Glider Crash - Minden?

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

-EX

Yes, see: http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/3754767.html
and: http://www.ktvn.com/dyn_fullnews.asp...y&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

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

-EX

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

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

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

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

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/fosterfligh...ants&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

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/fosterfligh...ants&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

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!