Midair Warning

While it is a good idea to avoid MOA (although I understand this midair did not happen in MOA) the fact is that in the Great Basin we flying in MOAs on a regular basis as they occupy large portion of the soaring area. Avoiding the MOAs basically mean avoiding flying cross country in the Great Basin. I doubt pilots are talking to flight services, we are all on 123.30 all the time. I always believed that by flying with a transponder at least they know I am there and can avoid me, sounds like this is not the case.

Ramy

Flying with a transponder in those MOA *is* a good idea,... and yes I'm especially thinking of Sevier MOA complex out towards Ely--pretty busy with F-16s out of Hill AFB, and with good radar coverage. But there are no guarantees anything will save your life. Communicating with the appropriate ATC facility can also help. You can always contact them, find out if there is something happening, decide to stay on frequency or tell them you need to leave the frequency. Newer radios with the ability to guard a second frequency are handy.

On Sunday, 12 July 2015 14:50:42 UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
Flying with a transponder in those MOA *is* a good idea,... and yes I'm especially thinking of Sevier MOA complex out towards Ely--pretty busy with F-16s out of Hill AFB, and with good radar coverage. But there are no guarantees anything will save your life. Communicating with the appropriate ATC facility can also help. You can always contact them, find out if there is something happening, decide to stay on frequency or tell them you need to leave the frequency. Newer radios with the ability to guard a second frequency are handy.

The Sevier MOA's, A, B, C and D along with many others and restricted areas north of Ely and W/NW of Nephi are controlled by Clover Center, frequency 134.1 or you can call them at (801) 777-7575 before you fly to get a planned schedule of events

We had daily contact with them while flying out of Nephi late June and early July by telephone, Monday through Friday. Pilots also contacted them while in the air and were told the areas were either hot or cold and if they were hot they were told where and what altitude activity was at.

The folks at Clover center have been very friendly, approachable and are aware of the glider activity in the area. and YES they appreciate it when you have a transponder!

As Hill AFB gets the F35's, starting in September, I have been told we can expect more activity in all MOA's and restricted areas around the Utah and Nevada Test Range (UTTR) controlled by Clover

Ron Gleason

This South Carolina midair reminds me a lot of my incident last Oct 29, 2014 near Inyokern, CA and China Lake. While gliding off from the Sierras eastbound after a final flight of the season.. at 2800agl I hear the roar of a fighter. The Eurofighter (at least that's what I think it was) crossed over me 100ft vertical... zero horizontal southbound at perhaps 250kts. I very well could have become a statistic and news story myself... "WX" in a Discus 2A

Quickly, I checked my PowerFlarm for the jet's transponder PCAS signal and found... NOTHING! At the time my glider was not transponder equipped.

Minutes before, I'd contacted Joshua Approach to check on a small piece of restricted airspace being crossed that is normally closed. It was "cold" this time, so I switched off frequency. The problem was... I had errantly grazed the larger R2505 restricted area by 1/4mile and noted at the incident time I was just leaving it. The encounter occurred 5nm SW of China lake just outside the tower Class D. So, my decision was to not communicate with FAA approach control and report the near midair.... instead, ruminate on this for a few days.

Two decisions came out of this encounter: 1) write up my NASA safety form and submit it (it was acknowledged months later by NASA) 2) Install a Mode S transponder (Trig T22 - now installed 2015 flying season). I don't know if having a transponder would have helped... but it might have... especially if I'd stayed on frequency with Joshua Approach. I already know that fighters have no TCAS and rarely use their radar for aircraft collision advisories.

Considering the cash I have on hand just sitting there for retirement... it seemed like a very good idea to install the transponder for my own self preservation... and the preservation of the sport of soaring.

Walt Rogers WX

Originally Posted by WaltWX[_2_]

I already know that fighters have no TCAS and rarely use their radar for aircraft collision advisories.


Walt Rogers WX

Ummm, as an ex-fighter guy, we extensively used our air-to-air radar to enhance see and avoid looking for possible threats from aircraft flying VFR. As Kirk has pointed out, we also used to interrogate Mode three 1200 squawks looking for traffic that might not be displayed on our pulsed Doppler radars due to the velocity notch around zero groundspeed.

