A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Troubling story and some questions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old January 11th 08, 01:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Troubling story and some questions

Hi:

Jumping into the fray here (both feet!) with some ASRS reports about
NMACs at altitude.

ACN: 751929
Date : 200708
(B737-300 at 14000 MSL near Reno, NV)
Synopsis: B737 FLT CREW RPTS TCAS RA WITH GLIDER AT 14000 FT 25 NM SW
OF RNO.
Narrative: 14000 FT SW OF RNO, APCH ADVISED TFC WITH XPONDER AT OR
NEAR OUR ALT. THE TFC QUICKLY BECAME A TA AND THEN AN RA. I FOLLOWED
CONFLICT GUIDANCE WITH A DSCNT AND THEN THE RA QUICKLY COMMANDED A
'CLB, CLB NOW.' I QUICKLY START CLBING WITH MAX POWER AND THEN DECIDED
TO TURN OFF COURSE TO THE WEST. A GLIDER PASSED OFF OUR R/EAST SIDE
APPROX 200 FT COMING HEAD ON. THE TA/RA ISSUES WERE THE GLIDER WAS
CLBING AND DSNDING WHICH CAUSED THE TA/RA TO REVERSE ITS CONFLICT CALL
FROM DSND TO CLB. APCH IN RNO IS VERY UPSET WITH THESE GLIDERS AND WE
NEED SOME RESTRS ON THEIR AIRSPACE TO AVOID THIS CONFLICT. THESE
MANEUVERS WERE AGGRESSIVE AND I PERSONALLY FEEL IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN
FOLLOWED, A WORSE SITUATION WOULD HAVE OCCURRED. GLIDER RESTRS.

ACN: 739528
Date : 200705
(Citation II flying at 12000 MSL)
Synopsis: C550 FLT CREW TOOK EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID GLIDER ACTIVITY.
Narrative: WE WERE ON THE ZZZZZ ARR INTO ZZZ, DSNDING TO 12000 FT TO
MEET THE XING RESTR, WHEN THE CTLR TOLD US TO DSND TO 11000 FT FOR
TFC. WE SAW A TARGET AT 500 FT ABOVE ON THE TCAS (JUST APPEARED) AND
AS WE INCREASED OUR RATE OF DSCNT WE GOT A TFC ALERT AND THE TARGET
TURNED TO ORANGE ON THE TCAS. WE SAW A GLIDER AND RPTED IT TO ATC (WE
PREVIOUSLY HEARD HIM ALERT ANOTHER ACFT OF AN UNIDENTED TARGET IN THE
AREA, POSSIBLY A GLIDER) AS THE GLIDER PASSED SLIGHTLY TO OUR 1
O'CLOCK POS, ANOTHER GLIDER APPEARED DIRECTLY AT 12 O'CLOCK POS, THE
PF BANKED STEEPLY TO THE R AND DSNDED FURTHER TO AVOID THE GLIDER.
LOOKING TO MY L I SAW A FLASH OF PARTIAL GLIDER PASS ABOVE US (WE WERE
CLOSE ENOUGH THAT THE COMPLETE WING SPAN WAS NOT VISIBLE). I ADVISED
THE CTLR WE WERE DIVERTING FOR ANOTHER GLIDER AND WE WENT BELOW OUR
ASSIGNED ALT BY OVER 400 FT WHILE RECOVERING. BOTH GLIDERS WERE FLYING
JUST ABOVE THE RIDGE, A GREAT PLACE TO SOAR, BUT PRECISELY ON THE ARR
PATH AND ALT. ONLY 1 TA WAS VISIBLE ON THE TCAS. THIS WAS A GREAT CALL
FROM THE CTLR, AS XMISSIONS WERE THE USUAL BUSY ZZZ ARR ON A FRIDAY
EVENING. AFTER A MOMENT OF SILENCE, I ADVISED THE CTLR AGAIN THAT
THERE WERE 2 GLIDERS ON THE ARR ABOVE THE RIDGE. I WILL ATTEMPT TODAY
TO CALL THE TRACON TO DISCUSS THE ALT DEV AND THANK THE CTLR FOR HIS
VIGILANCE.

ACN: 736824
Date : 200704
A320 at 11000 MSL
Synopsis: A320 CAPTAIN EXPERIENCES NMAC WITH GLIDER WHILE IN DESCENT
TO LAS.
Narrative: NEAR MISS WITH GLIDER FLYING N TO S ALONG RIDGE LINE.
CLOSEST POINT OF INTERCEPT: APPROX 200 FT. NO EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN
BASED ON GEOMETRY. WE TOLD CTLR AND SHE INFORMED THE NEXT ARR ACFT
BEHIND US OF A POSSIBLE 'PRIMARY' TARGET. I SPOKE WITH TRACON AND THEY
SAID THEY FREQUENTLY FLY THE RIDGE AND ARE HARD TO DETECT ON RADAR. HE
ALSO MENTIONED THAT GLIDERS CAN STILL FLY IN CLASS C WITHOUT MODE C.

