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

On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 3:51:04 AM UTC-7, wrote:
The official report does not provide any additional information.

http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?...R:NGLTRFD17001

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

On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 7:20:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:43:08 AM UTC-7, Squeaky wrote:
'WaltWX[_2_ Wrote:
;957147']On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 5:22:24 AM UTC-7, Rich Owen
wrote:-
All military aircraft have transponders and we do show up on on
civilian equipment.-

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

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

OK, fyi... All fighters have transponders. FYI only the LEAD aircraft
squawks for the formation. If you encounter numbers 2-4 leaving the
range and flying at a speed to catch up to lead aircraft who is climbing
out or transiting airspace at the normal 300kt IAS, the wingman will be
faster. Quite often, in tactical formation, the spread between aircraft
can be two nm. So you can encounter a fighter not squawking because he
is a wingman, and you may not see the lead/squawking aircraft because of
the distance away. And the lead aircraft WILL have his transponder on.

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




--
Squeaky

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

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

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

How does that sound Rich?

Walt WX

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

On 10/20/2017 11:21 AM, WaltWX wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 7:20:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:43:08 AM UTC-7, Squeaky wrote:
'WaltWX[_2_ Wrote:
;957147']On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 5:22:24 AM UTC-7, Rich Owen
wrote:-
All military aircraft have transponders and we do show up on on
civilian equipment.-

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

Sure hope that DOD budget can afford ADS-B out 1090ES for all their
equipment.
OK, fyi... All fighters have transponders. FYI only the LEAD aircraft
squawks for the formation. If you encounter numbers 2-4 leaving the
range and flying at a speed to catch up to lead aircraft who is climbing
out or transiting airspace at the normal 300kt IAS, the wingman will be
faster. Quite often, in tactical formation, the spread between aircraft
can be two nm. So you can encounter a fighter not squawking because he
is a wingman, and you may not see the lead/squawking aircraft because of
the distance away. And the lead aircraft WILL have his transponder on.

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




--
Squeaky
The 2 military jets that flew over Hot Springs just east of Warner Springs a week ago did not show up on my Flarm display. They may have X-ponders but they were not squawking if they had them.
Steve
I bet that the low altitude military jet's transponder is not being triggered by ATC surveillance radar... and that may be the reason we're not seeing them on PowerFlarm PCAS.

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

How does that sound Rich?

Walt WX

--
Dan, 5J

On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 8:48:26 AM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 3:51:04 AM UTC-7, wrote:
The official report does not provide any additional information.

http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?...R:NGLTRFD17001

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

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

On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 10:48:26 AM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 3:51:04 AM UTC-7, wrote:
The official report does not provide any additional information.

http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?...R:NGLTRFD17001

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

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

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

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

Ramy

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it he http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687

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

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

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

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

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

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it he http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687

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

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

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

When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…
sorry for the broken link--try this

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-r.../A02_15_19.pdf

should work better

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it he http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Hartley Falbaum[_2_]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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