Midair near Minden

[Fred[_1_]]

What soaring pilots have been talking about for some time has happened.
Yesterday, in startling clear weather, with visibility measured in
dozens of miles or more, a Hawker jet ran into a sailplane at about
13,500' (5,000' AGL or more) some 10 miles east of Minden airport. The
sailplane pilot had come from Japanto enjoy several days of the world's
very best soaring. He was not disappointed: he towed into the air
around 1:00 p.m. and flew with several other pilots some fifty or so
miles south. The group of sailplane pilots was just returning to
Minden several hours later, talking to each other on the radio, when
they noticed the Japanese pilot was no longer answering their calls.

Shortly thereafter a Hawker jet landed at Carson City with pieces of a
sailplane wing embedded into its nose. The Hawker pilot said he had
hit a glider about 40 miles south. Local search and rescue groups were
called out and the sailplane wreckage was found on the east slope of
the Pine Nuts around 6:00 p.m. A LifeFlight helicopter was flying
through the area (totally unrelated to this search) and headed for the
wreckage. He saw a parachute on the ground and set down near that.
The pilot was not in the parachute, so all of us following the search
on radios on the ground figured the pilot was walking out. Sure
enough, he was found just before 7:00 p.m., walking out with minor cuts
and bruises.

This story ended with lots of sighs of relief but it could have been a
real tragedy. This was a totally VFR situation, where see and be seen
should have been in effect. I don't know yet what equipment the
sailplane had on board, but I know it was a very recently built plane.
The sailplane pilot was experienced and in good physical shape.

I don't know anything about the Hawker crew or what the NTSB will find
about their operation. My fear, though, is that the talking heads who
form much of Americans' opinions will start speaking out about the lack
of sophisticated equipment on board the sailplane. You know the kind:
"if that glider had an encoding transponder on it, this never would
have happened."

When you hear that, please point out to the speaker that the sailplane
pilot was following all the regulations, was flying in great visibility
near an airport that is maked on sectionals with a glider symbol and is
known worldwide for its fantastic soaring, and that the Hawker ran into
the saiplane, not the other way around.

And then offer up a little prayer that this won't happen again soon --
or to anyone you know. Fred

[[email protected]]

Fred,

If you have a chance to speak to either pilot, please pass along a
hearty 'Well done' from at least one other who cannot possibly imagine
what either of them must have gone through to get down as well as they
did.

Bob
Canada




Fred wrote:
> What soaring pilots have been talking about for some time has happened.
Snip

[[email protected]]

Fred wrote:
> What soaring pilots have been talking about for some time has happened.
> Yesterday, in startling clear weather, with visibility measured in
> dozens of miles or more, a Hawker jet ran into a sailplane at about
> 13,500' (5,000' AGL or more) some 10 miles east of Minden airport. The
> sailplane pilot had come from Japanto enjoy several days of the world's
> very best soaring. He was not disappointed: he towed into the air
> around 1:00 p.m. and flew with several other pilots some fifty or so
> miles south. The group of sailplane pilots was just returning to
> Minden several hours later, talking to each other on the radio, when
> they noticed the Japanese pilot was no longer answering their calls.
>
> Shortly thereafter a Hawker jet landed at Carson City with pieces of a
> sailplane wing embedded into its nose. The Hawker pilot said he had
> hit a glider about 40 miles south. Local search and rescue groups were
> called out and the sailplane wreckage was found on the east slope of
> the Pine Nuts around 6:00 p.m. A LifeFlight helicopter was flying
> through the area (totally unrelated to this search) and headed for the
> wreckage. He saw a parachute on the ground and set down near that.
> The pilot was not in the parachute, so all of us following the search
> on radios on the ground figured the pilot was walking out. Sure
> enough, he was found just before 7:00 p.m., walking out with minor cuts
> and bruises.
>
> This story ended with lots of sighs of relief but it could have been a
> real tragedy. This was a totally VFR situation, where see and be seen
> should have been in effect. I don't know yet what equipment the
> sailplane had on board, but I know it was a very recently built plane.
> The sailplane pilot was experienced and in good physical shape.
>
> I don't know anything about the Hawker crew or what the NTSB will find
> about their operation. My fear, though, is that the talking heads who
> form much of Americans' opinions will start speaking out about the lack
> of sophisticated equipment on board the sailplane. You know the kind:
> "if that glider had an encoding transponder on it, this never would
> have happened."
>
> When you hear that, please point out to the speaker that the sailplane
> pilot was following all the regulations, was flying in great visibility
> near an airport that is maked on sectionals with a glider symbol and is
> known worldwide for its fantastic soaring, and that the Hawker ran into
> the saiplane, not the other way around.
>
> And then offer up a little prayer that this won't happen again soon --
> or to anyone you know. Fred

First of all...I am extremely glad everybody involved in that accident
is alive. Second, something will come out of this, I just have a bad
feeling; I don't think that the FAA or NTSB will mandate any new
regulations, I am worrying about the reaction of the local airport mgr.
and his accomplices to curb soaring in Minden even more or maybe
completely ban it. I really hope it will not happen....

Jacek Kobiesa
Washington State

[JS]

Fred wrote:
> My fear, though, is that the talking heads who
> form much of Americans' opinions will start speaking out about the lack
> of sophisticated equipment on board the sailplane. You know the kind:
> "if that glider had an encoding transponder on it, this never would
> have happened."
>
> When you hear that, please point out to the speaker that the sailplane
> pilot was following all the regulations, was flying in great visibility
> near an airport that is maked on sectionals with a glider symbol and is
> known worldwide for its fantastic soaring, and that the Hawker ran into
> the saiplane, not the other way around.


It's GREAT that the sailplane pilot was able to safely jump out, and
the jet make an emergency landing at Carson. But I too believe that
there will be increased pressure to take away airspace near Minden.
Pressure has been building since the Reno airport became an ARSA (we
called it AIDS, it was renamed class C).

In my limited experience in biz jets, it's not uncommon to see both
pilots simultaneously eyes down. That puts the lookout responsibility
on the instruments. Great assumptions are being made about other
aircraft using Mode C. Outside Class A that's irresponsible behavior.
The comment should be: "If the jet pilot looked out the window, this
never would have happened".

During one charter flight I remember going into the cockpit to see
both P1 and P2 doing their timesheets on PDAs. We were climbing through
an area that gliders frequent.
I keep this in mind while flying.

Remember "Geese at 18,000 feet"? Geese don't have transponders either.

Jim

[jb92563]

Here are links with pictures.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/NEWS15/608290365/1144/NEWS

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=dae31ded-d017-43eb-af5a-acbbb7a5f04e&

Its interesting to note that the perception is that the glider crashed
into the jet.

Hmmmm......60+ foot span glider doing 50 mph in perfect VFR conditions
at 16,000' above the Minden Area......vs Hawker Jet with 50' span and 2
pilots traveling over 300mph.

So it was the glider that initiated the accident, as opposed to
stringently trained and licensed profesional airline pilots in perfect
VFR conditions outside of controlled airspace that ran down another
aircraft?

See how the public perceives us!!!!!

We are apparently a hazard to comercial aviation.

This should be really interesting, as precidents will be set through
the determination of fault in this accident.

Thanks god hundreds of passengers were not killed, and no one infact
was even seriously injured......but it will be a wakeup call to the FAA
and you can bet they will be obligated to take action to prevent this
sort of thing, or worse, from happening again.

[John O. Graybill]

Does anyone know whether or not the glider was transponder/mode C
equipped?

Any thoughts about a Reno Class Bravo?

John O. Graybill

[raulb]

I am sure that Chip Gardner is thinking that it is deja vu all over
again. He had a Navy jet (A-4? A-6?) eat 3 feet of his wingtip near
Mt. Palomar about 20 years ago.

Gardner managed to fy back and land at the gliderport at Hemet and the
jet limped back to Miramar NAS with a fiberglass wingtip lodged in one
of his engines.

I remember at the time that Chip said that at the speeds they fly, we
go from being a speck on the windshield to a full target in less than
16 seconds.

[Marc Ramsey]

John O. Graybill wrote:
> Does anyone know whether or not the glider was transponder/mode C
> equipped?

