Glider Crash - Minden?

Derek, I am not advocating mode S transponder (which I couldn't efford
one either ), it is doing nothing to improve safety then mode C,which
should cost around 2K in the US, no more then a flight computer.
I absolutly agree, Flarm or ADS-B are far better, but it may take
another generation until it will be widely implemented, especially in
the US. Meanwhile, at least in the US, our only option is the 30 years
old technology of transponders, which are relatively effordable for
most pilots I see flying at the Reno area.

Ramy

Derek Copeland wrote:
We are having a battle in the UK to stop the CAA (Civil
Aviation Authority, otherwise known as the 'Campaign
Against Aviation') enforcing the mandatory carriage
of Mode S transponders in all aircraft, which includes
gliders. The basic bit of kit costs about £1600 plus
fitting by an 'approved' organisation and Value Added
Tax (17.5%). In total we estimate this will cost at
least £3000+ per glider, with additional ongoing servicing
and licencing costs. Then there are all the extra batteries
that we will have to carry if we want to fly for more
than about 3 hours, which will have to come out of
our permitted MAUW. The fittings for the extra batteries
may have to have design approval by EASA, which is
another major cost.

Although transponders work perfectly well in IMC conditions,
they are also trying to impose strict VMC conditions
on gliding.

You may have enough money to fit and run a Mode S transponder
Ramy, but many private owners of older sailplanes do
not. An airworthy wooden gliders can be picked up for
£3k or less in the UK. Even for club owned gliders,
this proposal would significantly increase the cost
of flying gliders.

Most collisions involving gliders are with other gliders
in thermals or on ridges, or with GA or military aircraft.
Mode S transponders do little or nothing to address
this problem. Hence we are being asked to pay large
sums of money for protecting Commercial Airliners that
wish to take short cuts through Class G airspace, without
any benefits to us. Speaking personally I would be
less hostile to fitting ADS-B or FLARM systems, which
are cheaper, less power hungry and are of some benefit
to glider pilots in detecting other aircraft. Otherwise
we should expect all pilots to keep a good lookout
when flying in Class G.

Derek Copeland


At 05:00 29 August 2006, Ramy Yanetz wrote:
A miracle. Did the ASG 29 used a transponder? Assuming
not, I am wondering
if he could not afford one...
This is not good as there are elections going on in
NV right now and
you know some moron politician is going to try to
make the skies
safer!!
Maybe by enforcing the use of transponders in the Reno
area? I don't see a
problem with that...

Ramy

wrote in message
oups.com...
Rumor control here...

Challenger 800X with 5 on board on route to Reno from
San Diego
collided with an ASG29 around 16,000ft east on Minden
on the Pinenut
mountains.

The Jet landed gear up at Carson City the pilot sustaining
minor
injuries in the initial impact.

The Glider Pilot bailed and landed ok.

Look at KRNV.com or RGJ.com for more info.

This is not good as there are elections going on in
NV right now and
you know some moron politician is going to try to
make the skies
safer!!

Later

Al


Mitch wrote:
Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash
in Minden? True or
False?

-EX

Ramy wrote:
Derek, I am not advocating mode S transponder (which I couldn't efford
one either ), it is doing nothing to improve safety then mode C,which
should cost around 2K in the US, no more then a flight computer.

Double that figure, and you'll have a more typical installed cost in the
US, particularly in a type certified glider. A transponder installation
is a different kettle of fish from a glide computer, a 337 is often
required...

