Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt

Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:
Hi Gang
I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders
be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders
turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe
Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions
but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of
a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a
business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
Dave

On Oct 11, 9:54 am, wrote:
Lessons to be learned?

http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2

Join the discussion.

I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A
few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident
report.

1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
and surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
1700AGL/FL100)

2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are
aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
(heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there
are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsrück
ridge) and many XC flights go along there.

3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about
the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that
safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations
can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several
Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn
Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. Also the situatuion of
approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.

4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from
FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D
airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion
contact with FIS will normally suffice.

5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!

6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports
like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected"
airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
those glider pilots behave totally legal.

7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly
advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be
passed on the the approaching traffic.

In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and
operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using
the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the rule "see and be
seen" is to obey.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

On Oct 11, 12:22*pm, Peter Scholz
wrote:
Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:

Hi Gang
* *I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders
be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders
turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe
Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions
but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of
a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a
business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
Dave

On Oct 11, 9:54 am, *wrote:
Lessons to be learned?

http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2

Join the discussion.

I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A
few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident
report.

1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
and *surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
1700AGL/FL100)

2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are
aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
(heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there
are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsrück
ridge) and many XC flights go along there.

3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about
the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that
safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations
can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several
Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn
Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. *Also the situatuion of
approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.

4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from
FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D
airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion
contact with FIS will normally suffice.

5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!

6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports
like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected"
airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
those glider pilots behave totally legal.

7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly
advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be
passed on the the approaching traffic.

In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and
operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using
the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the *rule "see and be
seen" is to obey.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
adopt transponders.

Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?

And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
The two just do not mix well.


Darryl

Am 11.10.2010 22:55, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, Peter
wrote:
Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:

Hi Gang
I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders
be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders
turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe
Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions
but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of
a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a
business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
Dave

On Oct 11, 9:54 am, wrote:
Lessons to be learned?

http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2

Join the discussion.

I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A
few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident
report.

1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
and surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
1700AGL/FL100)

2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are
aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
(heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there
are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsrück
ridge) and many XC flights go along there.

3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about
the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that
safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations
can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several
Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn
Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. Also the situatuion of
approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.

4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from
FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D
airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion
contact with FIS will normally suffice.

5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!

6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports
like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected"
airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
those glider pilots behave totally legal.

7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly
advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be
passed on the the approaching traffic.

In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and
operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using
the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the rule "see and be
seen" is to obey.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
adopt transponders.

Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?

And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
The two just do not mix well.


Darryl

Darryl,

in Germany, for many years because of the pure separation of commercial
traffic and gliders by the different airspace they use, there was no
need for transponders in gliders.

In the last years, this has changed a bit, as more and more airports are
beeing used by commercial carriers that serve the German market on top
of the traditional "state airline" Lufthansa, and more and more
restricted airspaces appear on the maps. You see more transponders in
gliders now, and there are talks about making them mandatory.

In fact, the Netherlands have tried to do this, but have after a few
weeks asked the glider pilots to switch them off again near some major
airports, because ATC just had a black cloud on there radar screens...

But ambitioned XC pilots have more possibilities with transponders,
because it is possible to get clearances for airspace that otherwise
would not be usable by a glider, so if you have the money and the
ambition, you'll get a transponder sooner or later.

I think it will take some more years to make it common for XC flights,,
but we try to avoid to make it mandatory, as it would make the
traditional glider instruction in clubs a lot more expensive, many clubs
wouldnT survive this. It's not only € 2000 for the transpionder itself,
you have to get it installed and certified for each glider. This would
exceed the value of many gliders used in training nowadays.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

On Oct 11, 2:19*pm, Peter Scholz
wrote:
Am 11.10.2010 22:55, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, Peter
wrote:
Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:

Hi Gang
* * I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders
be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders
turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe
Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions
but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of
a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a
business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
Dave

On Oct 11, 9:54 am, * *wrote:
Lessons to be learned?

http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2

Join the discussion.

