easiest of all to deal with, by far.
>>
>> None of these three "sports" is for the indecisive, or the feint of heart.
>> The advantage is very definitely to the observant, the trained, and the
>> confidant. One must deal successfully with the numbers, and the
>> experience -- and it can be done.
>>
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
>
>

[Mike Schumann]

There are no perfect solutions. A transponder will not help you avoid the
vast majority of VFR traffic. It will help IFR traffic see you and stay
away. I have never claimed anything more.

I'm just pragmatic about the limitations of see and avoid. Converging
traffic can be very difficult to see, particularly if it is overtaking you
from behind. I'm not disputing that having a PCAS type of device would be
helpful.

Mike Schumann

"588" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>
> > I don't share your confidence in your ability to avoid a Hawker.
> > Not only do you have to luck out and see him in time, but you
> > need to be able to tell exactly where he is going compared to
> > your airspace, not only if he continues on a straight path, but
> > also if he sees you and tries to maneuver.
>
> I don't have as much confidence in my ability to avoid a Hawker as I would
> like to have. But I do have more confidence in that than in my ability to
> "dodge a bullet", or a baseball, which are the comparisons I made in
> response to another poster's implication that there was little difference
> between a Hawker and a bullet. There is more to it than a comparison of
> numbers, but if you are going to compare the numbers then compare all of
> them -- and while doing so, season it all with a bit of common sense, and
> experience, to ferret out the reality with which we must deal in the
> cockpit.
>
> As far as "lucking out", I'm sure the harder I work the luckier I will get
> when it comes to spotting traffic. I continue to advocate the PCAS as one
> way to enhance that process, and there are others. If you run right out
> and install a transponder -- and I think you should -- I will know where
> you are. You won't know where I am but that apparently doesn't bother you,
> so I will take care of both of us if I can.
>
> You say you can't judge closure. Yes, it does get harder the faster
> everybody is moving and the smaller is the target. I must ask you then,
> how have you survived this long? Or have you? I've been assuming here that
> you have some flight time. Either you and Yuliy have never seen another
> aircraft in the sky or you both have been extremely fortunate in that the
> other pilot, or the big-sky concept, saved you. Because, according to each
> of you, the problem of judging closure is insurmountable. Please, stay at
> home if that is the case for you.
>
> If you wish to have a realistic learning process take place here (and I
> hope to benefit from it) then we are going to have to deal with specifics,
> and with outcomes. You know, those unintended consequence things; those
> unanticipated little complications and inadequacies that make the best
> planned lays go away.
>
>
> > The best strategy is to get and use a transponder so you never
> > get close to this situation.
>
> Apparently, you know of a transponder which will erect an impenetrable
> shield around your aircraft. I hadn't heard of it.
>
> But, I hope you do get a transponder, because I'm sure it will help in
> some situations. And please let us know if you gain some insight into the
> other 90 % of the traffic avoidance problem, because that will still
> exist. You are failing to address the other 90% when you put all your
> faith in a transponder.
>
> If we are not willing to understand the whole problem of traffic
> avoidance, if we do not believe it can be done without ceding control of
> our flight to another entity, which is the only way that
> Universal-Transponderism by itself can work, then we have no business
> getting into a cockpit. Ultimately, we are saying that our sport cannot
