Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt

Lessons to be learned?

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

Join the discussion.

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, Karen wrote:
Lessons to be learned?

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

Join the discussion.

On Oct 11, 7:17*pm, 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, Karen wrote:



Lessons to be learned?

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

Join the discussion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You must be a rich Yank with more money than sense! $2500 sounds like
a small fortune to a hard up Brit. Why not get airliners to fit $300
Flarm units?

Derek C

On Oct 11, 11:44*am, Derek C wrote:
On Oct 11, 7:17*pm, 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, Karen wrote:

Lessons to be learned?

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

Join the discussion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You must be a rich Yank with more money than sense! $2500 sounds like
a small fortune to a hard up Brit. Why not get airliners to fit $300
Flarm units?

Derek C

FLARM is short range, therefor not useful for Glider to commercial
traffic

On Oct 11, 7:47*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:44*am, Derek C wrote:





On Oct 11, 7:17*pm, 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, Karen wrote:

Lessons to be learned?

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

Join the discussion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You must be a rich Yank with more money than sense! $2500 sounds like
a small fortune to a hard up Brit. Why not get airliners to fit $300
Flarm units?

Derek C

FLARM is short range, therefor not useful for Glider to commercial
traffic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

About 5 km range, so enough to take avoiding action. I note from the
article that the B737 claimed to be at 5500 ft AMSL at the time the
near miss took place and the gliders were allowed to fly transponder
free up to 5000 ft in the area, so it probably wasn't as close as the
article claimed.

Derek C

On 10/11/2010 11:44 AM, Derek C wrote:
You must be a rich Yank with more money than sense! $2500 sounds like
a small fortune to a hard up Brit. Why not get airliners to fit $300
Flarm units?

Where do you get $300 FLARM units? But, that's not the problem, really -
the airliner requires certified equipment. It would be much quicker,
easier, more effective, and cheaper (for the airline company) to talk
the airline companies into putting those $2500 transponders into gliders
flying in that area. $100,000 - problem solved in one month.

The transponders could be leased to the pilots - it's not necessary for
it to be a gift. Could you afford $200/year to have a transponder in
your glider?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Oct 11, 8:56*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 10/11/2010 11:44 AM, Derek C wrote: You must be a rich Yank with more money than sense! $2500 sounds like
a small fortune to a hard up Brit. Why not get airliners to fit $300
Flarm units?

Where do you get $300 FLARM units? But, that's not the problem, really -
the airliner requires certified equipment. It would be much quicker,
easier, more effective, and cheaper (for the airline company) to talk
the airline companies into putting those $2500 transponders into gliders
flying in that area. $100,000 - problem solved in one month.

The transponders could be leased to the pilots - it's not necessary for
it to be a gift. Could you afford $200/year to have a transponder in
your glider?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Ryanair is a low cost carrier that cuts its costs down to the last
penny and treats its customers like cattle. I can't somehow see them
purchasing several thousand transponder units to give to European
glider pilots!

Derek C

On Oct 11, 11:44*am, Derek C wrote:
On Oct 11, 7:17*pm, 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, Karen wrote:

Lessons to be learned?

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

Join the discussion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You must be a rich Yank with more money than sense! $2500 sounds like
a small fortune to a hard up Brit. Why not get airliners to fit $300
Flarm units?

Derek C

Just maybe Dave is an experience pilot who flies in an area where
there is high density of glider, airline and fast jet traffic and he
is experienced enough across gliders and power aircraft to know how
the ATC system works and how much traffic is out there where he flies.
He flies and lives in are area were we have had an actual glider-fast
jet mid-air collisions (I was flying there that day) and close calls
with airliners. In addition to encouraging transponder adoption the
local glider community, lead by PASCO, has also worked with the local
ATC operation on both awareness and developing radio and operational
procedures to help keep gliders separated from airliners and fast jet
traffic.

If glider pilots choose to fly near areas of high-density airline and
fast-jet traffic without a transponder and the decision would only
affect their safety then I'd have no problem in anybody doing whatever
they want. But introducing the dynamics of airliners full of
passengers being exposed to mid-air risk and I have a real problem
with people choosing to fly in those areas without transponders -- and
especially about glider pilots complaining about the cost of
transponders. Presumably there are other places people can fly with
less destiny.

