(USA) NTSB issues recommendations to the FAA and the SSA regarding transponder use in gliders

Voluntary compliance is great. However, there are always people who don't
get it and create situations that give the rest of us a black eye or worse.

I don't think that it is unreasonable to require that all aircraft (gliders,
balloons, etc.) who fly above 10K or near major airports are transponder
equipped. I would hope that rather than forcing everyone to install Mode C
(an antiquated technology), that we could get the FAA to accelerate the
deployment of ADS-B ground stations in strategic areas, and let gliders and
balloons meet the transponder requirements with low cost ADS-B transceivers,
which will hopefully be available within the next year or so. A side
benefit of this, is that the power draw for ADS-B UAT transceivers should be
a lot lower than Mode C.

Mike Schumann

"VARR" wrote in message
...
the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where
they
were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing

Well, it certainly is not quite the same thing, but I can appreciate
Tim's point, from a certain perspective, if what he fully intends to
convey is that those who *do* chose to fly "there" (i.e., wherever a
transponder really would be a "good idea") should indeed be allowed to
do so, but then they really "should" chose to equip themselves
appropriately for their own benefit as well as the benefit of others.

Extending his analogy, those who do chose to stay in the water when
others are chumming for sharks nearby should be allowed to do so, but
then they really "should" take the opportunity, whenever feasible, to
chose to equip themselves appropriately (e.g., place themselves inside
a shark cage, etc.) when participating in such activity in order to
mitigate the risk to themselves as well as the risk to others (where
"others" is obviously more of a concern in the case of transponders in
gliders).

Perhaps the FAA will choose to only issue "stronger guidelines"
recommending transponder use under certain operating conditions and in
certain environments. Or, if they chose to make regulatory changes,
perhaps they might issue less of a blanket regulation, as recommended
by the NTSB, and something more conditional and specific to certain
operating environments. It seems reasonable that such conditions
could be defined which would mitigate the majority of the risk without
negatively impacting the majority of glider operations. Even better,
if the SSA were to perform well at issuing such guidelines and making
such recommendations to the community, then perhaps the powers that be
will consider the risk appropriately managed and not take burdensome
and inappropriate action (at least for now, at least not until, if
ever, low-cost and effective risk mitigating solutions are actually
available).

Taking into account (a) the recent widespread adoption of PCAS, and
(b) local operating agreements that do exist and continue to be
created nationwide between local soaring operations and local ATC,
there seems to be hope for a non-regulatory solution -- perhaps these
efforts just need to be more cohesive, better standardized, and better
"marketed?"

Here is hoping that rationality prevails at the FAA and that the sport/
industry/etc. (the SSA?) takes strong leadership action on the issue
and demonstrates to the FAA and others that the sport/industry/etc.
can indeed appropriately self-regulate.


On Apr 1, 4:08 pm, Bob wrote:

So Tim,
You are saying that the Hawker shouldn't have been there right?

Bob

On Apr 1, 2:57 pm, "Tim Mara" wrote:

the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has
always
been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where
they
were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing

tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Apr 2, 1:07*am, wrote:
Kirk,

* *Ironic that you talk about 22k cloudbases over Grand Canyon! That
is about the altitude of the midair on June 30, 1956, that got
Positive Control Airspace(now Class A) lowered from 24,000 to 18,000
feet! I put a transponder in my DG303 years ago. Most of the glass
ships at Warner Springs have transponders. There is no excuse for not
having a transponder if you do cross-country. The same excuses I hear
(not from you) are the ones I heard when I started power flying in
1973. Too expensive, blah blah blah.

* It was extremely lucky no one was killed in that Minden midair. The
few times I have soared there(in rental ships) I have had close calls
with 121 carriers on the localizer for Reno or corporate jets going
into Minden. Flying wave the other day at Warner I was on LA Center
the whole flight. It was amazing the amount of carriers that vectored
around me or got TCAS alerts.

* There is lots of traffic out there folks. Transponders are a great
safety device. The 0440 vs. 1200 has nothing to do with power output.
Per LOA with Reno the 0440 identifies you as a glider rather than an
airplane. It should be an FAR to have a discrete code for gliders and
hopefully will happen soon.