> survive. Psychiatrists should have a field day with all of that.
>
> As I pointed out with a comparison of numbers in my response to Yuliy, the
> problem of visual traffic avoidance is substantial, but not impossible.
> What it takes to make it work has already been discussed here ad
> infinitum, occasionally by knowledgeable posters, but still hasn't gotten
> through to some. There is no way to replace the human eye, and the
> motivation to use it and all the other tools available to the pilot, by a
> simple reliance on technology and central control.
>
> So let's take it one step at a time. Explain to us, if you don't mind,
> what will be the result of every glider having a working transponder. A
> simple question, no?
>
>
> Jack
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>> "588" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's precisely the problem: exactly what volume of air do I need to
>>>> exit?
>>> Only that volume of air (the size of your glider) through which the
>>> traffic is about to pass. Quite small, really.
>>>
>>>
>>>> At those distances and rates of closure it is very difficult to
>>>> estimate the point of impact in 3D, especially given the extremely
>>>> limited time for decision.
>>> Difficult? Limited? Relative to what?
>>>
>>>
>>>> No ball game that I know comes close to the order of magnitude of
>>>> parameters that we deal with here.
>>> Then you don't know Baseball.
>>>
>>> If you'd ever stood in the batter's box and had a good pitcher throw a
>>> fast ball high and inside, and then compared that experience with a
>>> high speed closure with another aircraft, you'd find that the numbers
>>> don't really tell the story. No number can describe the actual
>>> experience -- you just have to be there, in the game or in the cockpit.
>>>
>>> But if you do prefer numbers, here they are: at 420 kts closure with
>>> another aircraft (708.8667 fps) from only 1/2 nm out (3038 feet) you
>>> have a leisurely period of 4.2857 seconds which you can use to avoid
>>> impact; compare this with the release of the baseball from the pitcher's
>>> hand at considerably less than the nominal 60' 6" to the plate (but call
>>> it 60 feet) at 90 mph (132 fps, and 13 mph SLOWER than the fastest
>>> recorded pitch) which gives you 0.4545 seconds until impact (hopefully
>>> with your bat and not your head). If this gives you renewed respect for
>>> Ted Williams (life time batting average .344) as a baseball player as
>>> well as a fighter pilot, that's good too. Of course, we need to bat
>>> 1.000 when it comes to traffic avoidance, but even with only 0.5 nm
>>> separation at 420 kts we have almost ten times as long as we would when
>>> standing in the batter's box to decide what to do, and make our move.
>>>
>>> I assume you have already found out that you can hear a powered
>>> aircraft from the cockpit of your glider. You can hear that baseball
>>> coming too, which adds to the fun. And, you will remember that sound
>>> also, but only if the ball misses your head.
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is closer to dodging bullets than it
>>>> is to any ball game.
>>> At a muzzle velocity of 860 fps, the .45 pistol bullet is traveling at
>>> 509.5458 kts, or about 21% faster than the aircraft in this example.
>>> However, it has a diameter of 0.45 inch whereas the cross section of the
>>> Hawker 800XP is a 2-3 meter oval, sans wings and tail. Not at all
>>> comparable. I'll take the Hawker 800XP challenge at a half mile every
>>> time over the .45 ACP challenge at 20 paces. YMMV. As for the baseball,
>>> at ~three inches in diameter, it's a better deal than the 230 gr FMJ,
>>> but the Hawker 800XP is still the easiest of all to deal with, by far.
>>>
>>> None of these three "sports" is for the indecisive, or the feint of
>>> heart. The advantage is very definitely to the observant, the trained,
>>> and the confidant. One must deal successfully with the numbers, and the
>>> experience -- and it can be done.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>>
>>