Of course, we shouldn't blame anyone at this point, and my appologize
if it sounded like, we don't even know yet if the glider had a
transponder or not. I was just trying to make a point (again) on the
importance of transponders, as the only mean currently available to us
to avoid these kind of accidents. But how can a jet travelling at over
300 knots, which may have been 400 knots closing speed, could see a
glider on time to react if (assuming) the glider was flying straight
and level? It is almost impossible to see a glider more then a mile
away if it is not turning or zooming. This translates into 5 seconds or
so to see and react at these speeds.
Since on average we are circling say 30% of the time, we are invisible
70% of the time we are in the air.The only reason we don't collide all
the time is that the sky is big and gliders are small. See and Avoid
only works in traffic pattern, not when crusing. Check the following
article:
http://dwp.bigplanet.com/fosterfligh...ants&UID=10015
To avoid making myself unpopular, I'll rest my case. I am very glad no
one was hurt, and hope that more pilots will fly with transponders at
their own choice as a result. And if you do, please don't turn it off
away from Reno, especially not over the white mountains as some of us
are flying with TPAS. If you don't use a tranponder, please make a
circle every few minutes...

Ramy

SAM 303a wrote:
Sure, blame the victim.
I haven't seen anything that suggests that the glider pilot was in any way
at fault. The glider was hit by the jet, not vice versa. Visual rules were
in effect.
Why are we asking what else could the glider pilot do?
Why aren't we asking "what else could the jet pilot have done?"
The jet does not have a greater right to use the skies than the glider.

I'm not arguing against transponders. I am arguing in favor of taking a
stand on the principle that we all have a right to use the skies, subject to
our compliance with the appropriate rules. We should not stand before the
regulators saying "we'll add any gizmo you ask if you'll just let us keep
flying". If anyone was at fault here it was the jet pilot for (pick one or
more of the following) not maintaining a visual scan of traffic, flying too
fast to react to the presence of a glider, not recognizing that the
sectional markings showing a glider port might be significant to how she
operated the aircraft.


"Ramy Yanetz" wrote in message
om...
A miracle. Did the ASG 29 used a transponder? Assuming not, I am wondering
if he could not afford one...
This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
safer!!
Maybe by enforcing the use of transponders in the Reno area? I don't see a
problem with that...

Ramy

wrote in message
ups.com...
Rumor control here...

Challenger 800X with 5 on board on route to Reno from San Diego
collided with an ASG29 around 16,000ft east on Minden on the Pinenut
mountains.

The Jet landed gear up at Carson City the pilot sustaining minor
injuries in the initial impact.

The Glider Pilot bailed and landed ok.

Look at KRNV.com or RGJ.com for more info.

This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
safer!!

Later

Al


Mitch wrote:
Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash in Minden? True or
False?

-EX

I would just like to add, many kudos to all pilots involved to survive
it. Bailing out of a broken glider is no easy task.

Ramy

Ramy wrote:
Of course, we shouldn't blame anyone at this point, and my appologize
if it sounded like, we don't even know yet if the glider had a
transponder or not. I was just trying to make a point (again) on the
importance of transponders, as the only mean currently available to us
to avoid these kind of accidents. But how can a jet travelling at over
300 knots, which may have been 400 knots closing speed, could see a
glider on time to react if (assuming) the glider was flying straight
and level? It is almost impossible to see a glider more then a mile
away if it is not turning or zooming. This translates into 5 seconds or
so to see and react at these speeds.
Since on average we are circling say 30% of the time, we are invisible
70% of the time we are in the air.The only reason we don't collide all
the time is that the sky is big and gliders are small. See and Avoid
only works in traffic pattern, not when crusing. Check the following
article:
http://dwp.bigplanet.com/fosterfligh...ants&UID=10015
To avoid making myself unpopular, I'll rest my case. I am very glad no
one was hurt, and hope that more pilots will fly with transponders at
their own choice as a result. And if you do, please don't turn it off
away from Reno, especially not over the white mountains as some of us
are flying with TPAS. If you don't use a tranponder, please make a
circle every few minutes...

Ramy

SAM 303a wrote:
Sure, blame the victim.
I haven't seen anything that suggests that the glider pilot was in any way
at fault. The glider was hit by the jet, not vice versa. Visual rules were
in effect.
Why are we asking what else could the glider pilot do?
Why aren't we asking "what else could the jet pilot have done?"
The jet does not have a greater right to use the skies than the glider.