Now, in a MOA, restricted area or warning area where we might be using the radar for other more tactical application, looking for possible traffic was not a priority. But yeah, once flying to and from? That radar is a major source of situation awareness of opposing traffic.

Now to this specific incident, given the description of a broadside impact, and given the slow speed of a C150 on climb out, it is highly unlikely this aircraft would have appeared on the fighter radar, it would have been considered in the "ground clutter" and not displayed. And while flying under ATC, practicing instrument procedures, the Pilot may have been less than vigilant in his see and avoid responsibilities. That said, a C150 appearing as a non moving spot on the canopy (definition of collision course) doesn't catch the eye movement or size wise until very late...

Squeaky
USFA 83

Takes me back to the mid-70s, while "defending the northern skies
against Godless communists", on target/intercept missions north of the
Arctic Circle, the target aircraft would turn off his transponder
(strangle parrot :-D ), dispense chaff and jam the radio frequency in an
attempt to avoid detection or escape intercept. Maybe this was the case
in your incident and nobody saw you. Or maybe he just buzzed you to let
you know you weren't supposed to be there.

A couple of years ago a friend and I were skirting the White Sands
Missile Range impact area (R-5107, outside of it, of course) in a
two-seater when we noted a low flying F-16 and a high flying F-15 which
appeared to be checking us out. They were both inside the boundary, we
were outside. As we continued south, we saw the exhaust trail of a
missile going up and arching over into a descent. About halfway down,
the trail ended and we saw no more. Good reason to avoid some areas!

On 7/13/2015 4:27 PM, WaltWX wrote:
This South Carolina midair reminds me a lot of my incident last Oct 29, 2014 near Inyokern, CA and China Lake. While gliding off from the Sierras eastbound after a final flight of the season.. at 2800agl I hear the roar of a fighter. The Eurofighter (at least that's what I think it was) crossed over me 100ft vertical... zero horizontal southbound at perhaps 250kts. I very well could have become a statistic and news story myself... "WX" in a Discus 2A

Quickly, I checked my PowerFlarm for the jet's transponder PCAS signal and found... NOTHING! At the time my glider was not transponder equipped.

Minutes before, I'd contacted Joshua Approach to check on a small piece of restricted airspace being crossed that is normally closed. It was "cold" this time, so I switched off frequency. The problem was... I had errantly grazed the larger R2505 restricted area by 1/4mile and noted at the incident time I was just leaving it. The encounter occurred 5nm SW of China lake just outside the tower Class D. So, my decision was to not communicate with FAA approach control and report the near midair.... instead, ruminate on this for a few days.

Two decisions came out of this encounter: 1) write up my NASA safety form and submit it (it was acknowledged months later by NASA) 2) Install a Mode S transponder (Trig T22 - now installed 2015 flying season). I don't know if having a transponder would have helped... but it might have... especially if I'd stayed on frequency with Joshua Approach. I already know that fighters have no TCAS and rarely use their radar for aircraft collision advisories.

Considering the cash I have on hand just sitting there for retirement... it seemed like a very good idea to install the transponder for my own self preservation... and the preservation of the sport of soaring.

Walt Rogers WX

--
Dan Marotta

If the FAA could only assure the gliding and GA community that equipping with transponders and ADS-B would provide avoidance of midair collisions, perhaps there would be more acceptance. Even with a transponder, aircraft collide with each other. TCAS on airliners (mostly) is the only system that seems to assure a resolution to collisions.

GA that predominantly fly VFR and gliders would gain the most from Nextgen improvements by preventing midair collisions.

It seems that FAA's main thrust with Nextgen (adding a second tracking ADS-B system) is for THEIR BENEFIT to control traffic under postive control (IFR or VFR Advisories radar tracking). That is the premise and main policy motivating this change to transponders everywhere and ADS-B.

BTW, I do have empathy for those wishing to stay in gliding at the lowest cost, raising their family and educating their children. Adding transponders and ADS-B doesn't seem to have a sufficient cost benefit. My particular financial position allows me to add that equipment.