I don't know for sure, but unlikely, given what I know of the owners and
the circumstances.

> Any thoughts about a Reno Class Bravo?

Yes. It would pretty much eliminate cross-country soaring out of Air
Sailing and Truckee, and seriously impair soaring out of Minden. If the
accident took place within 30 miles of Reno, I expect this option will
get some discussion...

Marc

[Robert Backer]

A couple of small corrections here. Chip was flying on Hot Springs
Mountain just east of Warner Springs. The jet was on or near a low
level training route. After the collision, Chip was still able to climb
the LS4 and proposed flying back to Hemet. He was convinced by others
flying nearby that observed the damage, that maybe it would be more
prudent to land at Warner Springs.

Bob

raulb wrote:
> I am sure that Chip Gardner is thinking that it is deja vu all over
> again. He had a Navy jet (A-4? A-6?) eat 3 feet of his wingtip near
> Mt. Palomar about 20 years ago.
>
> Gardner managed to fy back and land at the gliderport at Hemet and the
> jet limped back to Miramar NAS with a fiberglass wingtip lodged in one
> of his engines.
>
> I remember at the time that Chip said that at the speeds they fly, we
> go from being a speck on the windshield to a full target in less than
> 16 seconds.
>

[Mal[_2_]]

"Robert Backer" > wrote in message
news:IH0Jg.18249$RD.7286@fed1read08...
>A couple of small corrections here. Chip was flying on Hot Springs
>Mountain just east of Warner Springs. The jet was on or near a low level
>training route. After the collision, Chip was still able to climb the LS4
>and proposed flying back to Hemet. He was convinced by others flying
>nearby that observed the damage, that maybe it would be more prudent to
>land at Warner Springs.
>
> Bob
>
> raulb wrote:
>> I am sure that Chip Gardner is thinking that it is deja vu all over
>> again. He had a Navy jet (A-4? A-6?) eat 3 feet of his wingtip near
>> Mt. Palomar about 20 years ago.
>>
>> Gardner managed to fy back and land at the gliderport at Hemet and the
>> jet limped back to Miramar NAS with a fiberglass wingtip lodged in one
>> of his engines.
>>
>> I remember at the time that Chip said that at the speeds they fly, we
>> go from being a speck on the windshield to a full target in less than
>> 16 seconds.
>>

Did they buy Lotto tickets afterwards bloody lucky I say.

[snoop]

I hope so too Jacek. I have some thoughts to add. Thank god, everone
walked away! They all need to get together and eat, drink, and be
merry, and celebrate and forget this official crap for a day or two.

At our club here in north Texas, we have had an ongoing relationship
with the Tracon/atc folks.

We have to, because over the years the airspace grab has been ongoing,
up to the point that the Class B was about to be over our heads. As of
today the south end of Class B is still north of us, only because we
met with those who own that chunk of airspace.

The KNEAD 5 IFR arrival still puts a never ending stream of 250 knot
machines zipping over our field, between 5000msl and 4000msl, when DAL
is in a north flow. TSA has some pretty good soaring days with a north
wind. Our prevailing wind is from the south thank goodness.

We now have an agreed upon system to keep relationships with all
parties happy when the wind blows from the north. It includes a phone
call directly to tracon on north flow days, before the start of flying.
The one item, I'm curious to hear about, if, this item, is on the
Reno/Minden Jeppesen IFR charts. I know it's on the VFR sectionals, but
is there a glider icon on the IFR charts in that region? It has been
added to the KNEAD 5 arrival chart for Dallas Love. The other item is
the Luv field ATIS has mention of glider operations when we are in a
north flow. This a result of meetings with the tracon and faa folks.

In one meeting quite a number of years ago, I was on our club airspace
committee. This was about the time the four corner posts of DFW
airspace were being pushed out. At this meeting which was set up for
our benefit, the attendees were the guys from Tracon, the Faa, and some
pilots and ops guys from a Luv field based airline. The Faa, and Tracon
guys had their sleeves rolled and were ready to work with us. Maps were
out on the table, everybody was writing and talking. It was
productive.

The head ops/chief pilot guy from the airline, at about the middle of
the meeting, blurts out " why don't we just shut them down". Meaning
shut down the glider operation! He wasn't kidding either. Fortunately
the tracon guys, and the faa folks explained to the airline official
that he didn't own the sky. Today, we have some of his guys enjoying
that same airspace with us flying gliders.

I don't want to spend a bunch of money on a xponder either. I'd rather
ease tensions by working with those who can help us in these matters.
It does no good to sit here and go on and on about what the public
thinks. Let's outsmart the public, and keep flying.

With regard to this accident, the final verdict may be a short
investigation, and both crews come out blameless. Might happen, they
both appear to have been doing everything right. They just happen to
meet in the same piece of air. Some are wondering about the jet crew. I
guarantee you the NTSB will ask all the questions and listen to the
tapes for sounds of head down at the time of collision. The glider crew
will answer the same questions. Were both crews fingering their FMSs',
PDA's, noses, and no one looking out at the scenery? We will know.

Yes, and we, soaring, will be scurtinized. I have no idea what
agreements the local Nevada soaring folks have established with the
keepers of the airspace, but, now would be a good time to make the
first move. Again, with all due respect, these things the Nevada folks
may have done.

snoop

>
> First of all...I am extremely glad everybody involved in that accident
> is alive. Second, something will come out of this, I just have a bad
> feeling; I don't think that the FAA or NTSB will mandate any new
> regulations, I am worrying about the reaction of the local airport mgr.
> and his accomplices to curb soaring in Minden even more or maybe
> completely ban it. I really hope it will not happen....
>
> Jacek Kobiesa
> Washington State

[mikem[_1_]]

More detailed photos can be found at Flickr: tags are minden, glider,
midair.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jzawodn/228637325/

Fred wrote:
> What soaring pilots have been talking about for some time has happened.
> Yesterday, in startling clear weather, with visibility measured in
> dozens of miles or more, a Hawker jet ran into a sailplane at about
> 13,500' (5,000' AGL or more) some 10 miles east of Minden airport. The
> sailplane pilot had come from Japanto enjoy several days of the world's
> very best soaring. He was not disappointed: he towed into the air
> around 1:00 p.m. and flew with several other pilots some fifty or so
> miles south. The group of sailplane pilots was just returning to
> Minden several hours later, talking to each other on the radio, when
> they noticed the Japanese pilot was no longer answering their calls.
>
> Shortly thereafter a Hawker jet landed at Carson City with pieces of a
> sailplane wing embedded into its nose. The Hawker pilot said he had
> hit a glider about 40 miles south. Local search and rescue groups were
> called out and the sailplane wreckage was found on the east slope of
> the Pine Nuts around 6:00 p.m. A LifeFlight helicopter was flying
> through the area (totally unrelated to this search) and headed for the
> wreckage. He saw a parachute on the ground and set down near that.
> The pilot was not in the parachute, so all of us following the search
> on radios on the ground figured the
pilot was walking out. Sure
> enough, he was found just before 7:00 p.m., walking out with minor cuts
> and bruises.
>
> This story ended with lots of sighs of relief but it could have been a
> real tragedy. This was a totally VFR situation, where see and be seen
> should have been in effect. I don't know yet what equipment the
> sailplane had on board, but I know it was a very recently built plane.
> The sailplane pilot was experienced and in good physical shape.
>
> I don't know anything about the Hawker crew or what the NTSB will find
> about their operation. My fear, though, is that the talking heads who
> form much of Americans' opinions will start speaking out about the lack
> of sophisticated equipment on board the sailplane. You know the kind:
> "if that glider had an encoding transponder on it, this never would
> have happened."
>
> When you hear that, please point out to the speaker that the sailplane
> pilot was following all the regulations, was flying in great visibility
> near an airport that is maked on sectionals with a glider symbol and is
> known worldwide for its fantastic soaring, and that the Hawker ran into
> the saiplane, not the other way around.
>
> And then offer up a little prayer that this won't happen again soon --
> or to anyone you know. Fred

[[email protected]]

This could have been completely avoided if the Eastern approach to Reno
was moved 5-10 miles to the east to keep commercial and gliders traffic
separate. Instead they bring commercial jets right down the ridge
crest in the prime local soaring area.