I'm not arguing against transponders. I am arguing in favor of taking a
stand on the principle that we all have a right to use the skies, subject to
our compliance with the appropriate rules. We should not stand before the
regulators saying "we'll add any gizmo you ask if you'll just let us keep
flying". If anyone was at fault here it was the jet pilot for (pick one or
more of the following) not maintaining a visual scan of traffic, flying too
fast to react to the presence of a glider, not recognizing that the
sectional markings showing a glider port might be significant to how she
operated the aircraft.


"Ramy Yanetz" wrote in message
om...
A miracle. Did the ASG 29 used a transponder? Assuming not, I am wondering
if he could not afford one...
This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
safer!!
Maybe by enforcing the use of transponders in the Reno area? I don't see a
problem with that...

Ramy

wrote in message
ups.com...
Rumor control here...

Challenger 800X with 5 on board on route to Reno from San Diego
collided with an ASG29 around 16,000ft east on Minden on the Pinenut
mountains.

The Jet landed gear up at Carson City the pilot sustaining minor
injuries in the initial impact.

The Glider Pilot bailed and landed ok.

Look at KRNV.com or RGJ.com for more info.

This is not good as there are elections going on in NV right now and
you know some moron politician is going to try to make the skies
safer!!

Later

Al


Mitch wrote:
Heard there may have been a glider - biz jet crash in Minden? True or
False?

-EX

In the Netherlands we have (had) a similar discussion about the
installation of transponders. The Dutch CAA was convinced to "stall"
installation of
transponders for a couple of years. Arguments that were used:

- Power consumption.
- Very limited amount of manufacturers that are producing LOW POWER
consumption transponders (no competition so a manopoly for one or two
supliers).
- What setting will you put the transponder on when you don't have any
ATC communication?
- Positioning of the antenea. That is something the the manufacturer of
the AC should determine (who is going to go back to Sweizer for the
1-26 or 2-33 or 2-22 or to Glasflugel for the Libelle). If you don't
put them in the right position it could harm the pilot (radiation
hazard) and/or provide a useless signal that can only be recieved from
useless angles (on the 747 they originaly had placed the transponder
antenne on top, until they discoverd that it didn't gave a decent
signal for ATC while flying straight and level....)
- What do you think that ATC will do when a glider contest is going on
or when there are 10 gliders in one thermal? There first responce will
be to filter out all gliders, since they don't use any ATC
communication. Because of so many gliders in a small area the system
will generate "false returns" (it interogates one transponder and gets
a return from a different transponder so it will mess up the whole
system)
- Why do we have different classes of airspace, that is exactly the
reason, to keep us seperated (commercial AC from gliders). So if a
commercial aircraft is in class G airspace they should be the one to be
extra allert. According to the rules a powered AC should give way to a
Glider!
- Most of the time we are flying realtively low so the possibility of
running into a commercial aircraft is relatively low. The only AC's
that fly fast and low are Fighters and they don't carry any transponder
at all!
- It is also a question of mentality of the commercial pilots, I have
flown a number of test flights with a fokker 100 and only during
takeoff or landing do they ever raise there head to see what's outside
of the aircraft (even though these pilots were also glider pilots)!
- Generaly glider pilots are most of the time busy to see what's going
on outside in conterary to comercial pilots. Why should the glider
pilot pay for solving a problem that is mainly caused by commercial
flights? If we raise an airline ticket by not even one US$ cent (0,01)
there is enough money to provide every glider with a transponder so why
ask every individual glider pilot to spend a 1000 US or more to solve
a problem that is not theirs?
- Now it is the Mode S transponder they want, when this discussion took
place, not even 3 years ago they wanted us to install Mode C
transponders, so what's the next $ 4000 (total cost of installation
maintenance extra power suply, certification in some cases) gadget that
they want you to replace the mode S transponder with?

Diederik

PS: this can become a long discussion!

http://iagblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/...t-miracle.html


One picture=1,000 words

Ramy wrote:
Meanwhile, at least in the US, our only option is the 30 years
old technology of transponders, which are relatively effordable for
most pilots I see flying at the Reno area.