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> There are no perfect solutions. A transponder will not help you avoid the
> vast majority of VFR traffic.

I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR
airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units?
I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers. If so,
then a transponder would help you avoid (indirectly, since they would be
doing the actual "avoiding") the majority of VFR traffic.

Locally, two gliders have PCAS/transponders, 2 have transponders only, 1
has PCAS only, and two have neither. Of course, we all have radios and
track each other that way.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Brian[_1_]]

> I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR
> airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units?
> I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers. If so,
> then a transponder would help you avoid (indirectly, since they would be
> doing the actual "avoiding") the majority of VFR traffic.
Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org



I fly a fair number of single engine VFR and IFR aircraft throughout
the year. My personal experience is that I have yet to flown one that
had any sort of Transponder Detector. I have talked to a couple pilots
that would like to get one, but have yet to actually do so. So my
personal experience is that very few VFR Single engine aircraft carry a
Transponder Detector. On the other hand very few of these aircraft fly
above 10,000 ft on a regular basis as well.

Brian Case
CFIIG/ASEL

[Mike Schumann]

During the last year or so, Garman was selling quite a few Mode S
Transponders to people who already had their Moving Map GPS systems. With
TIS, you got the benefit of seeing traffic on your display.

A number of months ago, the FAA announced that they were phasing out TIS as
they install new radars. As a result, the interest in Mode S transponders
in the GA market has dried up. Now, to get this capability, you have to
wait for ADS-B, which the FAA is taking their sweet time deploying.

Once ADS-B becomes universally deployed and affordable, I suspect you will
start seeing a lot of VFR pilots who will have the able to see ADS-B and
transponder equiped aircraft.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:P36Ng.3190$xh3.2277@trnddc01...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> There are no perfect solutions. A transponder will not help you avoid
>> the vast majority of VFR traffic.
>
> I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR
> airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units? I'd
> guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers. If so, then a
> transponder would help you avoid (indirectly, since they would be doing
> the actual "avoiding") the majority of VFR traffic.
>
> Locally, two gliders have PCAS/transponders, 2 have transponders only, 1
> has PCAS only, and two have neither. Of course, we all have radios and
> track each other that way.
>
> --
> Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
> www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"588" > wrote in message
m...
>> No ball game that I know comes close to the order of magnitude of
>> parameters that we deal with here.
>
> Then you don't know Baseball.

In fact, I don't, indeed. So thanks for the numbers.

Now, if only all Hawkers were *coming* from a very well defined -- and known
in advance -- point in space (as pitcher's throw is defined by human body
mechanics), and *going* into a similarly well defined box in space, our job
would be easy.

Imagine that the pitcher can be ANYWHERE around you in 3D, and that he is
invisible -- you don't see him when he throws, only the ball and only once
it is speeding SOMEWHERE towards you. Now, bat!

> I assume you have already found out that you can hear a powered
> aircraft from the cockpit of your glider.

Nope -- never been close enough, I guess. I doubt it, however, given that
(1) bizjets are amazingly quiet, (2) bizjets descending at flight idle are
quieter yet, and (3) the wind noise is very noticeable even in the best of
the modern gliders. So I would not rely on hearing. Funny, BTW, that in a
parallel thread somebody is suggesting earplugs :) .

> None of these three "sports" is for the indecisive, or the feint of heart.
> The advantage is very definitely to the observant, the trained, and the
> confidant. One must deal successfully with the numbers, and the
> experience -- and it can be done.
>
> Jack
--
Yuliy

[Ron Natalie]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR
> airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units?
> I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers.

I would think it is actually a tiny fraction. Of all the planes I've
seen or been in over the past year, I can recall only seeing one of
these devices. On the other hand I've been in several with TIS and
one with ADS-B, but even that is a small percentage of the total.

[Eric Greenwell]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the
>> VFR airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost
>> units? I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers.
>
> I would think it is actually a tiny fraction. Of all the planes I've
> seen or been in over the past year, I can recall only seeing one of
> these devices. On the other hand I've been in several with TIS and
> one with ADS-B, but even that is a small percentage of the total.

Do you suppose these pilots are using flight following, and decided a
PCAS unit wouldn't improve their odds any? They seem cheap and
plentiful, and airplanes usually fly where there are other airplanes,
all with transponders.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Mike Schumann]

When I was flying power cross countries, I would always try to use flight
following. Unfortunately, most VFR traffic is probably pretty localized
where pilots wouldn't necessarily be doing this.