While we are on the approach path subject the Reno southern approach
goes directly to the west of Minden by 1 mile. This is very dangerous
in wave flying conditions.
Again this approach should be "dog legged" to the west over the lake to
keep traffic apart.

I bet there was not even a sectional out in the cockpit of the jet
showing the gliding operations area.

The typical knee jerk reaction is to shout "transponders for all" is
not the solution.
Plus it would need to be implemented on a national scale..

Hands up who has the panel space and budget right now for a
Transponder?

Lastly the local operators should brief visiting pilots that boating
around the Pinenuts really high is likely to get you run down by an
incoming jet on the eastern approach to Reno.

Anyway I am glad everyone is still alive and we are not mourning
another loss.

Al




Fred wrote:
> What soaring pilots have been talking about for some time has happened.
> Yesterday, in startling clear weather, with visibility measured in
> dozens of miles or more, a Hawker jet ran into a sailplane at about
> 13,500' (5,000' AGL or more) some 10 miles east of Minden airport. The
> sailplane pilot had come from Japanto enjoy several days of the world's
> very best soaring. He was not disappointed: he towed into the air
> around 1:00 p.m. and flew with several other pilots some fifty or so
> miles south. The group of sailplane pilots was just returning to
> Minden several hours later, talking to each other on the radio, when
> they noticed the Japanese pilot was no longer answering their calls.
>
> Shortly thereafter a Hawker jet landed at Carson City with pieces of a
> sailplane wing embedded into its nose. The Hawker pilot said he had
> hit a glider about 40 miles south. Local search and rescue groups were
> called out and the sailplane wreckage was found on the east slope of
> the Pine Nuts around 6:00 p.m. A LifeFlight helicopter was flying
> through the area (totally unrelated to this search) and headed for the
> wreckage. He saw a parachute on the ground and set down near that.
> The pilot was not in the parachute, so all of us following the search
> on radios on the ground figured the pilot was walking out. Sure
> enough, he was found just before 7:00 p.m., walking out with minor cuts
> and bruises.
>
> This story ended with lots of sighs of relief but it could have been a
> real tragedy. This was a totally VFR situation, where see and be seen
> should have been in effect. I don't know yet what equipment the
> sailplane had on board, but I know it was a very recently built plane.
> The sailplane pilot was experienced and in good physical shape.
>
> I don't know anything about the Hawker crew or what the NTSB will find
> about their operation. My fear, though, is that the talking heads who
> form much of Americans' opinions will start speaking out about the lack
> of sophisticated equipment on board the sailplane. You know the kind:
> "if that glider had an encoding transponder on it, this never would
> have happened."
>
> When you hear that, please point out to the speaker that the sailplane
> pilot was following all the regulations, was flying in great visibility
> near an airport that is maked on sectionals with a glider symbol and is
> known worldwide for its fantastic soaring, and that the Hawker ran into
> the saiplane, not the other way around.
>
> And then offer up a little prayer that this won't happen again soon --
> or to anyone you know. Fred

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

wrote:

> The typical knee jerk reaction is to shout "transponders for all" is
> not the solution.
> Plus it would need to be implemented on a national scale..

It wouldn't have to implemented nationally to be beneficial. High use
areas like Minden would be the place to start because it would reduce
the risk the most, and the glider pilots that fly there could install
transponders without the FAA requiring it. The FAA could deal with it
using the "veil" concept like the Class B areas have, but not exempt
anyone. In this case, it'd take a 45 nm veil to include the collision
point; however, the veil wouldn't have to be circular.

> Hands up who has the panel space and budget right now for a
> Transponder?

I'm sure both the owner and pilot of the ASG 29 could have easily found
both. That still leaves a lot/some pilots at Minden that would choke on
the $2500-$4000 it would take to install one, but EVERYONE can afford a
TPAS type unit at $500-$1500 (and no installation or testing costs). I
can't say it would have prevented this accident, but people that use
them seem to be quite pleased.

Several years ago, I decided I wouldn't fly at Minden anymore until I
had a transponder. Seeing airliners close enough to recognize the
airline persuaded me it was worth the money, even though I don't fly
there very often. I've jad one for several years now, and decided it's a
good value even in the lower density traffic of the Pacific Northwest
where I fly most of the time.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

[Fred[_1_]]

Some good thoughts in all this exchange of ideas. Thanks to posters
(and others) for some good suggestions.

Some answers from what I learned today:

The ASG 29 was transponder equipped. I did not find out yet if it was
turned on or off. If it was turned off, that might be bad news for
Hirao.

Hirao told me he was thermalling to the left, banked over in a pretty
steep turn, and saw the Hawker when it was just about to hit. The only
injury he sustained was what looked to be a minor cut on one arm from
being dragged behind the 'chute. Had the Hawker been five feet lower I
think it would have hit him dead-center.

Hirao spent the day in the Pine Nuts looking at the wreckage. The two
Hawker pilots were pretty shaken up: one is in hospital and the other
was too for a while.

I have not talked to Minden Airport administration today (too busy
talking to the press), but I want to respond to the poster who thought
the airport's management might try to shut down soaring. I believe
there is pretty good awareness here now just how important soaring is
to Minden, and how important Minden is to soaring. Let's withhold
judgement on this particular issue for the time being.

I've fielded three calls today from people who insist we need to
install XPDRs. Two of the callers tried to enlist my support for such
a movement. I'm opposed to it. The fact that this glider had a
transponder shows that it is not a panacea. I know, he should have had
it turned on and everything else. For some reason he did not. And how
many of us would make the same decision if we had a mandated XPDR,
either because the battery was weak, the XPDR out of calibration, or
whatever?

Most glider pilots are techies to one degree or another (just look in
our cockpit!), and it's easy to reach the conclusion from yesterday's
event that a technical fix for this problem is the best way to go --
mandate XPDRs. This strikes me as counter productive because of cost,
actual use, interoperability, etc. And if we all have XPDRS, then
we'll all rely on the technical gadget instead of flying smart.

I told one or two interviewers today (non-pilots all, who probably
don't know what a transponder is but wanted to know why the glider
didn't have one) that there's another fix and it's quicker and cheaper
than mandating XPDRs: recognize that this is a world class soaring site
and route the airliners around it. If bald eagles lived in the Pine
Nuts the airliners would have to avoid the area, but for some reason
the presence of a dozen sailplanes between 12,000 and 16,000' over the
Pine Nuts every day in summer doesn't impress itself on the folks who
decide how to route commercial traffic into Reno. Put them ten miles
east and ten miles west -- a change that would add about 3 minutes to
their flight -- and this conflict wouldn't exist.

I've briefed hundreds of pilots on the arrival routes into Reno and
I'm very familiar with them yet I've still looked down on commercial
airliners descending into Reno. If you're going to go where the lift
is over the Carson Valley (and who among us will not), you're going to
find yourself flying in shared airspace . Our choices are to make
ourselves more visible (electronically or otherwise) or stop sharing
the airspace. I for one believe the Carson Valley is a national
treasure to the soaring fraternity, and we ought to limit (I didn't say
totally reserve) access to it. We who fly here are pretty comfortable
with the power traffic -- low and high speed -- that shares our
airport. It's the guys passing through at 250 kts on the way to Reno
that we live in fear of, and yesterday's event brought it into focus.

Fred

[Yuliy Gerchikov[_1_]]

"Fred" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> My fear, though, is that the talking heads who
> form much of Americans' opinions will start speaking out about the lack
> of sophisticated equipment on board the sailplane. You know the kind:
> "if that glider had an encoding transponder on it, this never would
> have happened."
>
> When you hear that, please point out to the speaker that the sailplane
> pilot was following all the regulations

Here is a controversial part. While it's true that gliders are not required
to have a transponder, and thus it's also true that "the sailplane pilot was
following all the regulations", it's not the whole story. An argument can be
made that this particular regulation, arbitrary as any other human-made law,
might not be all that wise after all. This particular regulation, or lack of
thereof, allows us to go up without a transponder and kill ourselves -- and
possibly many others -- to our hearts' content. Does it mean that we should
stand by this regulation as one of our "freedoms"? I honestly don't know.
The law does not keep us from doing all the stupid things in the world --
common sense does. Sometimes, anyway.