ACN: 716529
Date : 200611
B737-700 at 6000MSL near Panoche
Synopsis: B737-700 FLT CREW HAS A TCAS RA DURING PANOCHE TWO ARR TO
OAK.
ACFT WAS ON PANOCHE ARR INTO OAK IN VMC CONDITIONS. WE WERE VECTORED
10 DEGS R OF COURSE FOR GA ACFT SEPARATION. WE WERE LEVEL AT 6000 FT
AND INSTRUCTED TO DSND TO 5000 FT TO CLR TFC. I SAW TFC MANEUVERING AT
OUR 11 O'CLOCK POS AND WAS TOLD BY ATC THAT IT WAS A MOONEY ABOVE US.
HOWEVER, IT TURNED OUT TO BE A GLIDER BELOW US IN A R BANK TURNING
DIRECTLY TOWARDS US. THE GLIDER CONTINUED TO TURN AND CLB TOWARDS US.
I ADDED PWR AND STARTED A CLB AND TURNED AWAY FROM THE TFC. THE FO
NOTIFIED ATC OF OUR AVOIDANCE MANEUVER JUST AS THE TCAS RA SOUNDED A
FEW SECONDS AFTER ADDING PWR. IT INDICATED A 2000 FPM CLB IN ORDER TO
CLR THE TFC, AND WE CLBED IMMEDIATELY TO 7000 FT. THE CTLR SEEMED
CONFUSED TO WHY WE WERE CLBING WHEN WE WERE GIVEN A DSCNT CLRNC. THE
CTLR DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS A GLIDER IN THE AREA AND HAD NO CONTACT
WITH THE GLIDER. ATC INSTRUCTED US TO DSND WHEN ABLE. VFR TFC SHOULD
AVOID MANEUVERING OVER ARR RTES WITHOUT COMMUNICATING TO ATC.

ACN: 708924
Date : 200608
Citation V at 16000 MSL
Synopsis: A C560 CLBING OUT OF BJC EXPERIENCED A NEAR MISS WITH A
SAILPLANE AT 16000 FT.

WHILE BEING VECTORED AROUND A SLOWER ACFT ON THE ROCK14.EKR DEP FROM
THE BOULDER JEFFERSON COUNTY ARPT, WE EXPERIENCED A NEAR MISS WITH A
SAILPLANE. WE WERE ASSIGNED ON A 240 DEG HDG, CLRED TO FL230 FROM
DENVER DEP CTL ON THE 126.1 MHZ FREQ, AND CLBING AT 280 KTS CAS AT
2000 FPM. AT EXACTLY 16000 FT MSL, WE WERE STARTLED BY THE SIGHTING OF
THE GLIDER AT ABOUT OUR 1 O'CLOCK POSITION AND A QUARTER MILE DISTANT.
THE GLIDER WAS FLYING AT APPROX THE SAME HDG IN STRAIGHT AND LEVEL FLT
SO HE WAS UNAWARE OF US AT THAT MOMENT. I MADE NO EVASIVE MANEUVER AND
THE GLIDER PASSED OUR STARBOARD WING ABOUT TWO SECONDS LATER. MY GUESS
IS THAT THE GLIDER WAS ABOUT A FOOTBALL FIELD LENGTH HORIZONTALLY AWAY
-- CLOSE ENOUGH TO SEE THE PLT CLEARLY. I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT THE PLT
OF THIS GLIDER WAS EQUALLY STARTLED BY THE SIGHT AND SOUND OF OUR
PASSING CLOSELY AT A HIGH RATE OF SPD AND THRUST. WE MENTIONED THE
NEAR MISS SITUATION TO DEP CTL AND HE RESPONDED TO US THAT HE HAD NO
RADAR OR RADIO CONTACT WITH THE GLIDER. GLIDER ACFT, OUTSIDE OF CLASS
A, B, AND C AIRSPACE, ARE EXEMPT FROM XPONDER/ALT REPORTING EQUIP
UNDER FAR 91.215(b)(5). A WEEK AGO A HAWKER HS-125 JET COLLIDED WITH A
GLIDER NEAR MEV IN A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE WITH NO CASUALTIES EXCEPT
FOR THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF THE SAILPLANE AND SERIOUS DAMAGE TO THE
JET. I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR SAILPLANE PLTS TO CARRY A
HANDHELD TRANSCEIVER AND POSSIBLY A MODE 3/A OR C XPONDER TO
COMMUNICATE WITH ATC FOR SAFETY AND SURVIVAL REASONS. CARRYING ABOARD
PORTABLE SYSTEMS WOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT. SIZE, COST, AND WT WOULD POSE
VERY LITTLE PROBLEM. THIS INCIDENT IMPRESSED ON ME AND MY FO OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF 'SEE-AND AVOID' ON AN IFR CLRNC IN VMC. IN SPECULATION,
IF THE GLIDER HAD BEEN DIRECTLY IN OUR PATH, I'M CONFIDENT THAT WE
COULD HAVE EVADED A COLLISION AT THE INITIAL SIGHTING WITH A QUARTER
MILE SEPARATION. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY CLOSE REQUIRING AN ABRUPT
PULL-UP MANEUVER. IF WE HAD NOT BEEN WATCHING, IN THIS SAME SCENARIO,
I HAVE NIGHTMARES CONTEMPLATING THE RESULT.

