Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:01:58 +0200, John Smith
wrote:

Martin Gregorie wrote:
It strikes me that if a low-cost carrier's airliner deliberately
transited uncontrolled airspace

It strikes me that a pilot doesn't know that class E is controlled
airspace. Hence it was the controller who cleared the airliner to fly
that route.

Besides, as far as I know, Frankfurt-Hahn just can't be approached
without transiting class E airspace. So the only safe solution would be
to install more class D or C or a transponder mandating zone. I doubt
this would please the the glider pilots.

Well... I fly in the vicinity of Frankfurt-Hahn, and its D airspace
ought to be completely sufficient to fly the complete approach without
ever touching the surrounding E airspace.

However, I have the feeling that especially Ryan Air is deliberately
trying to create as many near-miss reports in Germany as possible in
order to enlarge the D airspaces around "their" airports as much as
possible - to enable them to fly their trademark straight-in
approaches.

Last July I was on board of a Ryan Air 737 (1.98 Euros from
Zweibruecken to Londion Stansted - and back !!!) that was flying a
straight-in approach to Zweibruecken... after a 50 nm (for insiders:
we entered E airspace north of Trier....!!!) final in E airspace at
6.000 ft, right below the cloud streets.
There are no airspace restrictions that would enforce such an
approach.


Regards
Andreas

Andreas Maurer wrote:
Well... I fly in the vicinity of Frankfurt-Hahn, and its D airspace
ought to be completely sufficient to fly the complete approach without
ever touching the surrounding E airspace.

Well... in the German glider forum, a controller says otherwise.
Personally, I can't judge it, but I tend to believe the controller.

Last July I was on board of a Ryan Air 737 (1.98 Euros from
Zweibruecken to Londion Stansted - and back !!!) that was flying a
straight-in approach to Zweibruecken... after a 50 nm (for insiders:
we entered E airspace north of Trier....!!!) final in E airspace at
6.000 ft, right below the cloud streets.

As it was class E, they were cleared for that route by the controller.
So blame the controller and not Ryanair.

No, it's Ryanair. They always look for direct routings, even if it
takes them outside controlled airspace. As for believing ATCOs,
well, they will always say there isn't enough controlled airspace; if
class D has been established around Hahn, it will be large enough
for vectoring onto the ILS. Contrary to popular myth, gliders show
as a primary return on radar displays; whether controllers choose
to avoid them or notice them is another matter.

At 22:29 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote:
Andreas Maurer wrote:
Well... I fly in the vicinity of Frankfurt-Hahn, and its D airspace
ought to be completely sufficient to fly the complete approach
without
ever touching the surrounding E airspace.

Well... in the German glider forum, a controller says otherwise.
Personally, I can't judge it, but I tend to believe the controller.

Last July I was on board of a Ryan Air 737 (1.98 Euros from
Zweibruecken to Londion Stansted - and back !!!) that was
flying a
straight-in approach to Zweibruecken... after a 50 nm (for
insiders:
we entered E airspace north of Trier....!!!) final in E airspace at
6.000 ft, right below the cloud streets.

As it was class E, they were cleared for that route by the
controller.
So blame the controller and not Ryanair.

Mark Dickson wrote:
No, it's Ryanair. They always look for direct routings, even if it
takes them outside controlled airspace.

They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to
allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who doesn't even
know that class E airspace is controlled?

Contrary to popular myth, gliders show
as a primary return on radar displays

Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered out by
the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the
controller's display.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:29:20 +0200, John Smith
wrote:


Well... in the German glider forum, a controller says otherwise.
Personally, I can't judge it, but I tend to believe the controller.

Compared to, say, Frankfurt Rhein-Main, Hahn airport has a D airspace
whose dimensions in runway heading are not much smaller, yet it's got
less than ten percent of Rhein-Main's traffic. No airliner is forced
to fly through E on approach to Rhein-Main.