OTOH, I can't quite agree with the N.O.H. theory, either. It's a simple
cost/benefit analysis. We don't have to accept all the risks as "normal" if
we can mitigate some of it at a reasonable cost. It boils down to the
definition of "reasonable", of course. So far, on the average, we as a
community seem to perceive the risk as very low and the cost as
"unreasonable". This Monday may have changed this proportion somewhat --
miraculously, without even great loss of life.

Of course, in a perfect world where FAA was up-to-speed with technology and
airlines considered their options carefully, we'd all be flying with
low-power, low-cost ADS-B or FLARM-like devices since the beginning of the
GPS era. In the real world, meanwhile, we have to fend for ourselves a
little bit if we hope to survive.
"The-law-says-we-are-right,-so-we-won't-lift-a-finger;-let-them-change-instead"
kind of attitude is not very constructive and may not achieve too much good
in this world where the money talks (but doesn't always think).
--
Yuliy

[[email protected]]

Interesting he had a transponder!!

Like Fred said moving the Reno approach routes 5-10 miles around Minden
would protect 90% of the sailplane traffic at Minden.

The 10% left would be pilots crossing the airways momentarily leaving
on cross country to the north of which would be about 5% of the 10% who
fly north. To the south the heavy metal is usually in Class A by the
time cross country pilots start getting to altitude above 15000ft.

The typical XC flight profile starts by getting on the Pinenuts around
9000ft at Mnt Seigel topping up to 10-11K there. Move to the south
edge of the Pinenut range. Climb there to 12-13K then push on south to
Desert Creek Peak or the PineGrove range which is usually the first big
climb of the day. This is about 70km from Minden and the Jet traffic
from/to Reno is usually all in Class A in that area. no transponder
required!!

Al


Fred wrote:
> Some good thoughts in all this exchange of ideas. Thanks to posters
> (and others) for some good suggestions.
>
> Some answers from what I learned today:
>
> The ASG 29 was transponder equipped. I did not find out yet if it was
> turned on or off. If it was turned off, that might be bad news for
> Hirao.
>
> Hirao told me he was thermalling to the left, banked over in a pretty
> steep turn, and saw the Hawker when it was just about to hit. The only
> injury he sustained was what looked to be a minor cut on one arm from
> being dragged behind the 'chute. Had the Hawker been five feet lower I
> think it would have hit him dead-center.
>
> Hirao spent the day in the Pine Nuts looking at the wreckage. The two
> Hawker pilots were pretty shaken up: one is in hospital and the other
> was too for a while.
>
> I have not talked to Minden Airport administration today (too busy
> talking to the press), but I want to respond to the poster who thought
> the airport's management might try to shut down soaring. I believe
> there is pretty good awareness here now just how important soaring is
> to Minden, and how important Minden is to soaring. Let's withhold
> judgement on this particular issue for the time being.
>
> I've fielded three calls today from people who insist we need to
> install XPDRs. Two of the callers tried to enlist my support for such
> a movement. I'm opposed to it. The fact that this glider had a
> transponder shows that it is not a panacea. I know, he should have had
> it turned on and everything else. For some reason he did not. And how
> many of us would make the same decision if we had a mandated XPDR,
> either because the battery was weak, the XPDR out of calibration, or
> whatever?
>
> Most glider pilots are techies to one degree or another (just look in
> our cockpit!), and it's easy to reach the conclusion from yesterday's
> event that a technical fix for this problem is the best way to go --
> mandate XPDRs. This strikes me as counter productive because of cost,
> actual use, interoperability, etc. And if we all have XPDRS, then
> we'll all rely on the technical gadget instead of flying smart.
>
> I told one or two interviewers today (non-pilots all, who probably
> don't know what a transponder is but wanted to know why the glider
> didn't have one) that there's another fix and it's quicker and cheaper
> than mandating XPDRs: recognize that this is a world class soaring site
> and route the airliners around it. If bald eagles lived in the Pine
> Nuts the airliners would have to avoid the area, but for some reason
> the presence of a dozen sailplanes between 12,000 and 16,000' over the
> Pine Nuts every day in summer doesn't impress itself on the folks who
> decide how to route commercial traffic into Reno. Put them ten miles
> east and ten miles west -- a change that would add about 3 minutes to
> their flight -- and this conflict wouldn't exist.
>
> I've briefed hundreds of pilots on the arrival routes into Reno and
> I'm very familiar with them yet I've still looked down on commercial
> airliners descending into Reno. If you're going to go where the lift
> is over the Carson Valley (and who among us will not), you're going to
> find yourself flying in shared airspace . Our choices are to make
> ourselves more visible (electronically or otherwise) or stop sharing
> the airspace. I for one believe the Carson Valley is a national
> treasure to the soaring fraternity, and we ought to limit (I didn't say
> totally reserve) access to it. We who fly here are pretty comfortable
> with the power traffic -- low and high speed -- that shares our
> airport. It's the guys passing through at 250 kts on the way to Reno
> that we live in fear of, and yesterday's event brought it into focus.
>
> Fred

[Ramy Yanetz]

Fred,

Thanks for your thoughts.
You first wrote:
> The ASG 29 was transponder equipped. I did not find out yet if it was
> turned on or off. If it was turned off, that might be bad news for
> Hirao.
Then you wrote:
> I know, he should have had
> it turned on and everything else. For some reason he did not.

So did he or did he not turn on the transponder?
I suspect this confirms my finding (using TPAS) that many transponder
equipped gliders are not turned on or turned off after some time from
various reasons.

Ramy

[Doug Haluza]

snoop wrote:
<snip>
> The one item, I'm curious to hear about, if, this item, is on the
> Reno/Minden Jeppesen IFR charts. I know it's on the VFR sectionals, but
> is there a glider icon on the IFR charts in that region?

Good point about getting the glider symbol on the IFR charts. Most jet
jocks use these almost exclusively. The more we do to raise awareness
the better.

Another way to raise awareness of glider trafiic is to make Pireps. I
try to do this at least once on every good soaring day, especially if
there is wave. Report your aircraft type as simply a Glider (nobody
else will know or care what make/model you are flying). You can just
report clear and 50 mi visibility, or give detailed (and useful) info
on cloud layers and winds aloft. Pireps get wide dissemination to
pilots, ATC and dispatchers, so this is a good way to remind them that
we are out there too. Glider pilots who also fly commercially will
appreciate hearing your Pirep when they are working (try to make them
as jealous as possible by reporting from the top of the climb!). You
can give Pireps to Flight Watch on 122.0 MHz, or you can contact a FSS
or ATC facility on a discrete frequency. Check the AIM for more info on
Pireps.

Another thing you can do is to get VFR flight following if you have a
transponder. Again, just give your aircraft type as a Glider. This lets
pilots and controllers in the section know we are out there. It also
gets you a discrete transponder code. Most ATC sections filter out 1200
VFR codes, and only view aircraft with discrete codes. So in this case,
even if the glider's transponder was on, there is no guarantee that the
controller even saw it, much less gave a traffic warning--they are not
required to warn IFR aircraft of VFR targets anyway.

I know a lot of glider pilots like to stay out of the system. But out
of sight is out of mind.

[Ray Lovinggood]

Doug,

You don't have to have a transponder to get the controllers
to know you are there. True, I'm not talking 'Flight
Following' but more like 'Flight Awareness.'