ACN: 679562
Date : 200512
Synopsis: A B737-300 PLT RPTS AN NMAC WITH A GLIDER AT 13000 FT APPROX
30 DME S ON APCH TO RNO RWY 34.
Narrative: WHILE DSNDING ON TARVR 1 ARR INTO RNO, APCH CTLR CALLED
POSSIBLE GLIDER TFC AT OUR 12-1 O'CLOCK POS, APPROX 5 MI, ALT UNKNOWN.
WE ENTERED A CLOUD CONTINUING OUR IFR DSCNT. UPON EXITING THE CLOUD AT
APPROX 13000 FT MSL AND 30 DME FROM RNO, ON THE TARVR 1 ARR BTWN THE
FIXES TARVR AND SPOON, THE CAPT SPOTTED THE GLIDER AT CLOSE RANGE ON
THE APPROX SAME HDG AND ALT. THE CAPT TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT. THE CAPT
TOOK EVASIVE MANEUVERS TO AVOID THE GLIDER. THE CLOSEST POINT OF APCH
WAS APPROX 200 FT. WE INFORMED THE CTLR OF THE NMAC AND CONTINUED
UNEVENTFULLY INTO RENO. I BELIEVE THE GLIDER HAD NO SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS AS TO HIS LOCATION ALONG THE ARR INTO RENO. PERHAPS THE
GLIDER PLTS NEED SOME WAY OF BEING INFORMED WHEN RENO IS CONDUCTING N
ARRS.

ACN: 656782
Date : 200505
Synopsis: B737 FLT CREW WITH ZAU AT 7000 FT EXPERIENCED NMAC WITH
UNRPTED SAILPLANE DURING ARR TO MDW.
Narrative: I WAS ON THE MOTIF ARR TO MDW TALKING TO ZAU. I CANNOT
RECALL THE FREQ, BUT THE LAST ONE BEFORE HDOF TO APCH. WE WERE
ORIGINALLY CLRED TO CROSS 5 MI S OF JOT AT 6000 FT AND WERE THEN CLRED
TO CROSS 10 MI S OF JOT AT 7000 FT, WHICH WE COMPLIED. FLT CONDITIONS
WERE CLR OF CLOUDS AND HAZY WITH FLT VISIBILITY AROUND 5 MI. WE WERE
LEVEL AT 7000 FT INDICATING 250 KTS WITH THE FO FLYING. I WAS DOING MY
NORMAL SCAN FOR TFC WHEN JUST AHEAD, APPROX 11 O'CLOCK POS, A
SAILPLANE APPEARED STRAIGHT-ON IN A STEEP R BANK. IT WENT PAST MY SIDE
WINDOW STILL IN THE BANK, BUT VERY CLOSE, MAYBE 200 FT LEFT AND LESS
THAN 50 FT ABOVE. THIS ALL HAPPENED IN AN INSTANT, BUT I ACTUALLY SAW
THE PLT IN HIS SEAT. THE SAILPLANE WAS A T-TAIL SINGLE SEAT VERSION.
MY FO ALSO SAW THE ACFT FOR AN INSTANT AFTER HE MUST HAVE HEARD ME SAY
AN '&^%$#.' THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO TIME FOR AN EVASIVE MANEUVER. THE
ACFT APPEARED OUT OF NOWHERE AND ITS CROSS SECTION STRAIGHT-ON IN HAZY
CONDITIONS MADE IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE. I CALLED THE CTR AND SAID
I HAD A CLOSE CALL WITH A SAILPLANE AND WAS ASKED HOW CLOSE. I SAID
LESS THAN 500 FT, AND HE ACKNOWLEDGED SAYING THAT NO ACFT WAS BEING
PAINTED NEAR ME. I WAS THEN HANDED OVER TO CHICAGO APCH CTL AND ALSO
TOLD HIM ABOUT THE SAILPLANE ACTIVITY ON THE ARR, AND HE SAID HE WAS
GETTING A HIT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE IN THAT AREA. I BELIEVE THAT IF WE
WERE 100 FT LEFT AND A FEW FT HIGHER, A COLLISION WOULD HAVE OCCURRED.
AS A CREW, WE WERE ACTIVELY SCANNING AND PREPARING FOR 'NORMAL'
VECTORS TO THE APCH. I SAW NO FAULT IN ATC WHATSOEVER. I WOULD LIKE TO
KNOW WHY SAILPLANES ARE ALLOWED TO FLY ON A KNOWN ARR RTE TO ONE OF
THE BUSIEST AIRSPACES IN THE COUNTRY, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT A XPONDER. I
HAVE WRACKED MY BRAIN TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT I COULD HAVE DONE
DIFFERENTLY, BUT FIND NOTHING. WE WERE A STERILE COCKPIT WITH ALL ACFT
LIGHTS. I JUST DID NOT SEE THE ACFT COMING, AND ANY REACTION WOULD
HAVE BEEN TOO LATE. THE GLIDERS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE FLYING, BUT
MAYBE A CHANGE IN THE ARR RTE AWAY FROM GLIDER FIELDS OR AN ALT CAP
FOR THEM IN THAT AREA SHOULD BE LOOKED AT. ALSO, TRAINING TO THE
GLIDER PLTS IN THE AREA OUGHT TO BE GIVEN, OUTLINING THE HIGH DENSITY
ARR RTES TO THE CHICAGO AREA. IT WAS A CHILLING EVENT TO MY FO AND ME.
IT WAS A VERY CLOSE CALL.