Walt Rogers WX

Walt Rogers WX

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 1:11:49 AM UTC-4, WaltWX wrote:
If the FAA could only assure the gliding and GA community that equipping with transponders and ADS-B would provide avoidance of midair collisions, perhaps there would be more acceptance. Even with a transponder, aircraft collide with each other. TCAS on airliners (mostly) is the only system that seems to assure a resolution to collisions.

GA that predominantly fly VFR and gliders would gain the most from Nextgen improvements by preventing midair collisions.

It seems that FAA's main thrust with Nextgen (adding a second tracking ADS-B system) is for THEIR BENEFIT to control traffic under postive control (IFR or VFR Advisories radar tracking). That is the premise and main policy motivating this change to transponders everywhere and ADS-B.

BTW, I do have empathy for those wishing to stay in gliding at the lowest cost, raising their family and educating their children. Adding transponders and ADS-B doesn't seem to have a sufficient cost benefit. My particular financial position allows me to add that equipment.

Walt Rogers WX

Walt Rogers WX

FAA's thrust is driven by 2 things:
1- Homeland security wants all(flying) weapons to be tracked.
2- Laying ground work for coming infestation of drones.
Conspiracy theorist
UH

BTW, I do have empathy for those wishing to stay in gliding at the lowest cost, raising their family and educating their children. Adding transponders and ADS-B doesn't seem to have a sufficient cost benefit. My particular financial position allows me to add that equipment.

Walt Rogers WX

Thanks, Walt, for injecting a note of realism. There will always be ways to improve safety by spending more money, whether by buying another gadget or--farther out on the spectrum--flying an Open Class glider because 22m is the minimum wingspan to carry all the batteries and electronics.

I'm the pilot that one poster referred to somewhat incredulously as wanting to borrow/rent a PowerFLARM for the Standard Class Nationals because I hadn't made up my mind about purchase. Perhaps an explanation is in order apart from having two daughters in very expensive colleges in a post-divorce, pre-retirement environment.

Yes, not nearly all the U.S. glider fleet is PowerFLARM equipped. I suspect more competition gliders are but there's at least one that's not.

I'm well aware of the potential for a midair collision with power traffic and gliders. I've had a handful of close calls with both since I started flying 50 years ago, although only one that might have been prevented with FLARM onboard (almost being run over from behind by a GA airplane headed into the same local airport for which I was on final glide into the sun).

I'm no expert but in reading through the discussion above, short of the F-16 carrying TCAS, it doesn't sound like any of the current equipment would have prevented this collision.

I was out of flying for a few years so I missed the initial "spirited" debate over FLARM. My impression from the RAS sidelines was that the SSA Rule Committee made an excellent call (as they usually do), resisting pressure to move too fast to mandate it given the state of the technology, the availability of production units, and cost/benefit. I suspect they will revisit that decision again.

When I re-entered the competition arena last fall, it was at a smallish regional (NR4) where I didn't think PowerFLARM would be necessary. Yes, I'm headed to Elmira next week. No, I haven't made a buying decision. Thanks to the generosity of Bill Nockles, I installed a loaner portable PowerFLARM and flew with it last weekend. My impressions ranged from "wow, that's neat" to "that's great, I never would have noticed that airliner (flying 10,000' over me)", to "that guy is getting awfully close" to "I'm spending a lot of time watching yet another TV screen".

Summary after one flight: FLARM is a nice addition to the cockpit but doesn't confer immunity from collision with anyone or obviate the need to keep looking around. It also provides some tactical info on nearby gliders that changes the game in small but significant ways.

If I stay in soaring, I'll almost certainly buy a PowerFLARM unit, I'm just not sure when or which one. But that's close to $2,000. Adding a transponder would be another $2,000 or so.

In that event, I would love to upgrade my flight computer (LNAV, GPS-NAV, GNII) and that could add another $2,000-$4,000.

Say $7,000 just to "refresh" my avionics. But I can get a very nice glider for not much more than that, albeit not with the performance of my ASW 24. One person's "for that modest amount, I don't know why anyone wouldn't make the investment in safety" is another person's dealbreaker. Yes, I know we're talking about other people's safety, too, not just one individual.