* * Happy Soaring, *Dean "GO"

Dean,

I would set a slightly different priority: A PCAS - type device is
the absolute minimum required for XC (or local in busy areas). Out
west, where XC is flown at much higher altitudes, then the transponder
becomes important.

I currently fly east of St Louis, not far from the Class B but never
get high enough to conflict with airliners. Our main threat (aside
from the occasional bizjet or KC-135 out of Scott AFB) is VFR light
planes. Here, a transponder will not help much (if at all) for most
of the traffic, while a PCAS will help a lot. But a transponder
wouldn't hurt!

But I have a hard enough problem convincing members of my club for the
need for radios, much less transponders in gliders! Lots of
resistance to change in older club cultures, not surprisingly...

And let's not get started on altimeter settings! I've run into many
pilots who are more concerned with using the altimeter (set to QFE!)
to figure out their pattern altitude than with using a properly set
altimeter, along with a radio, to decrease the chance of a midair in
busy airspace. Scary, really...

Cheers,

Kirk 66

"Most gliders aren't a hazard to airliners or other controlled traffic"?????
What is the basis for that claim? There's IFR traffic everywhere. The
stuff you see isn't the threat, it's the targets you don't. Anyone who
thinks that they are immune from mid-airs because of where they fly is just
rolling the dice. Yes, the odds are different in different places, but the
risk is 0 everywhere.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:PjEIj.3585$lV1.2099@trndny06...
Tim Mara wrote:

The other problem with transponders in gliders is the false sense of
security it implies....to many it is "assumed" that this is like a shield
keeping everyone else aware of their presents as they go happily flying
along with their heads down looking at the wiz-bang flight
computer...this leads to more near misses and occasional hits than
electronics can avoid....I know of no Cherokee 140's or Cezna 172's
flying with TCAS on board

How many transponder equipped gliders, transponder on, have been hit by a
non-TCAS equipped general aviation aircraft? Is this really a problem? Can
it be addressed by training?

....and I also know of a lot more glider pilots who will insist they only
turn on the transponder when they are flying down the glideslope of major
airports..

Sounds like a good start, doesn't it? I mean, we wouldn't be having this
discussion if the Reno glider had turned the transponder in that
situation. Again, perhaps a training issue.

Transponders are not the fix all for the problem,

In a sense, it would fix "all" the problem, if we think colliding with
airliners is our problem.

but mandatory transponders in k6's, 2-33's and 126's will certainly have
an impact on the sport as we "knew" it.

Yes, so I'm hoping any requirement for transponders recognizes that most
gliders aren't a hazard to airliners and other "controlled" traffic.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Apr 2, 8:20*am, "Mike Schumann"
wrote:
Why is anyone getting TCAS alerts? *TCAS is suppose to be the last line of
defense against a collision. *If glider / jet traffic is regularly resulting
in TCAS alerts, then ATC isn't providing enough separation between
transponder equipped gliders and IFR traffic. *This is a big issue that
needs to be brought up with the FAA.

Mike Schumann

wrote in message

...





Kirk,

* Ironic that you talk about 22k cloudbases over Grand Canyon! That
is about the altitude of the midair on June 30, 1956, that got
Positive Control Airspace(now Class A) lowered from 24,000 to 18,000
feet! I put a transponder in my DG303 years ago. Most of the glass
ships at Warner Springs have transponders. There is no excuse for not
having a transponder if you do cross-country. The same excuses I hear
(not from you) are the ones I heard when I started power flying in
1973. Too expensive, blah blah blah.

*It was extremely lucky no one was killed in that Minden midair. The
few times I have soared there(in rental ships) I have had close calls
with 121 carriers on the localizer for Reno or corporate jets going
into Minden. Flying wave the other day at Warner I was on LA Center
the whole flight. It was amazing the amount of carriers that vectored
around me or got TCAS alerts.