On occassions, I have called the local controllers
for the Class C airport (RDU) and let them know I was
there and was monitoring their frequency. They would
first reply to 'Squak' such and such and I would tell
them I didn't have a transponder. They would then
find me on radar. Ok, maybe they aren't as busy as
some other locations, but at least I make them aware
that I'm out there. Occassionaly, they might call
up and ask how I'm doing, and just being friendly.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

At 12:36 30 August 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:
>snoop wrote:
>
>> The one item, I'm curious to hear about, if, this
>>item, is on the
>> Reno/Minden Jeppesen IFR charts. I know it's on the
>>VFR sectionals, but
>> is there a glider icon on the IFR charts in that region?
>
>Good point about getting the glider symbol on the IFR
>charts. Most jet
>jocks use these almost exclusively. The more we do
>to raise awareness
>the better.
>
>Another way to raise awareness of glider trafiic is
>to make Pireps. I
>try to do this at least once on every good soaring
>day, especially if
>there is wave. Report your aircraft type as simply
>a Glider (nobody
>else will know or care what make/model you are flying).
>You can just
>report clear and 50 mi visibility, or give detailed
>(and useful) info
>on cloud layers and winds aloft. Pireps get wide dissemination
>to
>pilots, ATC and dispatchers, so this is a good way
>to remind them that
>we are out there too. Glider pilots who also fly commercially
>will
>appreciate hearing your Pirep when they are working
>(try to make them
>as jealous as possible by reporting from the top of
>the climb!). You
>can give Pireps to Flight Watch on 122.0 MHz, or you
>can contact a FSS
>or ATC facility on a discrete frequency. Check the
>AIM for more info on
>Pireps.
>
>Another thing you can do is to get VFR flight following
>if you have a
>transponder. Again, just give your aircraft type as
>a Glider. This lets
>pilots and controllers in the section know we are out
>there. It also
>gets you a discrete transponder code. Most ATC sections
>filter out 1200
>VFR codes, and only view aircraft with discrete codes.
>So in this case,
>even if the glider's transponder was on, there is no
>guarantee that the
>controller even saw it, much less gave a traffic warning--they
>are not
>required to warn IFR aircraft of VFR targets anyway.
>
>I know a lot of glider pilots like to stay out of the
>system. But out
>of sight is out of mind.
>
>

[Fred[_1_]]

Ray: I like this. I have briefing pilots going north to call RNO
approach even though they plan to stay above the top of the Class C.
I think I'll recommend more conversation with RNO approach, even if
we're not heading north. Fred

[Mike Schumann]

My personal feeling is that everyone should have a transponder. The focus
needs to be on reducing the cost and size of transponders so it's not as
much of an economic issue.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:aI7Jg.7666$4O4.7017@trnddc02...
> wrote:
>
>> The typical knee jerk reaction is to shout "transponders for all" is
>> not the solution.
>> Plus it would need to be implemented on a national scale..
>
> It wouldn't have to implemented nationally to be beneficial. High use
> areas like Minden would be the place to start because it would reduce the
> risk the most, and the glider pilots that fly there could install
> transponders without the FAA requiring it. The FAA could deal with it
> using the "veil" concept like the Class B areas have, but not exempt
> anyone. In this case, it'd take a 45 nm veil to include the collision
> point; however, the veil wouldn't have to be circular.
>
>> Hands up who has the panel space and budget right now for a
>> Transponder?
>
> I'm sure both the owner and pilot of the ASG 29 could have easily found
> both. That still leaves a lot/some pilots at Minden that would choke on
> the $2500-$4000 it would take to install one, but EVERYONE can afford a
> TPAS type unit at $500-$1500 (and no installation or testing costs). I
> can't say it would have prevented this accident, but people that use them
> seem to be quite pleased.
>
> Several years ago, I decided I wouldn't fly at Minden anymore until I had
> a transponder. Seeing airliners close enough to recognize the airline
> persuaded me it was worth the money, even though I don't fly there very
> often. I've jad one for several years now, and decided it's a good value
> even in the lower density traffic of the Pacific Northwest where I fly
> most of the time.
>
> --
> 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]

Why in the world would you leave a transponder off if you have the luxury of
having one????

Mike Schumann

"Ramy Yanetz" > wrote in message
...
> Fred,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> You first wrote:
>> The ASG 29 was transponder equipped. I did not find out yet if it was
>> turned on or off. If it was turned off, that might be bad news for
>> Hirao.
> Then you wrote:
>> I know, he should have had
>> it turned on and everything else. For some reason he did not.
>
> So did he or did he not turn on the transponder?
> I suspect this confirms my finding (using TPAS) that many transponder
> equipped gliders are not turned on or turned off after some time from
> various reasons.
>
> Ramy
>
>
>

[Bill Zaleski]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:57:47 GMT, "Mike Schumann"
> wrote:

>Why in the world would you leave a transponder off if you have the luxury of
>having one????
>
>Mike Schumann
>
>"Ramy Yanetz" > wrote in message
...
>> Fred,
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughts.
>> You first wrote:
>>> The ASG 29 was transponder equipped. I did not find out yet if it was
>>> turned on or off. If it was turned off, that might be bad news for
>>> Hirao.
>> Then you wrote:
>>> I know, he should have had
>>> it turned on and everything else. For some reason he did not.
>>
>> So did he or did he not turn on the transponder?
>> I suspect this confirms my finding (using TPAS) that many transponder
>> equipped gliders are not turned on or turned off after some time from
>> various reasons.
>>
>> Ramy

Transponder operation is mandatory, if an operable one is installed.

See FAR 91.215 (c)
>>
>>
>>
>

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Ray Lovinggood wrote:
> Doug,
>
> You don't have to have a transponder to get the controllers
> to know you are there. True, I'm not talking 'Flight
> Following' but more like 'Flight Awareness.'
>
> On occassions, I have called the local controllers
> for the Class C airport (RDU) and let them know I was
> there and was monitoring their frequency. They would
> first reply to 'Squak' such and such and I would tell
> them I didn't have a transponder. They would then
> find me on radar. Ok, maybe they aren't as busy as
> some other locations, but at least I make them aware
> that I'm out there. Occassionaly, they might call
> up and ask how I'm doing, and just being friendly.

Chinook approach near our local airliner airport (PSC) responds the same
way. The non-transponder equipped gliders often call them shortly after
take-off, and they usually spot everyone until we leave on course. I
assume Approach could be alerted at other airliner airports, too, and I
think some of the guys do that, too.

--
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_]]

Doug Haluza wrote:
>Most ATC sections filter out 1200
> VFR codes, and only view aircraft with discrete codes. So in this case,
> even if the glider's transponder was on, there is no guarantee that the
> controller even saw it, much less gave a traffic warning--they are not
> required to warn IFR aircraft of VFR targets anyway.

Whoa! Really? Isn't that the point of requiring all airplanes to carry
transponders? What I've heard from multiple sources is the only places
the VFR code is filtered out are areas with VERY heavy traffic (and
where VFR traffic is confined), like over Los Angeles. Knowledgeable
people that fly in the Minden area and discuss things with ATC there
have never suggested that Reno is filtering out VFR codes!

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

[Jeremy Zawodny]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Doug Haluza wrote:
>> Most ATC sections filter out 1200
>> VFR codes, and only view aircraft with discrete codes. So in this case,
>> even if the glider's transponder was on, there is no guarantee that the
>> controller even saw it, much less gave a traffic warning--they are not
>> required to warn IFR aircraft of VFR targets anyway.
>
> Whoa! Really? Isn't that the point of requiring all airplanes to carry
> transponders? What I've heard from multiple sources is the only places
> the VFR code is filtered out are areas with VERY heavy traffic (and
> where VFR traffic is confined), like over Los Angeles. Knowledgeable
> people that fly in the Minden area and discuss things with ATC there
> have never suggested that Reno is filtering out VFR codes!

And many (most?) glider pilots flying in the Minden area squak 0440
rathern than 1200. There's a letter of agreement in place with Reno ATC
that permits gliders to use 0440 as a way of telling ATC that the
aircraft is a glider. This eliminates the need for more radio chatter
and could make their filtering easier, assuming they can filter based on
the codes.

Jeremy

[Doug Haluza]

You can also ask for flight following without a transponder, but
primary echo's are not reliable. I have tried this in the past around
the ISP Class-C. Even 10nm out, with a 20m Carbon wing, they couldn't
see me on some headings.

If you do call ATC without a transponder, the proper phraseology is to
add "slant X-ray" after your call sign. The slant codes indicate
equipment like transponder and DME, and "/X" means none. I've had
controllers give me a squawk code anyway, because they may not be
familiar with this one, but at least it makes you sound professional.