ACN: 621472
Date : 200406
Synopsis: S56 CTLR RPTED NMAC BTWN B737 ARR TO SLC AND GLIDER AT 11000
FT.
Narrative: I WAS WORKING THE JORDAN RADAR SECTOR (SALT LAKE CITY
TRACON) AND HAD CLRED ACFT X FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 34R. AT 11000 FT
HE RPTED TAKING EVASIVE ACTION TO MISS A GLIDER AND RPTED AN NMAC. I
NEVER OBSERVED ANY TFC IN HIS VICINITY. THE AREA IS APPROX 8 MI FROM A
KNOWN GLIDER AREA, WHERE THERE IS A 'GLIDER BOX' FOR GLIDERS TO CLB/
DSND THROUGH CLASS B AIRSPACE.

ACN: 620997
Date : 200406
Synopsis: NMAC BTWN AN ARR B737-300 AND A GLIDER ON THE EXTENDED
CTRLINE OF LOC RWY 34R AT 11000 FT, 3 NM N OF FFU VORTAC, UT.
Narrative: WHILE DSNDING INTO SLC, JUST N OF FFU VOR, WE HAD JUST
LEVELED AT 11000 FT AT 230 KTS FOR LIGHT TURB. WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR
THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 34R. I LOOKED AT MY APCH PLATE AND THEN THE FMC/
CDU LEGS PAGE TO CONFIRM OUR NEXT ALT UNTIL PLAGE. MY FO STATED,
'CAPT, WE'VE GOT A GLIDER AT 12 O'CLOCK POS. WE NEED TO TURN R NOW AND
DSND.' I DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT AND APPLIED R AILERON AND NOSE DOWN
CTL INPUTS WHILE LOOKING FOR THE TFC. I SPOTTED THE SAIL PLANE AT OUR
ALT, JUST L OF OUR NOSE, WITH NO RELATIVE MOTION IN MY WINDSCREEN,
COMING NOSE ON. AS I ROLLED R AND DSNDED, THE SAIL PLANE PLT BANKED TO
HIS L, TURNING DIRECTLY INTO OUR PATH. I INCREASED BANK ANGLE TO
APPROX 40 DEGS AND NOSE DOWN PITCH TO APPROX 10-12 DEGS AND IGNORED
THE AUDIBLE, 'BANK ANGLE' WARNINGS. AS THE SAIL PLANE PASSED DOWN THE
L SIDE OF OUR ACFT, MISSING US BY APPROX 150 FT HORIZLY AND 30 FT
VERTLY, I SAW THE PLT REVERSE HIS ROLL TO R BANK. WE LEVELED AT 9500
FT, RPTED THE NMAC TO APCH CTL FOR THE BENEFIT OF FOLLOWING ACR ACFT,
AND COMPLETED THE APCH TO AND LNDG ON RWY 34R WITHOUT FURTHER
INCIDENT. I HAD ALREADY SEATED THE FLT ATTENDANTS PRIOR TO THE
INCIDENT, AND AFTER LNDG, THEY RPTED THAT NO PAX WERE INJURED OR
OVERLY ALARMED. I THEN CALLED APCH CTL, DISPATCH, THE CHIEF PLT ON
CALL, AND COMPLETED THE REQUIRED RPTS.

ACN: 619666
Date : 200405
Synopsis: B767 FLT CREW EXPERIENCED NMAC WITH GLIDER AT 7000 FT NEAR
CRANK INTXN DURING ARR TO EWR.
Narrative: ON ARR TO EWR, WE CROSSED CRANK INTXN AT 7000 FT AS IS
USUAL ON THIS ARR. I CONTACTED NY APCH. I LOOKED OUT OF MY WINDOW AND
SAW A GLIDER AT OUR ALT, IN A L TURN AT MY 2 O'CLOCK POS. IT CONTINUED
ITS TURN AND ENDED UP COMING TOWARDS US, THEN BANKED STEEPLY AWAY FROM
US. THE 2 ACFT CAME WITHIN 200-250 FT OF EACH OTHER. I QUERIED NY APCH
ABOUT A GLIDER. HE SAID HE DID NOT SHOW ANYTHING. ABOUT 20 SECONDS
LATER, THE CTLR INFORMED ME HE HAD 2 PRIMARY RETURNS. HE ASKED ME HOW
CLOSE WE CAME TO EACH OTHER. I INFORMED HIM OF MY OPINION, AND HE
CONCURRED WITH MY OPINION AND A FLT BEHIND US ON THE ARR CONFIRMED
THAT THE GLIDERS WERE STILL AT 7000 FT. WE DID NOT TAKE EVASIVE
ACTION. BY THE TIME I POINTED OUT TFC TO MY CAPT, THERE WAS NO POINT
IN MAKING EXCESSIVE MANEUVERS.