I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A
few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident
report.

1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
and *surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
1700AGL/FL100)

2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are
aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
(heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there
are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsrück
ridge) and many XC flights go along there.

3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about
the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that
safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations
can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several
Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn
Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. *Also the situatuion of
approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.

4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from
FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D
airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion
contact with FIS will normally suffice.

5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!

6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports
like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected"
airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
those glider pilots behave totally legal.

7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly
advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be
passed on the the approaching traffic.

In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and
operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using
the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the *rule "see and be
seen" is to obey.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
adopt transponders.

Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?

And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
The two just do not mix well.

Darryl

Darryl,

in Germany, for many years because of the pure separation of commercial
traffic and gliders by the different airspace they use, there was no
need for transponders in gliders.

In the last years, this has changed a bit, as more and more airports are
beeing used by commercial carriers that serve the German market on top
of the traditional "state airline" Lufthansa, and more and more
restricted airspaces appear on the maps. You see more transponders in
gliders now, and there are talks about making them mandatory.

In fact, the Netherlands have tried to do this, but have after a few
weeks asked the glider pilots to switch them off again near some major
airports, because ATC just had a black cloud on there radar screens...

But ambitioned XC pilots have more possibilities with transponders,
because it is possible to get clearances for airspace that otherwise
would not be usable by a glider, so if you have the money and the
ambition, you'll get a transponder sooner or later.

I think it will take some more years to make it common for XC flights,,
but we try to avoid to make it mandatory, as it would make the
traditional glider instruction in clubs a lot more expensive, many clubs
wouldnT survive this. It's not only € 2000 for the transpionder itself,
you have to get it installed and certified for each glider. This would
exceed the value of many gliders used in training nowadays.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Peter

I was not suggesting it be mandatory (actually the reverse - voluntary
adoption where needed to avoid blanket regulations), I was just
surprised it does not seem to be listed as something that was
encouraged locally. And I understand the extra cost of the
installations in Europe thanks to EASA bureaucracy.

BTW I think it is entirely reasonable for glider communities
especially in key locations in Europe to approach carriers like
Ryanair and try to seek some help in offsetting transponder costs.
This may be plausible where there is a noticeable change on the part
of one airline. A potentially tricky situation to handle, but
companies like Ryanair should be aware of the hazards of them not
taking action extend beyond the loss of one of their aircraft,
especially if approached by the glider community with a reasonable
proposal.

Darryl

On Oct 11, 2:19*pm, Peter Scholz
wrote:
Am 11.10.2010 22:55, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, Peter
wrote:
Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:

Hi Gang
* * I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders
be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders
turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe
Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions
but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of
a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a
business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
Dave

On Oct 11, 9:54 am, * *wrote:
Lessons to be learned?

http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2

Join the discussion.

I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A
few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident
report.

1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
and *surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
1700AGL/FL100)

2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are
aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
(heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there
are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsrück
ridge) and many XC flights go along there.

3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about
the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that
safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations
can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several
Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn
Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. *Also the situatuion of
approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.

4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from
FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D
airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion
contact with FIS will normally suffice.

5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!

6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports
like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected"
airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
those glider pilots behave totally legal.

7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly
advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be
passed on the the approaching traffic.

In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and
operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using
the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the *rule "see and be
seen" is to obey.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
adopt transponders.

Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?

And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
The two just do not mix well.

Darryl

Darryl,

in Germany, for many years because of the pure separation of commercial
traffic and gliders by the different airspace they use, there was no
need for transponders in gliders.

In the last years, this has changed a bit, as more and more airports are
beeing used by commercial carriers that serve the German market on top
of the traditional "state airline" Lufthansa, and more and more
restricted airspaces appear on the maps. You see more transponders in
gliders now, and there are talks about making them mandatory.