If you have a Mode-C transponder only, the code is "slant Uniform. I am
/U now, and I carry 2 x 13 Ah batteries that can run the transponder
and everything else for over 12 hours.

Ray Lovinggood wrote:
> Doug,
>
> You don't have to have a transponder to get the controllers
> to know you are there. True, I'm not talking 'Flight
> Following' but more like 'Flight Awareness.'
>
> On occassions, I have called the local controllers
> for the Class C airport (RDU) and let them know I was
> there and was monitoring their frequency. They would
> first reply to 'Squak' such and such and I would tell
> them I didn't have a transponder. They would then
> find me on radar. Ok, maybe they aren't as busy as
> some other locations, but at least I make them aware
> that I'm out there. Occassionaly, they might call
> up and ask how I'm doing, and just being friendly.
>
> Ray Lovinggood
> Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
>

[Doug Haluza]

My understanding is that the 1200 filter is used more often than not,
but that may be specific to the Northeast US where I fly. Controllors
who think they are busy can activate it to reduce their work load.
Corollers are only reposible for IFR-IFR traffic separation, and are
not required to report VFR traffic, even with a transponder. IFR pilots
in VMC are still responsible for see and avoid.

It is good that you have 0440 assigned for Gliders with Reno. There are
a similar patchwork of agreements with other centers. I think
Philadelphia approach uses 1202 for towplanes. There are various codes
for Baloons and Airships too, which may be in conflict between areas.
What we really need is a national set of these used universally.

Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > Doug Haluza wrote:
> >> Most ATC sections filter out 1200
> >> VFR codes, and only view aircraft with discrete codes. So in this case,
> >> even if the glider's transponder was on, there is no guarantee that the
> >> controller even saw it, much less gave a traffic warning--they are not
> >> required to warn IFR aircraft of VFR targets anyway.
> >
> > Whoa! Really? Isn't that the point of requiring all airplanes to carry
> > transponders? What I've heard from multiple sources is the only places
> > the VFR code is filtered out are areas with VERY heavy traffic (and
> > where VFR traffic is confined), like over Los Angeles. Knowledgeable
> > people that fly in the Minden area and discuss things with ATC there
> > have never suggested that Reno is filtering out VFR codes!
>
> And many (most?) glider pilots flying in the Minden area squak 0440
> rathern than 1200. There's a letter of agreement in place with Reno ATC
> that permits gliders to use 0440 as a way of telling ATC that the
> aircraft is a glider. This eliminates the need for more radio chatter
> and could make their filtering easier, assuming they can filter based on
> the codes.
>
> Jeremy

[Marc Ramsey]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> Why in the world would you leave a transponder off if you have the luxury of
> having one????

Lack of sufficient battery capacity to run it for extended periods. Not
everyone has the luxury of having two 12 ah batteries...

[Robert Backer]

I just don't buy this power argument. My panel includes 302, Ipaq,
becker transponder (with encoder)and becker radio all of which run for
at least 6 hours on a single 8.5 ah powersonic battery (exactly the same
dimensions as the typical 7 ah battery). I also carry a backup 8.5 ah
battery which I have never had to switch to.


Bob

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> Why in the world would you leave a transponder off if you have the
>> luxury of having one????
>
> Lack of sufficient battery capacity to run it for extended periods. Not
> everyone has the luxury of having two 12 ah batteries...

[Al[_1_]]

"jb92563" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Here are links with pictures.
>
> http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/NEWS15/608290365/1144/NEWS
>
> http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=dae31ded-d017-43eb-af5a-acbbb7a5f04e&
>
> Its interesting to note that the perception is that the glider crashed
> into the jet.
>

Sure, just like my cat hit that car doing seventy...

Al G

[Marc Ramsey]

Robert Backer wrote:
> I just don't buy this power argument. My panel includes 302, Ipaq,
> becker transponder (with encoder)and becker radio all of which run for
> at least 6 hours on a single 8.5 ah powersonic battery (exactly the same
> dimensions as the typical 7 ah battery). I also carry a backup 8.5 ah
> battery which I have never had to switch to.

You don't have to buy it, but there are a lot of variables involved,
including the precise mix of equipment (in particular, the current draw
of the encoder at altitude), frequency of interrogation, sensitivity of
the radio to marginal voltage, whether the PDA is charging, age and
temperature of the battery, etc.

I have a transponder and a single 12 ah battery (and currently no room
for another, or for two 7/8.5 ah batteries), usually I can count on
around 5 hours before I start losing the radio. Yes, things would be
better with a backup battery, and before Kinsell comes out of the
woodwork, yes I could go longer with a 14V system. But, I fly with the
electrical system I have, not the one I might want, so the transponder
usually goes off in the boonies...

Marc

[Gerhard Wesp[_4_]]

I think one there are two important questions to be answered in
the NTSB investigation:

1. Did ATC inform the Hawker about glider traffic?
2. Did the Hawker pilots look out the window?

Regards
-Gerhard
--
Gerhard Wesp / Holderenweg 2 / CH-8134 Adliswil
+41 (0)76 505 1149 (mobile) / +41 (0)44 668 1878 (office)
+41 (0)44 668 1818 (fax)
http://gwesp.tx0.org/

[Ramy]

While you may be detected by ATC on primary without a transponder, you
wouldn't be detected by airliners and other aircrafts carrying TCAS and
will not give traffic resolution.

Another (secondary) reason to carry a transponder and leave it on, is
that if, god forbidden, you go down in a remote area, replaying ATC
tapes may help finding you.

Ramy

Ray Lovinggood wrote:
> Doug,
>
> You don't have to have a transponder to get the controllers
> to know you are there. True, I'm not talking 'Flight
> Following' but more like 'Flight Awareness.'
>
> On occassions, I have called the local controllers
> for the Class C airport (RDU) and let them know I was
> there and was monitoring their frequency. They would
> first reply to 'Squak' such and such and I would tell
> them I didn't have a transponder. They would then
> find me on radar. Ok, maybe they aren't as busy as
> some other locations, but at least I make them aware
> that I'm out there. Occassionaly, they might call
> up and ask how I'm doing, and just being friendly.
>
> Ray Lovinggood
> Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
>
> At 12:36 30 August 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:
> >snoop wrote:
> >
> >> The one item, I'm curious to hear about, if, this
> >>item, is on the
> >> Reno/Minden Jeppesen IFR charts. I know it's on the
> >>VFR sectionals, but
> >> is there a glider icon on the IFR charts in that region?
> >
> >Good point about getting the glider symbol on the IFR
> >charts. Most jet
> >jocks use these almost exclusively. The more we do
> >to raise awareness
> >the better.
> >
> >Another way to raise awareness of glider trafiic is
> >to make Pireps. I
> >try to do this at least once on every good soaring
> >day, especially if
> >there is wave. Report your aircraft type as simply
> >a Glider (nobody
> >else will know or care what make/model you are flying).
> >You can just
> >report clear and 50 mi visibility, or give detailed
> >(and useful) info
> >on cloud layers and winds aloft. Pireps get wide dissemination
> >to
> >pilots, ATC and dispatchers, so this is a good way
> >to remind them that
> >we are out there too. Glider pilots who also fly commercially
> >will
> >appreciate hearing your Pirep when they are working
> >(try to make them
> >as jealous as possible by reporting from the top of
> >the climb!). You
> >can give Pireps to Flight Watch on 122.0 MHz, or you
> >can contact a FSS
> >or ATC facility on a discrete frequency. Check the
> >AIM for more info on
> >Pireps.
> >
> >Another thing you can do is to get VFR flight following
> >if you have a
> >transponder. Again, just give your aircraft type as
> >a Glider. This lets
> >pilots and controllers in the section know we are out
> >there. It also
> >gets you a discrete transponder code. Most ATC sections
> >filter out 1200
> >VFR codes, and only view aircraft with discrete codes.
> >So in this case,
> >even if the glider's transponder was on, there is no
> >guarantee that the
> >controller even saw it, much less gave a traffic warning--they
> >are not
> >required to warn IFR aircraft of VFR targets anyway.
> >
> >I know a lot of glider pilots like to stay out of the
> >system. But out
> >of sight is out of mind.
> >
> >

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Ramy wrote:
> While you may be detected by ATC on primary without a transponder, you
> wouldn't be detected by airliners and other aircrafts carrying TCAS and
> will not give traffic resolution.

