boulder mid-air

This is precisely the problem! The majority of the public, including
many pilots and apparently the FAA, believe in "See and Avoid" since
they can often see other aircrafts either from the ground or when
flying. They do not grasp the simple fact that they only see aircrafts
which are not in a collision course with them! This, combined with
multiple blind spots and the various distractions which are part of
the job of piloting an aircraft, makes it a pure luck when someone
actually manage to see and avoid.
If See and Avoid can be relied on, why do we bother with traffic
lights and multiple lanes on the roads? Yet it is much easier to see
and avoid on the road due to significantly slower speed and knowing
where to look.
It is ironic to hear and read about the money and effort which goes
into investigating the cause of those accidents, while the answer is
simply biological limit of our eyes, and the design of our airplanes.
The only reason that aircrafts do not collide with each other all the
time is the big sky theory. Unfortunately the sky is not big enough,
and we loose many good pilots and passengers to GA midairs every
year.
The responsibility lies with the FAA bureaucrats and the rule making
process, which is so slow that we are still using 50 years old
technologies! Imagine if the FAA was run by, say... Apple.
We would all be carrying a small $99 (ok maybe $999) gizmo in all our
aircrafts, which capable of providing real time warnings for any
threat (such as flarm or ADS-B).
And for those who claims that this will create complacency or heads
down - even if you blind fold all the pilots you will get far less
midairs due to the occasional misuse of malfunction of this
technology, verses relying on See and Avoid!
For a good reading on the subject of see and avoid check
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/bca0107c.xml

Ramy

I think that discussing midair is important in general, so please
continue on.

However, I think it is also important for everyone including your
friends and families to understand that this is basically a collision
between two powerplanes, and one of them just happened to be towing a
glider. This accident has nothing to do with the safety of this
sports. It didn't happen because of the flying characteristics of
glider, the visibility of glider in the air, or having or not having
transponder or similar equipments.

I was wondering why so many initial reports emphasized that the Cirrus
ran into the tow rope. Apparently, there is a perception among non
pilots that the tow rope is miles-long, thus making it an invisible
trap in the air, and the poor Cirrus tripped on it because they
couldn't see it. That is very wrong. The tow rope is only a couple
hundreds of feet long, and you shouldn't get that close to other
aircrafts in the sky anyway.

I even see a headline like this.

Three killed in glider accident
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...?section=world

-Gen

I think that discussing midair is important in general, so please
continue on.

However, I think it is also important for everyone including your
friends and families to understand that this is basically a collision
between two powerplanes, and one of them just happened to be towing a
glider. This accident has nothing to do with the safety of this
sports. It didn't happen because of the flying characteristics of
glider, the visibility of glider in the air, or having or not having
transponder or similar equipments.

I was wondering why so many initial reports emphasized that the Cirrus
ran into the tow rope. Apparently, there is a perception among non
pilots that the tow rope is miles-long, thus making it an invisible
trap in the air, and the poor Cirrus tripped on it because they
couldn't see it. That is very wrong. The tow rope is only a couple
hundreds of feet long, and you shouldn't get that close to other
aircrafts in the sky anyway.

I even see a headline like this.

Three killed in glider accident
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...?section=world

-Gen

On 2/8/2010 1:14 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Mike Schumann wrote:

From the description the Cirrus pilot was just not looking and in
effect just walked
out into the road without looking to see whether a car was coming. I
don't
want to be insensitive to the family of the Cirrus pilot, but the
fault was his
and not the fact that glider activity was present. In my experience,
many IFR pilots
just don't look out for VFR traffic and expect ATC to keep them clear
of ALL traffic.
Is that stressed enough in IFR training? ( I know this is before any
NTSB ruling
and is based on hearsay evidence only.)
The reality is that other aircraft are difficult to see, even if you
know where to look. What is very frustrating is that affordable ADS-B
technology exists that could have prevented this accident.
Unfortunately commercialization is being delayed by the FAA's
obsession with IFR ADS-B applications, while certification standards
for low cost VFR devices are on the back burner.
And $500 PCAS units have been for sale for several years. I wonder if a
PCAS in one or more of the aircraft involved would have averted the
accident.
- -

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

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org
The $500 PCAS units don't give you the same situational awareness that
you get with ADS-B. It helps, but it doesn't give you any directional
data on where the threat is, just range and altitude. The more
expensive unit is better, telling you what quadrant the threat is in.
An ADS-B unit will tell you within 100 ft where the other planes are.