In fact, the Netherlands have tried to do this, but have after a few
weeks asked the glider pilots to switch them off again near some major
airports, because ATC just had a black cloud on there radar screens...

But ambitioned XC pilots have more possibilities with transponders,
because it is possible to get clearances for airspace that otherwise
would not be usable by a glider, so if you have the money and the
ambition, you'll get a transponder sooner or later.

I think it will take some more years to make it common for XC flights,,
but we try to avoid to make it mandatory, as it would make the
traditional glider instruction in clubs a lot more expensive, many clubs
wouldnT survive this. It's not only € 2000 for the transpionder itself,
you have to get it installed and certified for each glider. This would
exceed the value of many gliders used in training nowadays.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

I meant also to add that I am a bit worried when I see the Schiphol
TMA brought up as a reason not to utilize transponders or encourage
their adoption in gliders. Did local ATC express concerns that if
gliders locally all adopted Mode S transponders that there would be
similar problems?

The problem at Schiphol was just overload of information on the
controllers displays and really should have been caught by the Dutch
regulators before requiring mandatory transponder carriage. There are
multiple things that could be done to address this in the display
system. Some were done but they need to do more. At times there seems
to be some confusion that the problem was an inherent limitation in
(Mode S) transponders - it was not. The sad thing is that all those
Mode S transponders work great with the TCAS/ACAS systems carried in
many aircraft even if the controllers displays are overloaded.

BTW for those interested the current AIP supplement for the Schiphol
TMA is at
http://www.ivw.nl/Images/EH-eSUP-09-...247-244610.pdf or see
http://www.eurocontrol.int/msa/publi...Procedure.html
for some extra commentary.

Darryl

Large areas of airspace are Class A-D reserved for IFR traffic under full
ATC control, to ensure Caommercial Air Trafic passenger safety.

Then you get low-cost carriers saving money by flying into small airports
without such airspace, and taking fuel-saving short cuts through
non-protected airspace.

The cost of installing transponders in EASAland is substantially greater
than the equipment cost due to excessive modification/certification fees.
I guess 'kd6veb' just screwed one in his Sparrowhawk and wired it up. I
could do that to my glider, risk invalidating the insurance and attracting
legal action from the airworthiness police.

I would appreciate a logical reason why I should spend a high proportion
of the cost of my glider to protect the profits of a commercial
orgnisation.

At 20:55 11 October 2010, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:22=A0pm, Peter Scholz
wrote:
Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:

Hi Gang
=A0 =A0I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2
glide=
rs
be so close to an airport approach and not have operating
transponders
turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and
maybe
Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider
competitions
but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death
of
a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between
a
business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
Dave

On Oct 11, 9:54 am, Karen =A0wrote:
Lessons to be learned?

http://avherald.com/h?article=3D4320f1c2

Join the discussion.

I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well.
A
few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the
incident
report.

1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
and =A0surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
1700AGL/FL100)

2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred)
are
aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
(heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because
there
are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsr=FCck
ridge) and many XC flights go along there.

3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation)
about
the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so
that
safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider
operations
can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of
several
Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the
Frankfurt-Hahn
Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. =A0Also the situatuion
of
approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.

4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances
from
FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class
D
airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just
radion
contact with FIS will normally suffice.

5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!

6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents
reports
like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more
"protected"
airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
those glider pilots behave totally legal.

7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is
strongly
advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can
be
passed on the the approaching traffic.

In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation
and
operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic
using
the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the =A0rule "see and
be
seen" is to obey.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
adopt transponders.

Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?

And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
The two just do not mix well.


Darryl

On Oct 11, 2:34*pm, Peter Purdie wrote:
Large areas of airspace are Class A-D reserved for IFR traffic under full
ATC control, to ensure Caommercial Air Trafic passenger safety.

Then you get low-cost carriers saving money by flying into small airports
without such airspace, and taking fuel-saving short cuts through
non-protected airspace.