And you won't be detected by airplanes and gliders using a TPAS instrument.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

[Greg Arnold]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
>> While you may be detected by ATC on primary without a transponder, you
>> wouldn't be detected by airliners and other aircrafts carrying TCAS and
>> will not give traffic resolution.
>
> And you won't be detected by airplanes and gliders using a TPAS instrument.
>

What is the difference between TCAS and TPAS?

[Ramy]

TPAS is passive, it does not interrogate, as such much less accurate,
but fraction of the price of TCAS. You can find them under $500.

Ramy

Greg Arnold wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > Ramy wrote:
> >> While you may be detected by ATC on primary without a transponder, you
> >> wouldn't be detected by airliners and other aircrafts carrying TCAS and
> >> will not give traffic resolution.
> >
> > And you won't be detected by airplanes and gliders using a TPAS instrument.
> >
>
> What is the difference between TCAS and TPAS?

[Mike Schumann]

The transponder would be the last thing I turn off, no matter where I was.

Mike Schumann

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
m...
> Robert Backer wrote:
>> I just don't buy this power argument. My panel includes 302, Ipaq,
>> becker transponder (with encoder)and becker radio all of which run for at
>> least 6 hours on a single 8.5 ah powersonic battery (exactly the same
>> dimensions as the typical 7 ah battery). I also carry a backup 8.5 ah
>> battery which I have never had to switch to.
>
> You don't have to buy it, but there are a lot of variables involved,
> including the precise mix of equipment (in particular, the current draw of
> the encoder at altitude), frequency of interrogation, sensitivity of the
> radio to marginal voltage, whether the PDA is charging, age and
> temperature of the battery, etc.
>
> I have a transponder and a single 12 ah battery (and currently no room for
> another, or for two 7/8.5 ah batteries), usually I can count on around 5
> hours before I start losing the radio. Yes, things would be better with a
> backup battery, and before Kinsell comes out of the woodwork, yes I could
> go longer with a 14V system. But, I fly with the electrical system I
> have, not the one I might want, so the transponder usually goes off in the
> boonies...
>
> Marc
>

[[email protected]]

Some pictures from rec.aviation.piloting...


http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4683/11dy6.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5328/5oy9.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2266/dscf0034vm0.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2240/14nx6.jpg

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>
>
>> But, I fly with the
>> electrical system I have, not the one I might want, so the transponder
>> usually goes off in the boonies...
>
> Which would apparently put you in violation of 91.215(c)
> (requires transponder on) when your transponder is OFF if it
> meets the requirements of 91.413 and in violation of
> 91.413(a) when your transponder is ON if it does not meet
> those requirements. No good deed goes unpunished.

So far, I believe it has gone unpunished: does anyone know of a glider
pilot cited for turning off his transponder? I couldn't find anyone that
knew of that when I wrote my article for Soaring (Feb 2002), and I
haven't heard of anyone since then, either.

FAA officials have told SSA officials, unofficially of course, that they
are happy to have glider pilots put transponders in their gliders, even
if they don't have them on all the time. I don't think we should be
discouraging transponder use, even unintentionally, by bringing up the
"always on" requirement. The FAA understands that requirement makes
sense for airplanes but not gliders, and that someone willing to spend
the money and effort to install safety equipment that is not required of
them should be commended (at least off the record), not scolded.

Todd, I know you may not have intended it that way, but some people do
take it that way, and that is one of the reasons/excuses I hear for not
installing a transponder.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

[Ian[_1_]]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:57:47 +0000, Mike Schumann wrote:

> Why in the world would you leave a transponder off if you have the luxury of
> having one????

Transponder installations in gliders are not as reliable as we would like
them to be. These are some of the reasons I know of for transponders not
being operational in VFR airspace that I have experienced by myself or by
other pilots I know personally:

- Battery failed unexpectedly and no backup installed.

- Battery failed unexpectedly and backup battery also failed unexpectedly.

- Transponder display faulty and spares unavailable (a common problem
with old Terra's).

- Loose connection between the altitude encoder and transponder resulted
in wild altitudes indications and ATC getting upset and requesting the
pilot to switch off the transponder. ATC also not happy with pilot
squawking mode A.

- Antenna located a little too close to pilot for comfort and pilot elects
to leave transponder switched off to protect the family jewels from
radiation when not in controlled airspace.

- Transponder operating but transmissions shielded by poorly
located antenna.

- Antenna damaged by earlier ground handling mishap and transponder
switched off.

- Transponder turned on but the pilot is unaware that it is non-functional
because it has not been ground checked for a long time and the glider has
not been in controlled airspace recently and hence the pilot has not had
confirmation from ATC that they can see him.

- Transponder is turned off because the pilot suspects it is not
working but has not had a chance to get it checked either on the ground,
or by talking to ATC.

- Transponder removed for repairs and sent to repair facility and it takes
many weeks to get it back.


And a couple of other reasons reported on RAS:

- Glider pilots requested to switch off transponders in certain
areas after false TCAS warnings triggered at nearby airports.

- Transponder set to squawk code that is filtered on ATC radar.

(Please note, I don't fly in the USA, none of the above occurred in the
USA so please don't quote me USA regulations.)

From my experience, it is feasible to fit transponders in a few privately
owned gliders for use during occasional flights in controlled airspace (or
other airspace with active communication with ATC).

However, it is not practical to equip an entire fleet of gliders with
transponders, instruct the pilots to squawk "blind" and expect this to
allow IFR traffic to be routed safely through the same airspace. This is a
recipe for disaster.


Ian

[jodom]

16 seconds is a long time to make an avoidance manuver.


raulb wrote:
> I am sure that Chip Gardner is thinking that it is deja vu all over
> again. He had a Navy jet (A-4? A-6?) eat 3 feet of his wingtip near
> Mt. Palomar about 20 years ago.
>
> Gardner managed to fy back and land at the gliderport at Hemet and the
> jet limped back to Miramar NAS with a fiberglass wingtip lodged in one
> of his engines.
>
> I remember at the time that Chip said that at the speeds they fly, we
> go from being a speck on the windshield to a full target in less than
> 16 seconds.

[Rory O'Conor[_1_]]

But quite a short time to make one turn in a thermal.


Author: Jodom >
Date/Time: 12:10 31 August 2006
------------------------------------------------------------
16 seconds is a long time to make an avoidance manuver.


raulb wrote:
> I remember at the time that Chip said that at the speeds they fly, we
> go from being a speck on the windshield to a full target in less than
> 16 seconds.


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

[Frank Whiteley]

Euro experience from hang glide list
Re: Bizjet collides with glider in Nevada
Posted by: "Bart Doets" bart.doets@
Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:31 am (PST)
----- Original Message -----
From: "xcnick4" <xcnick4@

> The fear is that gliding will be considered unsafe without Mode S
> transponders and they will make us all buy these gismos. Great
> Britain is facing this realty right now. Who is next? Hang gliders?
> Paragliders? Geese?

Dunno how this is going in the USA, but in Europe it has already been
decided that HGs and PGs (and ULs etc.) must have mode S transponders.
The
only thing that has postponed the actual effectuation of the decision
is,
that there were no transponders on the market that would do the job
working
on battery power.
Seems right now there are transponders in a range from 1350 to 2000
Euros
($1627-2410) that are supposed to work 4-5 hours. (Remember how the
first
useable GPS's would not work by far as long as they were supposed to?)
I am a bit worried about the seemingly waiting mode that the European
HG
orgs are in. As far as I know only the British org has sort of called
up its
members, but it might be far too late anyway - the decision is cast
years
ago. The only thing that really might help us out is the marketing of a
mode
S transponder at a price of just a couple of hundred euros max, like
the
first GPS's that really hit big (Garmin 38).