Whatever some controllers say, at Hahn it is not necessary to route
approaching IFR traffic through E airspace at less than 7.000 ft - the
D airspace is easily long enough to lead IFR traffic at 7.000 ft onto
the extended centerline, permitting them to start their final descend
safely within D.

Ryan Air has a tendency to fly very tight visual approaches in order
to save time and fuel, therefore they need to be relatively low on the
downwind leg.


As it was class E, they were cleared for that route by the controller.
So blame the controller and not Ryanair.

Well... I wouldn't be that keen on blaming Ryan Air if there wasn't a
definitive tendency to provide province airports in Germany with huge
TMZ's and D airspaces immediately when Ryan Air starts operationg
there - even if there are only a handful of flights (as, in the case
of Zweibruecken, less than ten) per day.


Regards
Andreas

On Oct 16, 12:20*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
Did I strike a nerve????

If you want to talk about BS, then lets look at your claim that FLARM is
the world wide leader in collision avoidance for glider - glider
threats. *No one denies that this is the case in Europe and elsewhere in
the world. *In the US, FLARM currently does not exist, so it is
currently not a factor.

You make a very good case about how screwed up the FAA is and how the
ADS-B scene has been complicated by the dual link architecture, etc.....
* No one disagrees with this assessment. *The obvious question is how do
we improve this situation by introducing a 3rd incompatible option?????

Conversely to your insulting posting, I am not blindly advocating UAT
over all other alternatives. *What I am suggesting is that we need a low
cost ADS-B solution so that it will be widely deployed, quickly. *Given
that UAT has apparently stalled out, and that there seems to be
increasingly competitive 1090ES solutions coming on the market, maybe
that should be the technical solution we should get on board with,
particularly so we can get TCAS visibility.

What is very frustrating for me to witness is the lack of any strategic
focus on getting the FAA and glider specific avionics manufacturers to
come up with a unified ADS-B strategy so that we have equipment that
will take advantage of the national ground station system that will be
fully deployed by the end of 2012.

Instead, we have everyone drinking the FLARM koolaid, and disparaging
any other alternative viewpoints. *This isn't going to help get anyone
to install FLARM or transponders.

There are some pockets where people are moving ahead (contests, Minden,
etc.). *But there are a LOT of gliders flying very close to or under
Class B airspaces in the US that are not transponder equipped. *It's not
that people categorically won't make the investment, but that they
aren't going to spend the money until they see a clear roadmap, so that
their investments are just throwing money down a rat hole.

Mike Schumann

On 10/16/2010 1:24 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Oct 14, 11:43 am, Mike Schumannmike-nos...@traditions-
[snip]

The "ultimate" technology for glider to glider or glider to towplane
collision avoidance is NOT Flarm, at least in the US. *For FLARM to be
effective, everyone has to install. *You may get this to happen in US
contests, but it is a pipedream that there is going to be widespread
FLARM deployment outside of that limited environment.

The "ultimate" technology in the US will be ADS-B. *We can debate about
whether this will be UAT or 1090ES. *FLARM is just a distraction that is
confusing the issue and doesn't really address the fundamental problem
most of us face, which is collision threats with jets and other GA
(non-glider) aircraft.

--
Mike Schumann

Oh God spare us this grand standing for ADS-B and UAT technology. If
it wasn't actually important saftey issue I'd let this troll like
behavior go, but because it is I'll reply, and most of these points
are just the same I've made before. Points apparently that Mike
Schumann seems unable to comprehend or challenge in a cogent way. So
apologies to the Europeans and others for dragging this off to a non-
airline-on-glider and USA centric direction. I'll try to keep this to
the glider-glider scenario but I know I'll wander in places.

---

I'm trying to follow Mike Schumann's loopy logic here....

1. He claims ADS-B is better for glider-glider collision avoidance
than Flarm because all gliders have to install a Flarm device? -- like
WTF is he smoking? All gliders would have to install ADS-B for that to
work as well. And even if they did why would ADS-B be better at glider-
glider scenarios than the Flarm technology developed precisely for
doing that and proven in use worldwide by thousands of glider pilots
in challenging situations including busy contests.