These came from the first 50 hits from a search on "glider" on the
ASRS database.

-Teresa

Ads
  #62  
Old January 11th 08, 09:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Soarin Again
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Troubling story and some questions


The SparrowHawk may be either operated as an ultralight
vehicle or
an experimental aircraft - choice of owner. There are
advantages and
disadvantages in either category. I operate my SparrowHawk
as an
ultralight but have it equipped probably better than
many gliders with
EDS O2, a transponder and a ballistic parachute. Since
I still belong
to USHPA (US Hang Gliding Paragliding Association)
I am covered for
$1,000,000 liability insurance for only $60. Also because
there is no
N number the SparrowHawk falls into the same category
as hang gliders/
paragliders and there are no local property taxes to
be paid. Since I
have 10 years of sailplane experience and most operators
know me in
this part of the world I have no problems getting a
tow from the local
FBOs. For me the obvious choice was ultralight category.
For others
there may be good reasons for experimental category.
These may include
getting hull insurance and the requirement from the
FBO have a
registered aircraft if you want a tow.
Because the FAA never envisioned a SparrowHawk when
Part 103 was
generated there are almost no operating restrictions
on an unpowered
ultralights - no pilot license, no air worthiness certificate,
no
pilot flying experience, no stall speed requirements,
no maximum speed
restrictions, no O2 requirements and the list goes
on. The only
restrictions are weight (155lbs without installed safety
equipment),
one person, no flying over populous areas and keeping
out of ATC
controlled airspace (A, B,C and D) except with permission.
I still
have yet to land the SparrowHawk at Reid Hillview Airport
(D airspace)
in San Jose, CA which is a very busy towered GA airport,
but they are
quite comfortable with me landing the Stemme as a glider
that I am
sure after a couple of questions and clarifications
I would be given
permission.
Dave


I went to the Sparrowhawk web page where it
shows the empty weight as 155 lbs. Are you saying
that with a transponder, radio, batteries and oxygen
system installed the Sparrowhawk still weighs only
155 lbs?



  #63  
Old January 11th 08, 10:51 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Troubling story and some questions

On Jan 9, 6:31*pm, wrote:
On Jan 9, 2:28*pm, wrote:





On Jan 9, 12:52*pm, wrote:


On Jan 8, 10:07*pm, wrote:


On Jan 8, 8:29*pm, wrote:


On Jan 8, 6:09*pm, Tony Verhulst wrote:


If you need to go into controlled airspace without permission


[CFI mode]
I fly in controlled airspace all the time and rarely get permission.
Controlled airspace does not mean that you have to talk to a controller.
Class E airspace is controlled airspace and is the such best example.
The only uncontrolled airspace (in the U.S.) is class G airspace..


Wikipedia, though never authoritative, provides this (accurate)
description -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_airspace.


[/CFI mode]


Tony V. CFI-G


Tony,


Thanks for the clarification. Clearly, I ment CLASS A controlled
airspace, vs controlled airspace. Of course, this changes absolutely
everything!


Tom


Waiter, some Lithium for my friend Tom.


Remember the original scenario. Dave finds himself at 18,200' at some
scary number of knots over Vne - IN A SPARROWHAWK. Those things weigh
like 145 pounds empty - not exactly the aircraft I want to use for
testing aeroelastic theory. He has his transponder on so ATC sees him.
He is monitoring Reno Approach so he would be aware of traffic
reporting in an area of concern to him.


So if I am Dave in that situation I'm first of all trying to not poop
in my pants. Second, I am trying to get the airspeed down quickly but
without overstresing the airplane or changing the loading in a way
that sets off flutter (a big unknown on what to do there, so more
pucker in the old sphincter). Third, I am getting the boards out as
soon as I feel safe to do so and pushing back over for the quickest
decent I can safely manage. The whole operation is maybe 45 seconds of
pure adrenaline.


So somewhere in here Dave gets to stop thinking aviate and start
thinking navigate. The stop at navigate is short (Dave knows where he
is). So now he can move on to communicate. So the relevant question
is, where does Dave make the transition from aviate through navigate
up to communicate? All while still holding his bowels. Is it the
instant he gets below Vne? While he's still maybe 30 degrees nose up
and losing airspeed? Before the zero-G push over, popping the
divebreaks for the 45-degree decent to 18,000' and below? Is is during
the decent? Is it before the pullup? Or does Dave just push forward on
the stick to get immediately back below below 18k, poop his pants, and
wait for permission to save his own life (that is, should he jump
straight to communicate - probably in falsetto).


