Midair near Minden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

snoop


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

Jacek Kobiesa
Washington State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al




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

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

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

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

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

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

wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

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

Some answers from what I learned today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fred

"Fred" wrote in message
ups.com...
My fear, though, is that the talking heads who
form much of Americans' opinions will start speaking out about the lack
of sophisticated equipment on board the sailplane. You know the kind:
"if that glider had an encoding transponder on it, this never would
have happened."

When you hear that, please point out to the speaker that the sailplane
pilot was following all the regulations

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

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

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

Interesting he had a transponder!!

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

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

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

Al


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

Some answers from what I learned today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fred

Fred,

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

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

Ramy

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

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

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

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

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

Doug,

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

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

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

At 12:36 30 August 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:
snoop wrote:

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

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

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

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

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