I've been a safety advocate for decades. I've given safety talks to discuss the six-point harness I have in my ship; the ELT I installed WAY back when; the way I've secured heavy objects in/around the cockpit to preclude fracturing my skull in a crash (having lost two very dear people to that in separate accidents); the rear view mirror I installed for gaggles; the canopy wire deflector cage I paid extra to have Schleicher install; the large drinking water system that helps insure I won't get dehydrated; and the pilot relief system to deal with all the water I drink. I selected my ASW 24 over the more popular Discus many years ago because of Gerhard Waibel's safety cockpit design.

Safety is very important to me. But there are no absolutes in life. Even maintaining life itself is subject to balancing medical capabilities with quality of life. It may sound harsh to some, but safety must be subject to the same cost/benefit analysis as anything else, and that includes weighing the impact that watching a TV screen or relaxing your see-and-avoid vigilence because FLARM is "protecting" you will have. It also admittedly involves weighing the impact that a midair between a glider and an airliner could have on innocent passengers and on our sport.

Thanks, again, to all who responded to my original request, including Noelle Mayes, who offered to rent a portable PowerFLARM for a very modest amount.. I'm happy I'll have one at Elmira. I'm also happy I wasn't forced to buy it or a transponder.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 9:34:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
/snip/


I'm no expert but in reading through the discussion above, short of the F-16 carrying TCAS, it doesn't sound like any of the current equipment would have prevented this collision.

TCAS is certainly impressive and proven technology, but I don't think you can claim that an F-16 with TCAS would have "prevented" this collision. We don't know the important details about how/why the collision happened. AFAIK it is still not clear if the Cessna 150 transponder was actually operating--was it actually turned it on? Was the encoder reading the correct altitude? Was the Transponder correctly set to Mode-C/S (not Mode A aka "ON" on many transponders... then a TCAS would not "see" the Cessna at all). Did the F-16 have its radar on/in what mode? IFF interrogator on?/in what mode? (I am pretty sure the BAE IFF/Transponder in the F-16C is capable of interrogating Mode 3C/S so can receive back target altitude if in the appropriate mode, but I have no clue what is actually displayed to the pilot in what mode). I could go on for paragraphs more with questions, there are many questions about equipment, ATC and the pilots working correctly. Some answers to which would imply having a full TCAS-II in the F-16 would would not have helped.

There was a horrible accident and some kind of failure that absolutely needs to be understood, and I want to wait to see that finding, but I suspect this may just be a case where the aircraft were suitably equipped and bad still bad things happened and bolting yet more technology on may not necessarily be the right way to move forward...

Summary after one flight: FLARM is a nice addition to the cockpit but doesn't confer immunity from collision with anyone or obviate the need to keep looking around. It also provides some tactical info on nearby gliders that changes the game in small but significant ways.

FLARM was *never* intended to reduce the importance of visual lookout. I don't think (and hope that) anybody who flies with FLARM has the expectation that it confers any "immunity". It is a supplement/enhancement to make up for the inherent and serious problems in visual avoidance especially with gliders. Interestingly the whole development of FLARM started by looking for ways to reduce mid-air glider collision risk, including high-visibility marking, etc.

No technology (including TCAS) can provide immunity from collision risks. Nobody should be expecting that, and describing any saftey related product as not *perfect* is really not a useful way to think about saftey. It needs to be a more nuanced discussion about risks, technology benefits, effectiveness and costs. An area that has been well covered for FLARM. including Andy Blackburn's article in Soaring Magazine last year.

I understand you pain on the cost of all this, and we've got to be careful moving forward, with PowerFLARM, Transponders, ADS-B and maybe TABS all offering different capabilities, some being fairly clearly useful in some cases but just bolting in more and more technology does not necessarily keep providing a useful improvement in saftey, let alone saftey value for money. Especially as some of this stuff just becomes incompatible/risks overloading/distracting the pilot or just confusing owners/pilots on what the actual capabilities of all these technology boxes are...

Great to see you got offers for PowerFLARM loan/rentals for your contest.