A couple of weeks ago, a colleague of mine took me on a flight in a
motorglider, from Hilversum airfield in the centre of Holland.
Hilversum is
close to the edge of Schiphol(Amsterdam airport) CTR.
My colleague told me: "This plane is equipped with a transponder, but
following a request from Schiphol tower we keep it switched off most of
the
time. Seems all those tiny bleeps and bloops along the edge of their
CTR are
unnecessarily complicating their work."

I'm really worried that the transponder obligation will effectively
kill all
but the most expensive non-motorized flying. To a glass glider it may
only
be a small raise in cost, but for many hanggliders it will be out of
proportion. And... would it really help?

Bart Doets
Holland

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> >Todd, I know you may not have intended it that way, but some people do
> >take it that way, and that is one of the reasons/excuses I hear for not
> >installing a transponder.
>
> I certainly did not intend it as a discouragement for
> installation of transponders, but it's a concern I've heard
> expressed too. I'd like to see the FAA make it legal for
> the transponder to be turned off in gliders to remove this
> excuse/concern. I consider anyone who buys a transponder
> and installs it, but turns it off when needed to save
> batteries, to be someone who is concerned about improving
> safety. That's why I called it a "good deed" but having a
> midair with it off is a scary possibility given the current
> FARs.
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[[email protected]]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> snoop wrote:
> <snip>
> > The one item, I'm curious to hear about, if, this item, is on the
> > Reno/Minden Jeppesen IFR charts. I know it's on the VFR sectionals, but
> > is there a glider icon on the IFR charts in that region?
>
> Good point about getting the glider symbol on the IFR charts. Most jet
> jocks use these almost exclusively. The more we do to raise awareness
> the better.
>
> Another way to raise awareness of glider trafiic is to make Pireps. I
> try to do this at least once on every good soaring day, especially if
> there is wave. Report your aircraft type as simply a Glider (nobody
> else will know or care what make/model you are flying). You can just
> report clear and 50 mi visibility, or give detailed (and useful) info
> on cloud layers and winds aloft. Pireps get wide dissemination to
> pilots, ATC and dispatchers, so this is a good way to remind them that
> we are out there too. Glider pilots who also fly commercially will
> appreciate hearing your Pirep when they are working (try to make them
> as jealous as possible by reporting from the top of the climb!). You
> can give Pireps to Flight Watch on 122.0 MHz, or you can contact a FSS
> or ATC facility on a discrete frequency. Check the AIM for more info on
> Pireps.
>
> Another thing you can do is to get VFR flight following if you have a
> transponder. Again, just give your aircraft type as a Glider. This lets
> pilots and controllers in the section know we are out there. It also
> gets you a discrete transponder code. Most ATC sections filter out 1200
> VFR codes, and only view aircraft with discrete codes. So in this case,
> even if the glider's transponder was on, there is no guarantee that the
> controller even saw it, much less gave a traffic warning--they are not
> required to warn IFR aircraft of VFR targets anyway.
>
> I know a lot of glider pilots like to stay out of the system. But out
> of sight is out of mind.

Doug:

Clearly my article in the July issue of SOARING on transponders fell
shy of the mark I had hoped to hit as far as educating glider pilots
regarding transponders.
There are four symbols generated by ATC computers for transponder
equipped aircraft. One: transponder, no encoder, non discrete, (like
the basic VFR squwak of 1200.) Two: transponder and encoder, non
discrete - again, like the basic VFR squwak of 1200. Three:
transponder, no encoder, (dam few of these out there any more),
discrete as in talking to ATC. and Four: transponder and encoder,
discrete. That is talking to or about to talk to ATC.
Each controller is required by virtue of the ATC handbook, (7110.65 and
the management handbook 7110.3), to display ALL transponder equipped
aircraft. What the controller does have the option to do is adjust the
filter limits at his scope to exclude the encoded altitude of aircraft
which are not in his assigned airspace.
Had the transponder been turned on by the pilot involved in the
mid-air, the jet would have seen the glider on it's TCAS, and ATC
would have been issuing the glider as traffic to the jet. In the Reno
area, most glider pilots are squawking an non discrete code which
indicates to ATC that they are a glider.

[Jack[_1_]]

jodom wrote:
> 16 seconds is a long time to make an avoidance manuver.


Effective clearing is a lot harder than it looks.

You might even be able to do a complete loop in 16 seconds in your
aircraft, but that doesn't mean you can find the traffic in 16 sec.,
especially if there is more than one target to deal with, let alone
avoid it safely.

Sixteen seconds is not a long time to scan the inner surface of a globe
whose diameter is measured in miles and from which threats are emerging
at closing speeds of from 200 to 500 kts below 10,000' msl. Above that
level you can raise potential closing speeds to nearly 600 kts, and
still be below Class A.

By the way, with a closing speed of only 300 kts, you have just 12
seconds to close from a mile out. The inner surface of a two-mile
diameter globe cannot be fully scanned in less than 12 seconds, leaving
you less than zero time to react and to maneuver to avoid.

Think of how many aircraft you have seen and subsequently you took some
evasive action (e.g., ten)-- now think of how many of those took no
action to evade you (e.g., seven), presumably because they did not see
you. In this example 70% of the other pilots were unaware of potential
midair collisions. How does that apply to you? Could we assume that you
were also unaware of 70% of potential traffic conflicts? No, because you
are, of course, twice as effective as the average pilot. Therefore you
only missed slightly more than one third of those potentially fatal
conflicts.

To what do we attribute your continued survival? The big-sky concept
works, but not forever. Is today's flight your last? Could be, unless
all of us get serious about the BIG PICTURE of traffic awareness and
avoidance.


Jack

[Mike Schumann]

Why would you spend $2K on a transponder, and not another $50 on a dedicated
battery so you can run it for the duration of your maximum flight?

Mike Schumann

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>>Todd, I know you may not have intended it that way, but some people do
>>take it that way, and that is one of the reasons/excuses I hear for not
>>installing a transponder.
>
> I certainly did not intend it as a discouragement for
> installation of transponders, but it's a concern I've heard
> expressed too. I'd like to see the FAA make it legal for
> the transponder to be turned off in gliders to remove this
> excuse/concern. I consider anyone who buys a transponder
> and installs it, but turns it off when needed to save
> batteries, to be someone who is concerned about improving
> safety. That's why I called it a "good deed" but having a
> midair with it off is a scary possibility given the current
> FARs.
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Marc Ramsey]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> Why would you spend $2K on a transponder, and not another $50 on a dedicated
> battery so you can run it for the duration of your maximum flight?

Because, there may be no place to put it. In my case, I tried for
several weeks to find two smaller batteries (preferred) or a single
larger one that would fit in an available space, without eliminating
much of the remaining luggage space, or resorting to a Sawzall. In the
end, geometry won...

[Mike Schumann]

There's a huge variety of gell cell battery configurations. You couldn't
find anything that you could fit into your glider? Most of the gliders I
have seen have tons of air around the battery box(es).

Mike Schumann

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> Why would you spend $2K on a transponder, and not another $50 on a
>> dedicated battery so you can run it for the duration of your maximum
>> flight?
>
> Because, there may be no place to put it. In my case, I tried for several
> weeks to find two smaller batteries (preferred) or a single larger one
> that would fit in an available space, without eliminating much of the
> remaining luggage space, or resorting to a Sawzall. In the end, geometry
> won...

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"jodom" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 16 seconds is a long time to make an avoidance manuver.

Err... How, exactly? -- Yuliy

[bumper]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Doug Haluza wrote:
In the Reno
> area, most glider pilots are squawking an non discrete code which
> indicates to ATC that they are a glider.
>

If you are saying that most glider pilots in the Reno area have
transponders, I disagree. If you are saying that those who do have Xponders
squawk 0440, I concur.

I fly out of Minden and have both a transponder and a TPAS. The majority of
glider traffic I acquire visually do not show up on my TPAS at all.

I would say no more than 50% (and it's probably closer to 30%) of gliders
have transponders and are squawking.

bumper

[Cats]

wrote:
> Some pictures from rec.aviation.piloting...
>
>
> http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4683/11dy6.jpg
> http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5328/5oy9.jpg
> http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2266/dscf0034vm0.jpg
> http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2240/14nx6.jpg

Not now. They have been removed due to high band-width usage...