2. He claims the fundamental problem most of us face is collision
threats with jets and other GA (non-glider) aircraft. -- That is just
obvious bull****, we all know of several collisions *between gliders
and gliders and tow-planes in the USA in the last several years and
several overseas -- who here thinks collision risk with GA is more of
a blanket serious issue across the USA glider fleet? Where are all
those past collisions then? Risks scenarios will vary by location and
there will be locations where risk of a GA or airline collision may be
the main concern but it is *ridiculous to claim that GA collision are
a larger risk on average for a USA glider pilot. *The risk for
airliner collision is concentrated at certain locations and is a
concern mostly because the consequence x risk product is so large.

---

There is no ADS-B carriage mandate for gliders in the USA. I expect
lots (several hundreds) of gliders in the USA are going to have
PowerFLARM installed within the next year or so. Effectively none will
have ADS-B data-out. I expect the USA contest scene to rapidly get to
significant PowerFLARM adaption, helped by purchases and rental
programs that seem to be coming together. But most pre-orders and
interest in purchases that I have seen locally of PowerFLARM is from
recreational XC not contest glider pilots. And I expect to see FBOs
and clubs equipping there fleets including tow planes--at least one
local operation seems pretty committed to do that asap. It is on a
roll. But there will still be lots of people who choose not to install
Flarm products and I expect those same people would also not (because
they don't want to and/or cannot afford to) install ADS-B products,
especially ones costing significantly more.

Meanwhile ADS-B is happening so slowly it might as well be dead in the
water as far as any use in the near term is concerned for ADS-B data-
out in gliders (data-in is more doable but has serious restrictions in
the USA due to dual-link). *ADS-B data-out and data-in *are*
interesting to think about on a 5-10 year scale evolution for
compatibility with GA and other traffic systems but ADS-B data-out and
data-in are *not* interesting competitively with Flarm for glider-
glider collision avoidance.

The last thing the USA glider community needs is this continued
irresponsible harping about ADS-B in an attempt to slow adoption of
technology that can save pilots lives now, whether it is Flarm for
glider-glider risks or transponders for airline and fast jet risks
etc. I had enough of the *promotion of UAT as interesting future
technology 5 years ago and saw the effect that had on some people near
busy airline traffic areas like Reno and those pilots thinking they
will defer purchasing a transponder because there is going to be a
mythical $500 box that will do everything in future (never mind that
what "do everything is" was not clear in their minds or that it has no
compatibility with the TCAS systems in those airliners).

---

Back to the completely stupid claim that ADS-B is the ultimate system
for glider-glider collision avoidance. For glider-glider and glider-
towplane collision avoidance Flarm is the undisputed technical and
market leader --

o Flarm has a large installed base of glider users worldwide. It is a
proven technology for glider-glider collision avoidance. Proven in
real world situations like major glider contests and worldwide by many
thousands of users.

o Flarm devices are relatively low cost to purchase and install.

o Flarm devices are compact and draw low power suitable for use in a
glider.

o A Flarm box includes receiver and transmitter capabilities *and*
processes and triggers audible and visual (internal or remote display)
warnings.

o Flarm collision avoidance algorithms (in the Flarm box) are designed
for glider-glider type scenarios. Especially to avoid the significant
false alarm rate that other technology would generate in gaggle type
scenarios, while on-tow, etc.

o Flarm devices include display capabilities supported by popular
soaring hardware and software vendors (to do that you need the traffic
threat processing in the box not in the external device/software - and
that is also a good for standardizing warning behavior etc.).

o Flarm supports contest/stealth behavior with log file verification
to allow use in contests. This is all debatable but the support for
the feature is at least there now. I really hate to think what
technology war would be unleashed if everybody had long range accurate
climb and position data on competitors.