One could also make the argument that Dave pull up, get down to a
reasonable speed, pause at 19k, call ATC and have a conversation about
what to do before going back into aviate mode for a more sedate decent
where multitasking is again fully operating for him. That might be a
reasonable course of action, but he will be spending a lot more time
in the Class A and there is probably a question about how long it
takes ATC to sort him out. If he didn't have his transponder on it
might take some time to sort out exactly where he is relative to other
traffic, whether or not he can maintain a constant altitude and
bearing given all the wave up/down, etc. If he didn't have his radio
on ATC then he'd have to locate the freq (if not committed to memory),
dial it up and establish contact all while farting around at 19k.


If he's got nerves of steel and the multitasking ability of a figher
jock making a radio call that's more informative than Tom's self-
described, micro-burst, "I'm busy" would be in order right in the
middle of the highest workload part, but I for one would give him
credit for landing with clean trousers.


Thanks for sharing with us Dave.


9B- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Ok, very funny - you are obviously not trying to make a serious post
here and you should be ignored. Fine, you get your wish. Hopefully no
one else takes anything you say seriously as there are consequences,
some extreme.


Tom- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text


Tom,


There's are several serious points in there - may be too subtle for a
guy who is sometimes right but never uncertain.


Honestly, I thought it was pretty arrogant of you to assert so
stridently what the situation was in the cockpit for Dave and what he
should or shouldn't have done with respect to flying the airplane
versus using the radio. I also thought your choice of adjectives
("neglegent" for instance) was particularly offensive. Finally, you
style of argument where you distort what others say, take ideas out of
context and personally attack anyone who you think might disagree with
you is reminiscent of a precocious 12 year old boy with poor impulse
control.


I also think your advice, and particularly the style in which you give
it doesn't advance the cause of safety.When people see the world in
such sharp contrast and adhere to fixed procedures or slogans at the
expense of thinking and adapting the the situation - that's when
extremely bad things happen.


At least one purpose of this forum is to share the types of incidents
that Dave experienced so we can all think about them, discuss them and
learn. The "you're all knuckleheads let me tell what the only right
answer is" doesn't encourage an open exchange at all.


I thought a little humor might allow you to open up your thinking and
see things from a different perspective - my mistake.


- Andy- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Oh Puhleese, Andy. You call me strident after calling me names. So-
called "humor' generally comes at the expense of someone else.

IMO Dave could have made a radio transmission while flying straight
and level. By his own statement he didn't because he "didn't want to
bother them", not "I was scared ****less". I assume he can do that
while flying the pattern, most pilots can. That was my one - and only
- (initial) contribution to what he could have done differently.

I feel your real objection to my suggestion is your complete aversion
to talking to anyone associated with the FAA. Many glider pilots share
this reluctance, probably because they trained on uncontrolled
airports and never learned the lingo. Some even got the licenses in
gliders w/o radios. The FAA does have a publication on this subject
and is worthwhile reading for any pilot.

Radio communication is one of the cheapest and most effective safety
devices that we have. Period. I once complained (to the FAA) that the
local jump operator was not broadcasting a jump announcement on the
CTAF. It turns out that one of his radios was in-op, and he had to be
on Seattle Center with the other. He was ****ed - but he fixed the
radio. Did I care what he thought about me? HELL NO! I just didn't
want one of his jumpers landing in my lap.

Sometimes you have to be blunt to make a point ("what part of mid-air
don't you understand"). I once witnessed a motorglider accident that
should never have happened: strictly because of poor airmanship. After
making sure the pilot, a friend of mine, was OK I told him his skills
were seriously lacking and he needed additional instruction. I also
told him I would prefer to have a live enemy than a dead friend. He
ended up selling the glider - and we are still friends. Another friend
liked to drink and fly (ultralights), despite our concerns. He is dead
now - after losing control of his ultralight while under the
influence. If you haven't figured it out yet, I take safety very
seriously and will take whatever steps I feel that are necessary to
correct a safety concern. And that includes contacting the FAA (which
I have done several times, mostly with positive outcomes). At this
point I do not think that that is necessary or helpful, as I believe
(or hope) that Dave has got the message, the most important is don't
get yourself into that position to begin with. I don't think you will
argue with that.

Let's call a truce - I don't think there is much more to be gained
here and I don't think that we are really that much in disagreement.

Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Fair enough Tom.

Blunt's okay with me. When a post denigrates the motives or
intelligence of ones interlocutors it's over the line IMHO - plus you
lose your audience.

Andy
  #64  
Old January 11th 08, 10:52 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Troubling story and some questions

On Jan 10, 4:06*pm, " wrote:
Hi:

Jumping into the fray here (both feet!) with some ASRS reports about
NMACs at altitude.