Ramy, what if the collision had been between an older Learjet, not
equipped with TCAS, and not talking to ATC (in the process of being
handed off, talking to FSS, or just tooling around VFR. Transponders
would be totally useless in preventing the midair.

Remember, unless equipped with TCAS (big jets) or an IFF interrogator
(many military fighters), or talking to the controlling agency that is
actually watching you and your transponder, it's not going to do any
good. It is absolutely no good at preventing VFR - VFR midairs.

TPAS is a good solution, since it warns you of someone else tooling
around with his xponder on. ADS-B would be nice, if
affordable/practicable in a glider. FLARM is pretty much only
glider-to-glider, and requires active participation (and is a moot
point in the US anyway, at present).

If I was going to get up in the flight levels with my glider (no
thanks, I happen to like my old gelcoat, thankyou!) I would seriously
consider a transponder. Also an attitude indicator!. Down lower, if
traffic is an issue, then I'm leaning towards some kind of TPAS - like
device. I'm waiting for one with a good aural cue (I think there is
one out now). Any comments from current TPAS users out there?

Kirk
66

Kirk, I happen to be also a TPAS user. I am using the Monroy, which
gives you warning for nearby transponder equipped aircraft. All it does
actually is alerting you to scan for traffic when there is traffic
nearby. It doesn't tell you where it is though, but for $500 I think it
worth it. There is now a better unit offered on Wings and Wheels
http://www.wingsandwheels.com/page4.htm
Installation is not much of an issue, since those units are so small
you can stick them to the glare shield as I do. Just make sure to buy
one with voice alerts as you noted, as you would not notice the leds
during day time when your eyes are focused outside.

Ramy


kirk.stant wrote:
Ramy wrote:
Meanwhile, at least in the US, our only option is the 30 years
old technology of transponders, which are relatively effordable for
most pilots I see flying at the Reno area.

Ramy, what if the collision had been between an older Learjet, not
equipped with TCAS, and not talking to ATC (in the process of being
handed off, talking to FSS, or just tooling around VFR. Transponders
would be totally useless in preventing the midair.

Remember, unless equipped with TCAS (big jets) or an IFF interrogator
(many military fighters), or talking to the controlling agency that is
actually watching you and your transponder, it's not going to do any
good. It is absolutely no good at preventing VFR - VFR midairs.

TPAS is a good solution, since it warns you of someone else tooling
around with his xponder on. ADS-B would be nice, if
affordable/practicable in a glider. FLARM is pretty much only
glider-to-glider, and requires active participation (and is a moot
point in the US anyway, at present).

If I was going to get up in the flight levels with my glider (no
thanks, I happen to like my old gelcoat, thankyou!) I would seriously
consider a transponder. Also an attitude indicator!. Down lower, if
traffic is an issue, then I'm leaning towards some kind of TPAS - like
device. I'm waiting for one with a good aural cue (I think there is
one out now). Any comments from current TPAS users out there?

Kirk
66

Why are we asking what else could the glider pilot do?
Why aren't we asking "what else could the jet pilot have done?"
The jet does not have a greater right to use the skies than the glider.

Furthermore, let's not forget the FAA right of way rules. A glider has
right of way over all powered craft unless that craft is in distress.

kirk.stant wrote:
Ramy wrote:
Meanwhile, at least in the US, our only option is the 30 years
old technology of transponders, which are relatively effordable for
most pilots I see flying at the Reno area.

Ramy, what if the collision had been between an older Learjet, not
equipped with TCAS, and not talking to ATC (in the process of being
handed off, talking to FSS, or just tooling around VFR.

Do they actually do that? And why would they want to, as long as they
had radar coverage? I'm having a hard time imagining a professional jet
pilot flying around at 300 knots that wouldn't want to be talking to
ATC, especially with passengers.

I'm not questioning your advice on TPAS units, just wondering how likely
your scenario is. The TPAS units would also work with the average
Cessna, which is certainly doesn't have TCAS, and even more likely to be
without ATC contact.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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