---

So who is making a ADS-B based system that comes close to the above?
remembering the claim here is ADS-B will be best for glider-glider
scenarios - you cannot get close to the above list of capabilities by
taking a general purpose system and shoving it into a glider.

A UAT based systems for gliders has been talked about a lot by Mike
Schumann and others - so which manufacturer is going to deliver these
capabilities targeted specifically at the tiny USA glider community?
Maybe Mike can tell us who that will be.

There is UAT stuff designed for GA use is things like the NavWorx UAT
transceiver products we've heard Mike Schumann promoting here before.
And there is also the FreeFlight Rangr UAT transceiver series coming
to market (I've got bored making fun of the NavWorx product for use in
gliders so I'll pick on the FreeFlight one now...). The FreeFlight
Rangr is based on the Mitre prototype we've heard so much about (the
NavWorks was not based on Mitre) and it costs ~$5k for the transceiver
with no GPS and $7k for the transceiver with GPS (prices are lower for
non-TSO products for experimental aircraft and I expect given recent
FAA rulings on STC approval requirements we won't be sneaking non-TSO
ADS-B transmitters into certified gliders) and then you have to- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -...

read more »

Mike, do you own a PC or a Notebook? I mean, why buying one when the
technology, hardware and software, keep changing? PC are absolete
after 3-5 years, so why throwing money down a rat hole instead of
waiting for the ultimate PC? The answer is obvious, since they are
available now and worth the investment even if you need to replace
them in 3-5 years.
The PowerFlarm is available now (almost) and no other solution is
likely going to replace it in the next 3 years at least, this is why
we should all get one.

Ramy

On 10/16/2010 11:00 PM, Ramy wrote:
On Oct 16, 12:20 pm, Mike
wrote:
Did I strike a nerve????

If you want to talk about BS, then lets look at your claim that FLARM is
the world wide leader in collision avoidance for glider - glider
threats. No one denies that this is the case in Europe and elsewhere in
the world. In the US, FLARM currently does not exist, so it is
currently not a factor.

You make a very good case about how screwed up the FAA is and how the
ADS-B scene has been complicated by the dual link architecture, etc.....
No one disagrees with this assessment. The obvious question is how do
we improve this situation by introducing a 3rd incompatible option?????

Conversely to your insulting posting, I am not blindly advocating UAT
over all other alternatives. What I am suggesting is that we need a low
cost ADS-B solution so that it will be widely deployed, quickly. Given
that UAT has apparently stalled out, and that there seems to be
increasingly competitive 1090ES solutions coming on the market, maybe
that should be the technical solution we should get on board with,
particularly so we can get TCAS visibility.

What is very frustrating for me to witness is the lack of any strategic
focus on getting the FAA and glider specific avionics manufacturers to
come up with a unified ADS-B strategy so that we have equipment that
will take advantage of the national ground station system that will be
fully deployed by the end of 2012.

Instead, we have everyone drinking the FLARM koolaid, and disparaging
any other alternative viewpoints. This isn't going to help get anyone
to install FLARM or transponders.

There are some pockets where people are moving ahead (contests, Minden,
etc.). But there are a LOT of gliders flying very close to or under
Class B airspaces in the US that are not transponder equipped. It's not
that people categorically won't make the investment, but that they
aren't going to spend the money until they see a clear roadmap, so that
their investments are just throwing money down a rat hole.

Mike Schumann

On 10/16/2010 1:24 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Oct 14, 11:43 am, Mike Schumannmike-nos...@traditions-
[snip]

The "ultimate" technology for glider to glider or glider to towplane
collision avoidance is NOT Flarm, at least in the US. For FLARM to be
effective, everyone has to install. You may get this to happen in US
contests, but it is a pipedream that there is going to be widespread
FLARM deployment outside of that limited environment.