*There is lots of traffic out there folks. Transponders are a great
safety device. The 0440 vs. 1200 has nothing to do with power output.
Per LOA with Reno the 0440 identifies you as a glider rather than an
airplane. It should be an FAR to have a discrete code for gliders and
hopefully will happen soon.

* *Happy Soaring, *Dean "GO"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike,

ATC is tasked only with separating IFR traffic from other IFR
traffic. Even when VMC, IFR traffic is supposed to "see and avoid".
Tom

I am concerned about the "transponders are the fix" attitude. Tucson
Soaring Club has bought transponders for all or our two place ships.
We talk with approach control before beginning operations and many of
us monitor if not talk to to approach while flying. We are also on
the ATIS for Tucson. Most club members think they are safe with the
transponders and are not as vigilant to "see and avoid". My closest
call has been with a Bonanza, overtaking me on a high speed descent
into Ryan field. All that I heard was the engine noise as he buzzed
by me at 1&1/2 wingspans at 9000'. He was not talking to approach
contol, had not listened to Tucson ATIS, did not have a TCAS and was
most likely not looking outside the cockpit for traffic. I would
rather exercise diligence myself with a Zaon MRX and have the
additional heads up to allow for me to "see and avoid". I already
will not do long straight runs without turning to clear myself of
traffic inbound or outbound from Tucson.

Randy "AV8"

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:PjEIj.3585$lV1.2099@trndny06...
Tim Mara wrote:

The other problem with transponders in gliders is the false sense of
security it implies....to many it is "assumed" that this is like a shield
keeping everyone else aware of their presents as they go happily flying
along with their heads down looking at the wiz-bang flight
computer...this leads to more near misses and occasional hits than
electronics can avoid....I know of no Cherokee 140's or Cezna 172's
flying with TCAS on board

How many transponder equipped gliders, transponder on, have been hit by a
non-TCAS equipped general aviation aircraft? Is this really a problem? Can
it be addressed by training?


this sounds like an FAA response......sorry...but how many glider pilots
ahve ever even picked up a book after passing their parctical exam... I
"was" an FAA designated examiner....amazing how little most really know
about even the very basics in regulations or for that matter in the
gliders/airplanes they are flying...so don't simply think that "mandating"
some additional training is going to fit the bill....sorry...as a group we
are not all that smart!....seriously.... I'll ask you and everyone else to
take a "private" pilot written exam and see how many that are already flying
with that littel piece of paper that says "pilot certificate" that can pass
this today... I know I'd struggle!



....and I also know of a lot more glider pilots who will insist they only
turn on the transponder when they are flying down the glideslope of major
airports..

Sounds like a good start, doesn't it? I mean, we wouldn't be having this
discussion if the Reno glider had turned the transponder in that
situation. Again, perhaps a training issue.

Transponders are not the fix all for the problem,

In a sense, it would fix "all" the problem, if we think colliding with
airliners is our problem.

but mandatory transponders in k6's, 2-33's and 126's will certainly have
an impact on the sport as we "knew" it.

Yes, so I'm hoping any requirement for transponders recognizes that most
gliders aren't a hazard to airliners and other "controlled" traffic.

"hoping" the FAA will look at any requirement to benefit "recreational"
aviation is pretty optomistic... The FAA and every other government agency
is more in tune with voters and what is on CNN, 60 minutes and
20/20....you'll have to remember just what a very small voice glider pilots
have in the larger scheme of things...we are a very (ultra) small voice ....

The very best secenario we could hope for would ultimately be more
restricted airspace....ya I know you don't want to hear this if it affects
where you fly....but, it may boil down to making certain high traffic aeas
completely off limits or TCAS equipped 126's!...
just the simple truth....
tim





--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

Tim

I do fly in high traffic density areas (with transponder and PCAS and
talking to ATC when appropriate) and know many other pilots that also
at least have a transponder in their ship and none that I know have
this naive view of transponders and safety bubbles. If anything the
fact that they have a transponder in their glider, tends to be
correlated with an awareness of traffic, ATC, etc. and I suspect if
anything these folks are more likely to have their heads outside the
cockpit. And since many of those same pilots also fly with PCAS I can
guarantee they understand the need to be looking outside.