ACN: 751929
Date : 200708
(B737-300 at 14000 MSL near Reno, NV)
Synopsis: B737 FLT CREW RPTS TCAS RA WITH GLIDER AT 14000 FT 25 NM SW
OF RNO.
Narrative: 14000 FT SW OF RNO, APCH ADVISED TFC WITH XPONDER AT OR
NEAR OUR ALT. THE TFC QUICKLY BECAME A TA AND THEN AN RA. I FOLLOWED
CONFLICT GUIDANCE WITH A DSCNT AND THEN THE RA QUICKLY COMMANDED A
'CLB, CLB NOW.' I QUICKLY START CLBING WITH MAX POWER AND THEN DECIDED
TO TURN OFF COURSE TO THE WEST. A GLIDER PASSED OFF OUR R/EAST SIDE
APPROX 200 FT COMING HEAD ON. THE TA/RA ISSUES WERE THE GLIDER WAS
CLBING AND DSNDING WHICH CAUSED THE TA/RA TO REVERSE ITS CONFLICT CALL
FROM DSND TO CLB. APCH IN RNO IS VERY UPSET WITH THESE GLIDERS AND WE
NEED SOME RESTRS ON THEIR AIRSPACE TO AVOID THIS CONFLICT. THESE
MANEUVERS WERE AGGRESSIVE AND I PERSONALLY FEEL IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN
FOLLOWED, A WORSE SITUATION WOULD HAVE OCCURRED. GLIDER RESTRS.

ACN: 739528
Date : 200705
(Citation II flying at 12000 MSL)
Synopsis: C550 FLT CREW TOOK EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID GLIDER ACTIVITY.
Narrative: WE WERE ON THE ZZZZZ ARR INTO ZZZ, DSNDING TO 12000 FT TO
MEET THE XING RESTR, WHEN THE CTLR TOLD US TO DSND TO 11000 FT FOR
TFC. WE SAW A TARGET AT 500 FT ABOVE ON THE TCAS (JUST APPEARED) AND
AS WE INCREASED OUR RATE OF DSCNT WE GOT A TFC ALERT AND THE TARGET
TURNED TO ORANGE ON THE TCAS. WE SAW A GLIDER AND RPTED IT TO ATC (WE
PREVIOUSLY HEARD HIM ALERT ANOTHER ACFT OF AN UNIDENTED TARGET IN THE
AREA, POSSIBLY A GLIDER) AS THE GLIDER PASSED SLIGHTLY TO OUR 1
O'CLOCK POS, ANOTHER GLIDER APPEARED DIRECTLY AT 12 O'CLOCK POS, THE
PF BANKED STEEPLY TO THE R AND DSNDED FURTHER TO AVOID THE GLIDER.
LOOKING TO MY L I SAW A FLASH OF PARTIAL GLIDER PASS ABOVE US (WE WERE
CLOSE ENOUGH THAT THE COMPLETE WING SPAN WAS NOT VISIBLE). I ADVISED
THE CTLR WE WERE DIVERTING FOR ANOTHER GLIDER AND WE WENT BELOW OUR
ASSIGNED ALT BY OVER 400 FT WHILE RECOVERING. BOTH GLIDERS WERE FLYING
JUST ABOVE THE RIDGE, A GREAT PLACE TO SOAR, BUT PRECISELY ON THE ARR
PATH AND ALT. ONLY 1 TA WAS VISIBLE ON THE TCAS. THIS WAS A GREAT CALL
FROM THE CTLR, AS XMISSIONS WERE THE USUAL BUSY ZZZ ARR ON A FRIDAY
EVENING. AFTER A MOMENT OF SILENCE, I ADVISED THE CTLR AGAIN THAT
THERE WERE 2 GLIDERS ON THE ARR ABOVE THE RIDGE. I WILL ATTEMPT TODAY
TO CALL THE TRACON TO DISCUSS THE ALT DEV AND THANK THE CTLR FOR HIS
VIGILANCE.

ACN: 736824
Date : 200704
A320 at 11000 MSL
Synopsis: A320 CAPTAIN EXPERIENCES NMAC WITH GLIDER WHILE IN DESCENT
TO LAS.
Narrative: NEAR MISS WITH GLIDER FLYING N TO S ALONG RIDGE LINE.
CLOSEST POINT OF INTERCEPT: APPROX 200 FT. NO EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN
BASED ON GEOMETRY. WE TOLD CTLR AND SHE INFORMED THE NEXT ARR ACFT
BEHIND US OF A POSSIBLE 'PRIMARY' TARGET. I SPOKE WITH TRACON AND THEY
SAID THEY FREQUENTLY FLY THE RIDGE AND ARE HARD TO DETECT ON RADAR. HE
ALSO MENTIONED THAT GLIDERS CAN STILL FLY IN CLASS C WITHOUT MODE C.

ACN: 716529
Date : 200611
B737-700 at 6000MSL near Panoche
Synopsis: B737-700 FLT CREW HAS A TCAS RA DURING PANOCHE TWO ARR TO
OAK.
ACFT WAS ON PANOCHE ARR INTO OAK IN VMC CONDITIONS. WE WERE VECTORED
10 DEGS R OF COURSE FOR GA ACFT SEPARATION. WE WERE LEVEL AT 6000 FT
AND INSTRUCTED TO DSND TO 5000 FT TO CLR TFC. I SAW TFC MANEUVERING AT
OUR 11 O'CLOCK POS AND WAS TOLD BY ATC THAT IT WAS A MOONEY ABOVE US.
HOWEVER, IT TURNED OUT TO BE A GLIDER BELOW US IN A R BANK TURNING
DIRECTLY TOWARDS US. THE GLIDER CONTINUED TO TURN AND CLB TOWARDS US.
I ADDED PWR AND STARTED A CLB AND TURNED AWAY FROM THE TFC. THE FO
NOTIFIED ATC OF OUR AVOIDANCE MANEUVER JUST AS THE TCAS RA SOUNDED A
FEW SECONDS AFTER ADDING PWR. IT INDICATED A 2000 FPM CLB IN ORDER TO
CLR THE TFC, AND WE CLBED IMMEDIATELY TO 7000 FT. THE CTLR SEEMED
CONFUSED TO WHY WE WERE CLBING WHEN WE WERE GIVEN A DSCNT CLRNC. THE
CTLR DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS A GLIDER IN THE AREA AND HAD NO CONTACT
WITH THE GLIDER. ATC INSTRUCTED US TO DSND WHEN ABLE. VFR TFC SHOULD
AVOID MANEUVERING OVER ARR RTES WITHOUT COMMUNICATING TO ATC.