The "ultimate" technology in the US will be ADS-B. We can debate about
whether this will be UAT or 1090ES. FLARM is just a distraction that is
confusing the issue and doesn't really address the fundamental problem
most of us face, which is collision threats with jets and other GA
(non-glider) aircraft.

--
Mike Schumann

Oh God spare us this grand standing for ADS-B and UAT technology. If
it wasn't actually important saftey issue I'd let this troll like
behavior go, but because it is I'll reply, and most of these points
are just the same I've made before. Points apparently that Mike
Schumann seems unable to comprehend or challenge in a cogent way. So
apologies to the Europeans and others for dragging this off to a non-
airline-on-glider and USA centric direction. I'll try to keep this to
the glider-glider scenario but I know I'll wander in places.

---

I'm trying to follow Mike Schumann's loopy logic here....

1. He claims ADS-B is better for glider-glider collision avoidance
than Flarm because all gliders have to install a Flarm device? -- like
WTF is he smoking? All gliders would have to install ADS-B for that to
work as well. And even if they did why would ADS-B be better at glider-
glider scenarios than the Flarm technology developed precisely for
doing that and proven in use worldwide by thousands of glider pilots
in challenging situations including busy contests.

2. He claims the fundamental problem most of us face is collision
threats with jets and other GA (non-glider) aircraft. -- That is just
obvious bull****, we all know of several collisions between gliders
and gliders and tow-planes in the USA in the last several years and
several overseas -- who here thinks collision risk with GA is more of
a blanket serious issue across the USA glider fleet? Where are all
those past collisions then? Risks scenarios will vary by location and
there will be locations where risk of a GA or airline collision may be
the main concern but it is ridiculous to claim that GA collision are
a larger risk on average for a USA glider pilot. The risk for
airliner collision is concentrated at certain locations and is a
concern mostly because the consequence x risk product is so large.

---

There is no ADS-B carriage mandate for gliders in the USA. I expect
lots (several hundreds) of gliders in the USA are going to have
PowerFLARM installed within the next year or so. Effectively none will
have ADS-B data-out. I expect the USA contest scene to rapidly get to
significant PowerFLARM adaption, helped by purchases and rental
programs that seem to be coming together. But most pre-orders and
interest in purchases that I have seen locally of PowerFLARM is from
recreational XC not contest glider pilots. And I expect to see FBOs
and clubs equipping there fleets including tow planes--at least one
local operation seems pretty committed to do that asap. It is on a
roll. But there will still be lots of people who choose not to install
Flarm products and I expect those same people would also not (because
they don't want to and/or cannot afford to) install ADS-B products,
especially ones costing significantly more.

Meanwhile ADS-B is happening so slowly it might as well be dead in the
water as far as any use in the near term is concerned for ADS-B data-
out in gliders (data-in is more doable but has serious restrictions in
the USA due to dual-link). ADS-B data-out and data-in *are*
interesting to think about on a 5-10 year scale evolution for
compatibility with GA and other traffic systems but ADS-B data-out and
data-in are *not* interesting competitively with Flarm for glider-
glider collision avoidance.

The last thing the USA glider community needs is this continued
irresponsible harping about ADS-B in an attempt to slow adoption of
technology that can save pilots lives now, whether it is Flarm for
glider-glider risks or transponders for airline and fast jet risks
etc. I had enough of the promotion of UAT as interesting future
technology 5 years ago and saw the effect that had on some people near
busy airline traffic areas like Reno and those pilots thinking they
will defer purchasing a transponder because there is going to be a
mythical $500 box that will do everything in future (never mind that
what "do everything is" was not clear in their minds or that it has no
compatibility with the TCAS systems in those airliners).