I am glad you can "Guarantee" this.....that makes it a lot easier
tim



I know of many light aircraft flying with PCAS (Zaon) and a few (new
expensive ones) with the Avidyne/Ryan system that is between PCAS and
TCAS.

Darryl

On Apr 2, 6:57 am, Tom Nau wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:20 am, "Mike Schumann"
wrote:



Why is anyone getting TCAS alerts? TCAS is suppose to be the last line of
defense against a collision. If glider / jet traffic is regularly resulting
in TCAS alerts, then ATC isn't providing enough separation between
transponder equipped gliders and IFR traffic. This is a big issue that
needs to be brought up with the FAA.

Mike Schumann

wrote in message

...

Kirk,

Ironic that you talk about 22k cloudbases over Grand Canyon! That
is about the altitude of the midair on June 30, 1956, that got
Positive Control Airspace(now Class A) lowered from 24,000 to 18,000
feet! I put a transponder in my DG303 years ago. Most of the glass
ships at Warner Springs have transponders. There is no excuse for not
having a transponder if you do cross-country. The same excuses I hear
(not from you) are the ones I heard when I started power flying in
1973. Too expensive, blah blah blah.

It was extremely lucky no one was killed in that Minden midair. The
few times I have soared there(in rental ships) I have had close calls
with 121 carriers on the localizer for Reno or corporate jets going
into Minden. Flying wave the other day at Warner I was on LA Center
the whole flight. It was amazing the amount of carriers that vectored
around me or got TCAS alerts.

There is lots of traffic out there folks. Transponders are a great
safety device. The 0440 vs. 1200 has nothing to do with power output.
Per LOA with Reno the 0440 identifies you as a glider rather than an
airplane. It should be an FAR to have a discrete code for gliders and
hopefully will happen soon.

Happy Soaring, Dean "GO"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike,

ATC is tasked only with separating IFR traffic from other IFR
traffic. Even when VMC, IFR traffic is supposed to "see and avoid".
Tom

Ah do you fly much in high traffic areas, talk much to ATC? ATC
regularly issues traffic advisories to help separate all types of
traffic. If you fly a glider with transponder near places like Reno,
or Travis AFB, or ... traffic gets routed around you by ATC issuing
traffic advisories to other aircraft, wether IFR or VFR. The operating
procedures in place near Reno including for non-transponder equipped
gliders are intended to help ATC issue those advisories to IFR and VFR
traffic. That's why they are in place. Luckily people involved in the
Reno area seem to get that while important, see and avoid does not
work perfectly, and when you much high density fast traffic with those
invisible white gliders it works a lot less perfectly. And I'll repeat
again this applies to many more places than the Reno area.

Darryl

On Apr 2, 8:09 am, "Tim Mara" wrote:
Tim

I do fly in high traffic density areas (with transponder and PCAS and
talking to ATC when appropriate) and know many other pilots that also
at least have a transponder in their ship and none that I know have
this naive view of transponders and safety bubbles. If anything the
fact that they have a transponder in their glider, tends to be
correlated with an awareness of traffic, ATC, etc. and I suspect if
anything these folks are more likely to have their heads outside the
cockpit. And since many of those same pilots also fly with PCAS I can
guarantee they understand the need to be looking outside.

I am glad you can "Guarantee" this.....that makes it a lot easier
tim



I know of many light aircraft flying with PCAS (Zaon) and a few (new
expensive ones) with the Avidyne/Ryan system that is between PCAS and
TCAS.

Darryl


Tim you are welcome. :-) But if I do ever meet anybody flying with
PCAS who does not admit after a while there was lot more traffic out
there than they thought I'll be sure to let you know.

Darryl

How many transponder equipped gliders, transponder on, have been hit by a
non-TCAS equipped general aviation aircraft? Is this really a problem? Can
it be addressed by training?

does that mean that having a transponder on board will eliminate this risk?
Does that then allow us to feel secure that it can't happen or won't? The
only way even with a transponder installed and operating to know what
traffic is around you is to be in contact with ATC....simply sending a
signal doesn't tell everyone around you that you are there.
tim