The cost of installing transponders in EASAland is substantially greater
than the equipment cost due to excessive modification/certification fees.
I guess 'kd6veb' just screwed one in his Sparrowhawk and wired it up. *I
could do that to my glider, risk invalidating the insurance and attracting
legal action from the airworthiness police.

I would appreciate a logical reason why I should spend a high proportion
of the cost of my glider to protect the profits of a commercial
orgnisation.

You install one to protect yourself, protect the plane full of
innocent passengers, and protect the future of soaring in your
location. As I've said I think it is entirely reasonable to approach
carriers like Ryanair with suggestions for them offsetting your
transponder costs (or take the tricky step of taking that battle
public... does the flying public have a right to know this?). Glider
organizations really need to think through whether to take on this
issue or not, if not when there is eventually a fatal mid-air
collision they just won't have a publicly defensible position. In
areas of high density airline and fast jets and glider traffic, doing
nothing looks to me like a very poor choice.

I know from outside the USA it looks like the whole place is run by a
bunch of cowboys, but I hate to ruin it for you... there is no "just
screwing in" of transponder in the USA. A certified glider requires at
least an IA/A&P sign-off or maybe a 337 field approval, an
experimental one may be done by the pilot. But in either case requires
a RF signal and pressure altimeter check after install and ongoing
biannual RF signal tests. Approved transponder test stations are very
unlikely to just sign off an inspection if they have any concerns
about the transponder install. But.. yes things here are much better
than the silly regulations EASA loads on glider owners in Europe.

Darryl


At 20:55 11 October 2010, Darryl Ramm wrote:

On Oct 11, 12:22=A0pm, Peter Scholz
wrote:
Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:

Hi Gang
=A0 =A0I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2
glide=
rs
be so close to an airport approach and not have operating
transponders
turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and
maybe
Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider
competitions
but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death
of
a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between
a
business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
Dave

On Oct 11, 9:54 am, Karen =A0wrote:
Lessons to be learned?

http://avherald.com/h?article=3D4320f1c2

Join the discussion.

I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well.
A
few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the
incident
report.

1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
and =A0surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
1700AGL/FL100)

2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred)
are
aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
(heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because
there
are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsr=FCck
ridge) and many XC flights go along there.

3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation)
about
the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so
that
safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider
operations
can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of
several
Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the
Frankfurt-Hahn
Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. =A0Also the situatuion
of
approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.

4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances
from
FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class
D
airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just
radion
contact with FIS will normally suffice.

5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!

6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents
reports
like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more
"protected"
airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
those glider pilots behave totally legal.

7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is
strongly
advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can
be
passed on the the approaching traffic.

In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation
and
operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic
using
the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the =A0rule "see and
be
seen" is to obey.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
adopt transponders.

Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?

And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
The two just do not mix well.

Darryl

On Oct 11, 4:34*pm, Peter Purdie wrote:
....clip...

I would appreciate a logical reason why I should spend a high proportion
of the cost of my glider to protect the profits of a commercial
organisation.=

Because you are doing it to protect your own life, that's why; and the
lives of the people on the other airplane (you don't care, but most
pilots do). It has nothing whatever to do with "protecting profits."

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:34:09 +0000, Peter Purdie wrote:

Large areas of airspace are Class A-D reserved for IFR traffic under
full ATC control, to ensure Caommercial Air Trafic passenger safety.

Then you get low-cost carriers saving money by flying into small
airports without such airspace, and taking fuel-saving short cuts
through non-protected airspace.

It strikes me that if a low-cost carrier's airliner deliberately
transited uncontrolled airspace which is known to be regularly used by
gliders or GA aircraft that don't carry transponders and there was a
collision then the brown storm is more likely to envelop the ATC pilot,
who would be seen to have deliberately put his passengers at risk, than
the glider pilot.

If it further turned out that doing this was encouraged by the airline's
fuel saving policies then the storm would spread to encompass the airline
too on the basis that they had put profit before passenger safety.


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