And I'm not convinced that "its not a mandatory transponder zone"
excludes pilots from the need to equip with transponders. (switching
to the USA...) In the USA we have key areas of glider activity that do
not require transponders but just call out for transponder usage in
gliders, and we seem to have significant variance across those
locations with attitudes to and carriage of transponders. If pilots
take the attitude that they don't want to adopt transponders in those
areas then the best outcome I can see is for the FAA to require
mandatory local use. I'd much rather see that than a nation wide
removal of the transponder exemption for gliders.

The Flarm suggestion and if made to airlines or government regulatory
agencies would just show up the glider community as clueless. Any
suggestion to stick something like FLARM in a transport category
cockpit is laughable. Unlike TCAS II Flarm does not provide resolution
advisories. The TCAS II (ACAS II on your side of the pond) systems
need to provide a single situation view/command to the pilot. You
can't have FLARM triggering a warning and TCAS or the ground
controllers not being aware of it or situations where a crew decides
to manoeuvre because of a threat the ground controller cannot see of
Flarm. Even if fully integrated all the Flarm threat could likely do
is prompt the crew where to look, not much help if descending through
clouds with gliders hiding underneath etc. Only TCAS II allows/
requires a pilot to ignore a controllers direction -- no regulator is
going to be willing to allow an uncertified flarm box in a threat
aircraft issuing correct data and having an airliner TCAS+Flarm system
issue an RA. Integrating Flarm with TCAS would cost millions and would
suck a small company like Flarm dry and kill the innovation they have.
The practical answer is simply to install a transponder -- it is the
only technology compatible with TCAS and ground based SSR systems. And
in Europe many of the Mode S transponders available now give you a
path to 1090ES data-out. Not something you may ever want but maybe a
nice option in future, and it means the boxes have a long useful life
ahead of them.

Darryl

Darryl Ramm wrote:
If glider pilots choose to fly near areas of high-density airline and
fast-jet traffic without a transponder and the decision would only

I hate that "who has been there first" argument nearly as much as I hate
Usenet posters who don't care to reasonably trim quotations. Anyway, in
Germany, nearly everywhere gliders have been first.

That area has been densly populated by gliders for a long time, without
any conflict whatsoever. There's a perfect international airport nearby,
Frankfurt-Main (EDDF), which coexists with the gliders without any
problem. Now Ryanair appears and chooses not to use Frankfurt-Main, but
rather fly to Frankfurt-Hahn (EDFH) instead, because it's cheaper (in
fact, ist's even subsidized...). And then Ryanair asks that gliders
should go and spend thousands of Euros for transponders, so Ryanair can
spare a few bucks in landing fees by using a subsidized airport.

On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote:
If glider pilots choose to fly near areas of high-density airline and
fast-jet traffic *without a transponder and the decision would only

I hate that "who has been there first" argument nearly as much as I hate
Usenet posters who don't care to reasonably trim quotations. Anyway, in
Germany, nearly everywhere gliders have been first.

That area has been densly populated by gliders for a long time, without
any conflict whatsoever. There's a perfect international airport nearby,
Frankfurt-Main (EDDF), which coexists with the gliders without any
problem. Now Ryanair appears and chooses not to use Frankfurt-Main, but
rather fly to Frankfurt-Hahn (EDFH) instead, because it's cheaper (in
fact, ist's even subsidized...). And then Ryanair asks that gliders
should go and spend thousands of Euros for transponders, so Ryanair can
spare a few bucks in landing fees by using a subsidized airport.

But every time a glider takes off in that area now is the glider pilot
making a decision to fly in an area of high density airline traffic? I
know this mess was not created by the glider pilots changing how they
operate--but what is reasonable to do now from a safety viewpoint? If
that traffic is there then transponders will likely provide a strong
safety-net, and lack of use might well end up costing a planeload of
passengers their lives and cost soaring greatly if there is a mid-air.
By all means go and tackle Ryanair on the safety implications of what
they are doing. They hardly have a good PR image and the public may
well be sympathetic.

---

Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost
several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with
light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and
TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast
jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that
evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow
apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive
those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to
register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I
start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric
information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the
USA.

Allegheny 853
MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed

Pacific Southwest 182
Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172
San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed

Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS
carriage requirements in the USA)
MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee
Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured

NetJets N879QS
Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29
Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky)

Darryl