If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
Derek, I am not advocating mode S transponder (which I couldn't efford
one either ), it is doing nothing to improve safety then mode C,which should cost around 2K in the US, no more then a flight computer. I absolutly agree, Flarm or ADS-B are far better, but it may take another generation until it will be widely implemented, especially in the US. Meanwhile, at least in the US, our only option is the 30 years old technology of transponders, which are relatively effordable for most pilots I see flying at the Reno area. Ramy Derek Copeland wrote: We are having a battle in the UK to stop the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority, otherwise known as the 'Campaign Against Aviation') enforcing the mandatory carriage of Mode S transponders in all aircraft, which includes gliders. The basic bit of kit costs about £1600 plus fitting by an 'approved' organisation and Value Added Tax (17.5%). In total we estimate this will cost at least £3000+ per glider, with additional ongoing servicing and licencing costs. Then there are all the extra batteries that we will have to carry if we want to fly for more than about 3 hours, which will have to come out of our permitted MAUW. The fittings for the extra batteries may have to have design approval by EASA, which is another major cost. Although transponders work perfectly well in IMC conditions, they are also trying to impose strict VMC conditions on gliding. You may have enough money to fit and run a Mode S transponder Ramy, but many private owners of older sailplanes do not. An airworthy wooden gliders can be picked up for £3k or less in the UK. Even for club owned gliders, this proposal would significantly increase the cost of flying gliders. Most collisions involving gliders are with other gliders in thermals or on ridges, or with GA or military aircraft. Mode S transponders do little or nothing to address this problem. Hence we are being asked to pay large sums of money for protecting Commercial Airliners that wish to take short cuts through Class G airspace, without any benefits to us. Speaking personally I would be less hostile to fitting ADS-B or FLARM systems, which are cheaper, less power hungry and are of some benefit to glider pilots in detecting other aircraft. Otherwise we should expect all pilots to keep a good lookout when flying in Class G. Derek Copeland At 05:00 29 August 2006, Ramy Yanetz wrote: A miracle. Did the ASG 29 used a transponder? Assuming not, I am wondering if he could not afford one... This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies safer!! Maybe by enforcing the use of transponders in the Reno area? I don't see a problem with that... Ramy wrote in message oups.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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
Ramy wrote:
Derek, I am not advocating mode S transponder (which I couldn't efford one either ), it is doing nothing to improve safety then mode C,which should cost around 2K in the US, no more then a flight computer. Double that figure, and you'll have a more typical installed cost in the US, particularly in a type certified glider. A transponder installation is a different kettle of fish from a glide computer, a 337 is often required... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
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! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
Ramy wrote: Meanwhile, at least in the US, our only option is the 30 years old technology of transponders, which are relatively effordable for most pilots I see flying at the Reno area. Ramy, what if the collision had been between an older Learjet, not equipped with TCAS, and not talking to ATC (in the process of being handed off, talking to FSS, or just tooling around VFR. Transponders would be totally useless in preventing the midair. Remember, unless equipped with TCAS (big jets) or an IFF interrogator (many military fighters), or talking to the controlling agency that is actually watching you and your transponder, it's not going to do any good. It is absolutely no good at preventing VFR - VFR midairs. TPAS is a good solution, since it warns you of someone else tooling around with his xponder on. ADS-B would be nice, if affordable/practicable in a glider. FLARM is pretty much only glider-to-glider, and requires active participation (and is a moot point in the US anyway, at present). If I was going to get up in the flight levels with my glider (no thanks, I happen to like my old gelcoat, thankyou!) I would seriously consider a transponder. Also an attitude indicator!. Down lower, if traffic is an issue, then I'm leaning towards some kind of TPAS - like device. I'm waiting for one with a good aural cue (I think there is one out now). Any comments from current TPAS users out there? Kirk 66 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
Kirk, I happen to be also a TPAS user. I am using the Monroy, which
gives you warning for nearby transponder equipped aircraft. All it does actually is alerting you to scan for traffic when there is traffic nearby. It doesn't tell you where it is though, but for $500 I think it worth it. There is now a better unit offered on Wings and Wheels http://www.wingsandwheels.com/page4.htm Installation is not much of an issue, since those units are so small you can stick them to the glare shield as I do. Just make sure to buy one with voice alerts as you noted, as you would not notice the leds during day time when your eyes are focused outside. Ramy kirk.stant wrote: Ramy wrote: Meanwhile, at least in the US, our only option is the 30 years old technology of transponders, which are relatively effordable for most pilots I see flying at the Reno area. Ramy, what if the collision had been between an older Learjet, not equipped with TCAS, and not talking to ATC (in the process of being handed off, talking to FSS, or just tooling around VFR. Transponders would be totally useless in preventing the midair. Remember, unless equipped with TCAS (big jets) or an IFF interrogator (many military fighters), or talking to the controlling agency that is actually watching you and your transponder, it's not going to do any good. It is absolutely no good at preventing VFR - VFR midairs. TPAS is a good solution, since it warns you of someone else tooling around with his xponder on. ADS-B would be nice, if affordable/practicable in a glider. FLARM is pretty much only glider-to-glider, and requires active participation (and is a moot point in the US anyway, at present). If I was going to get up in the flight levels with my glider (no thanks, I happen to like my old gelcoat, thankyou!) I would seriously consider a transponder. Also an attitude indicator!. Down lower, if traffic is an issue, then I'm leaning towards some kind of TPAS - like device. I'm waiting for one with a good aural cue (I think there is one out now). Any comments from current TPAS users out there? Kirk 66 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
Why are we asking what else could the glider pilot do? Why aren't we asking "what else could the jet pilot have done?" The jet does not have a greater right to use the skies than the glider. Furthermore, let's not forget the FAA right of way rules. A glider has right of way over all powered craft unless that craft is in distress. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
kirk.stant wrote:
Ramy wrote: Meanwhile, at least in the US, our only option is the 30 years old technology of transponders, which are relatively effordable for most pilots I see flying at the Reno area. Ramy, what if the collision had been between an older Learjet, not equipped with TCAS, and not talking to ATC (in the process of being handed off, talking to FSS, or just tooling around VFR. Do they actually do that? And why would they want to, as long as they had radar coverage? I'm having a hard time imagining a professional jet pilot flying around at 300 knots that wouldn't want to be talking to ATC, especially with passengers. I'm not questioning your advice on TPAS units, just wondering how likely your scenario is. The TPAS units would also work with the average Cessna, which is certainly doesn't have TCAS, and even more likely to be without ATC contact. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VQ-1's P4M-1Q crash off China - 1956 | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | May 6th 06 11:13 PM |
Yet another A36 crash | H.P. | Piloting | 10 | April 23rd 05 05:58 PM |
Seniors Contest | Bob Fidler | Soaring | 68 | March 17th 05 03:50 AM |
Sport Pilot - School Won't Offer | Gary G | Piloting | 38 | February 16th 05 10:41 AM |
Announce/USA: FAA Glider Flying Handbook / Bob Wander | SoarBooks | Soaring | 0 | August 11th 03 03:55 PM |