Mike Schumann

--
Mike Schumann

On Feb 8, 1:54*pm, John Smith wrote:
snip

BTW, some may argue that passengers wouldn't jump anyway. This has been
proven wrong. One ore two years ago, there was a successfull bail out by
a passenger after a mid-air in Switzerland. The passenger was 80 years
old and it was his first flight...

There was also the chap on a air experience flight in a K21 near
Dunstable in the UK when the glider was hit by lighting. Both were
wearing chutes, both survived. Wish I could find the AAIB report - it
has some photos of the recovered wreckage. I gather the p1 & P2 flew
togeather again 10 years later, to raise money for charity. I saw the
P2's website page which included his description of the accident but
it's vanished in the mists of time.

It will be interesting to see what the NTSB comes up with on this one,
Since unlike most mid-airs this one had a pilot witness and two non-
pilot witnesses in the front row seat (glider) to observe what
happened.

danlj wrote:
And then there's the fact that some of us are essentially
invisible to ATC even with a transponder: when we thermal, we're
relatively stationary to radar, which then puts us in "coast" mode,
and removes our blip from the display.

In the USA, the radar will not remove your transponder blip from the
screen because you are circling; if the blip is from primary mode radar
(no transponder), it may be removed. Radar does know the difference
between clutter and a transponder!

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

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

glidergeek wrote:
On Feb 7, 10:14 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Mike Schumann wrote

The reality is that other aircraft are difficult to see, even if you
know where to look. What is very frustrating is that affordable ADS-B
technology exists that could have prevented this accident.
Unfortunately commercialization is being delayed by the FAA's
obsession with IFR ADS-B applications, while certification standards
for low cost VFR devices are on the back burner.

And $500 PCAS units have been for sale for several years. I wonder if a
PCAS in one or more of the aircraft involved would have averted the
accident.



Maybe Eric, BUT I've got one that I use in my Cessna 180 (Zoan) and
I've watched several planes fly by relatively close with no indication
on the unit. I don't trust it.

Mine alerts me to some aircraft I don't see. I don't expect it to
discover everything, so I do look around, and I carry a transponder,
MRX, and a radio. It's a pretty good system for $3000 (eyeballs free).
I've been using the eyeballs and a radio for 30 years, the transponder
for 8, the MRX for 2. I'm glad I don't have to depend on eyes alone anymore.

And I'm still wondering if a PCAS in any or all of the aircraft could
have averted the disaster. $500 each would be cheap it would work in
that situation.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Mike Schumann wrote:
And $500 PCAS units have been for sale for several years. I wonder if a
PCAS in one or more of the aircraft involved would have averted the
accident.
- -
The $500 PCAS units don't give you the same situational awareness that
you get with ADS-B. It helps, but it doesn't give you any directional
data on where the threat is, just range and altitude. The more
expensive unit is better, telling you what quadrant the threat is in.
An ADS-B unit will tell you within 100 ft where the other planes are.
I agree in principle, but the situation is the PCAS units are here, the
ADS-B units aren't. I'm looking forward to ADS-B, but in the meantime,
there are PCAS units available that will help now. My MRX helps me spot
traffic, so I think I'm getting my $450 worth out of it.

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

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

Eric Greenwell wrote:
And I'm still wondering if a PCAS in any or all of the aircraft could
have averted the disaster. $500 each would be cheap it would work in
that situation.

Just FYI, here's an article discussing the Traffic Avoidance Systems
commonly installed on many Cirrus aircraft:
http://www.theflightacademy.com/pres...lot_Nov_06.pdf

It is possible that the model involved had a TIS - which may not have been
helpful in this case.