It's really too bad that the FAA is phasing out TIS. I suspect that almost
everyone who is buying or upgrading to a glass cockpit or even a Garman 430
/ 530 would have taken a really hard look at springing the extra $3-4K for a
Mode S transponder to get the traffic info.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:NEFNg.3724$xr.257@trnddc03...
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR
>>> airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units?
>>> I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers.
>>
>> I would think it is actually a tiny fraction. Of all the planes I've
>> seen or been in over the past year, I can recall only seeing one of
>> these devices. On the other hand I've been in several with TIS and
>> one with ADS-B, but even that is a small percentage of the total.
>
> Do you suppose these pilots are using flight following, and decided a PCAS
> unit wouldn't improve their odds any? They seem cheap and plentiful, and
> airplanes usually fly where there are other airplanes, all with
> transponders.
>
> --
> Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
> www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[588]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:

> Now, if only all Hawkers were *coming* from a very well defined -- and known
> in advance -- point in space (as pitcher's throw is defined by human body
> mechanics), and *going* into a similarly well defined box in space, our job
> would be easy.

No, it wouldn't be "easy" -- it also wouldn't be as difficult as has
been claimed. The problem may be that we have not separated the
process into its constituent parts: 1) find the traffic; 2) avoid the
traffic. Finding the traffic is the most difficult. Avoiding it depends
on finding it before it gets so close that you don't have time to avoid.

The only traffic you must be concerned with is that which is "going
into a similarly well defined box in space" -- your aircraft. Your
cockpit is the batters box, the plate is all of your aircraft which you
must protect, to continue the baseball analogy (probably overworked by now).

So how are we going to find the traffic in time to avoid it? In ALL
cases, by using our eyes. Whether we are initially alerted by some
electronic tool, a radio message, another crew member, or by our own
visual scan, we still must have acquired the traffic visually before we
can determine the proper response. The exception to this today is TCAS,
which is currently beyond our reach.

With the availability of inexpensive PCAS devices, the complaints about
the steep cost/benefit ratio of any proposed transponder mandate are
less convincing. If all aircraft carry operating mode-C transponders
_and_ PCAS/TCAS devices, then virtually all aircraft posing a potential
collision hazard will be identifiable to all other aircraft.


>> I assume you have already found out that you can hear a powered
>> aircraft from the cockpit of your glider.
>
> Nope -- never been close enough, I guess. I doubt it, however, given that
> (1) bizjets are amazingly quiet, (2) bizjets descending at flight idle are
> quieter yet, and (3) the wind noise is very noticeable even in the best of
> the modern gliders. So I would not rely on hearing.

For a guy who has never been close enough to hear another aircraft (or
is it only a bizjet?), you are very sensitive to the possibility of a
midair. Would that more people were. I wouldn't know about "modern
gliders", but from the cockpit of my 1-26, a type not noted for its
inherent silence, I can sometimes hear other gliders with whom I share a
thermal. Mentioning sound doesn't mean that I expect it to be a useful
collision avoidance device, however.

If we identify which phase of the traffic avoidance problem we are
addressing, we will probably find we have very few points of disagreement.


Jack

[588]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR
> airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units?
> I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers. If so,
> then a transponder would help you avoid (indirectly, since they would be
> doing the actual "avoiding") the majority of VFR traffic.
>
> Locally, two gliders have PCAS/transponders, 2 have transponders only, 1
> has PCAS only, and two have neither. Of course, we all have radios and
> track each other that way.

I don't remember reading any stats on xpndr detector usage. AOPA may
have something. I expect usage will climb steadily from where it has
been. I'm the only one I know with a PCAS unit (no transponder, yet),
but I have not conducted a survey of glider pilots in our club. I should
do so.


Jack

[Ron Natalie]

Mike Schumann wrote:

>
> It's really too bad that the FAA is phasing out TIS. I suspect that almost
> everyone who is buying or upgrading to a glass cockpit or even a Garman 430
> / 530 would have taken a really hard look at springing the extra $3-4K for a
> Mode S transponder to get the traffic info.
>
I have TIS. Yes it is a shame that the FAA is phasing it out and the
reaonsing is stupid but intelligence has never been in high supply at
the FAA to begin with. If it were we would have been transitioning
to ADS-B 20 years ago rather than crap technology like TCAS.