---

Back to the completely stupid claim that ADS-B is the ultimate system
for glider-glider collision avoidance. For glider-glider and glider-
towplane collision avoidance Flarm is the undisputed technical and
market leader --

o Flarm has a large installed base of glider users worldwide. It is a
proven technology for glider-glider collision avoidance. Proven in
real world situations like major glider contests and worldwide by many
thousands of users.

o Flarm devices are relatively low cost to purchase and install.

o Flarm devices are compact and draw low power suitable for use in a
glider.

o A Flarm box includes receiver and transmitter capabilities *and*
processes and triggers audible and visual (internal or remote display)
warnings.

o Flarm collision avoidance algorithms (in the Flarm box) are designed
for glider-glider type scenarios. Especially to avoid the significant
false alarm rate that other technology would generate in gaggle type
scenarios, while on-tow, etc.

o Flarm devices include display capabilities supported by popular
soaring hardware and software vendors (to do that you need the traffic
threat processing in the box not in the external device/software - and
that is also a good for standardizing warning behavior etc.).

o Flarm supports contest/stealth behavior with log file verification
to allow use in contests. This is all debatable but the support for
the feature is at least there now. I really hate to think what
technology war would be unleashed if everybody had long range accurate
climb and position data on competitors.

---

So who is making a ADS-B based system that comes close to the above?
remembering the claim here is ADS-B will be best for glider-glider
scenarios - you cannot get close to the above list of capabilities by
taking a general purpose system and shoving it into a glider.

A UAT based systems for gliders has been talked about a lot by Mike
Schumann and others - so which manufacturer is going to deliver these
capabilities targeted specifically at the tiny USA glider community?
Maybe Mike can tell us who that will be.

There is UAT stuff designed for GA use is things like the NavWorx UAT
transceiver products we've heard Mike Schumann promoting here before.
And there is also the FreeFlight Rangr UAT transceiver series coming
to market (I've got bored making fun of the NavWorx product for use in
gliders so I'll pick on the FreeFlight one now...). The FreeFlight
Rangr is based on the Mitre prototype we've heard so much about (the
NavWorks was not based on Mitre) and it costs ~$5k for the transceiver
with no GPS and $7k for the transceiver with GPS (prices are lower for
non-TSO products for experimental aircraft and I expect given recent
FAA rulings on STC approval requirements we won't be sneaking non-TSO
ADS-B transmitters into certified gliders) and then you have to- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -...

read more »

Mike, do you own a PC or a Notebook? I mean, why buying one when the
technology, hardware and software, keep changing? PC are absolete
after 3-5 years, so why throwing money down a rat hole instead of
waiting for the ultimate PC? The answer is obvious, since they are
available now and worth the investment even if you need to replace
them in 3-5 years.
The PowerFlarm is available now (almost) and no other solution is
likely going to replace it in the next 3 years at least, this is why
we should all get one.

Ramy
If you want to hype PowerFlarm when it is legal to offer it for sale and
it is shipping, be my guest. Right now you are pushing vaporware. It
is also not legal to offer this product for sale until after it is FCC
approved.

In the mean time, you are disparaging products, like Navworx that are
FCC approved and shipping. If you would spend 10% of your energy on
encouraging See-You, Clear Nav, and other similar glider avionics
manufacturers to support this and other ADS-B products, then I would
have a little less cynicism about the PowerFLARM koolaid that is being
dispensed on this forum.

--
Mike Schumann

I am fully aware class E is controlled. Ryanair will accept routeings
outside controlled airspace. ie class F & G.

At 23:39 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote:
Mark Dickson wrote:
No, it's Ryanair. They always look for direct routings, even if it
takes them outside controlled airspace.

They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to
allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who
doesn't even
know that class E airspace is controlled?

Contrary to popular myth, gliders show
as a primary return on radar displays

Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered
out by
the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the
controller's display.

Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar.

At 23:39 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote:
Mark Dickson wrote:
No, it's Ryanair. They always look for direct routings, even if it
takes them outside controlled airspace.

They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to
allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who
doesn't even
know that class E airspace is controlled?

Contrary to popular myth, gliders show
as a primary return on radar displays

Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered
out by
the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the
controller's display.

Mark Dickson wrote:
Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar.

The controllers I know tell me otherwise.