ACN: 708924
Date : 200608
Citation V at 16000 MSL
Synopsis: A C560 CLBING OUT OF BJC EXPERIENCED A NEAR MISS WITH A
SAILPLANE AT 16000 FT.

WHILE BEING VECTORED AROUND A SLOWER ACFT ON THE ROCK14.EKR DEP FROM
THE BOULDER JEFFERSON COUNTY ARPT, WE EXPERIENCED A NEAR MISS WITH A
SAILPLANE. WE WERE ASSIGNED ON A 240 DEG HDG, CLRED TO FL230 FROM
DENVER DEP CTL ON THE 126.1 MHZ FREQ, AND CLBING AT 280 KTS CAS AT
2000 FPM. AT EXACTLY 16000 FT MSL, WE WERE STARTLED BY THE SIGHTING OF
THE GLIDER AT ABOUT OUR 1 O'CLOCK POSITION AND A QUARTER MILE DISTANT.
THE GLIDER WAS FLYING AT APPROX THE SAME HDG IN STRAIGHT AND LEVEL FLT
SO HE WAS UNAWARE OF US AT THAT MOMENT. I MADE NO EVASIVE MANEUVER AND
THE GLIDER PASSED OUR STARBOARD WING ABOUT TWO SECONDS LATER. MY GUESS
IS THAT THE GLIDER WAS ABOUT A FOOTBALL FIELD LENGTH HORIZONTALLY AWAY
-- CLOSE ENOUGH TO SEE THE PLT CLEARLY. I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT THE PLT
OF THIS GLIDER WAS EQUALLY STARTLED BY THE SIGHT AND SOUND OF OUR
PASSING CLOSELY AT A HIGH RATE OF SPD AND THRUST. WE MENTIONED THE
NEAR MISS SITUATION TO DEP CTL AND HE RESPONDED TO US THAT HE HAD NO
RADAR OR RADIO CONTACT WITH THE GLIDER. GLIDER ACFT, OUTSIDE OF CLASS
A, B, AND C AIRSPACE, ARE EXEMPT FROM XPONDER/ALT REPORTING EQUIP
UNDER FAR 91.215(b)(5). A WEEK AGO A HAWKER HS-125 JET COLLIDED WITH A
GLIDER NEAR MEV IN A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE WITH NO CASUALTIES EXCEPT
FOR THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF THE SAILPLANE AND SERIOUS DAMAGE TO THE
JET. I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR SAILPLANE PLTS TO CARRY A
HANDHELD TRANSCEIVER AND POSSIBLY A MODE 3/A OR C XPONDER TO
COMMUNICATE WITH ATC FOR SAFETY AND SURVIVAL REASONS. CARRYING ABOARD
PORTABLE SYSTEMS WOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT. SIZE, COST, AND WT WOULD POSE
VERY LITTLE PROBLEM. THIS INCIDENT IMPRESSED ON ME AND MY FO OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF 'SEE-AND AVOID' ON AN IFR CLRNC IN VMC. IN SPECULATION,
IF THE GLIDER HAD BEEN DIRECTLY IN OUR PATH, I'M CONFIDENT THAT WE
COULD HAVE EVADED A COLLISION AT THE INITIAL SIGHTING WITH A QUARTER
MILE SEPARATION. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY CLOSE REQUIRING AN ABRUPT
PULL-UP MANEUVER. IF WE HAD NOT BEEN WATCHING, IN THIS SAME SCENARIO,
I HAVE NIGHTMARES CONTEMPLATING THE RESULT.

ACN: 679562
Date : 200512
Synopsis: A B737-300 PLT RPTS AN NMAC WITH A GLIDER AT 13000 FT APPROX
30 DME S ON APCH TO RNO RWY 34.
Narrative: WHILE DSNDING ON TARVR 1 ARR INTO RNO, APCH CTLR CALLED
POSSIBLE GLIDER TFC AT OUR 12-1 O'CLOCK POS, APPROX 5 MI, ALT UNKNOWN.
WE ENTERED A CLOUD CONTINUING OUR IFR DSCNT. UPON EXITING THE CLOUD AT
APPROX 13000 FT MSL AND 30 DME FROM RNO, ON THE TARVR 1 ARR BTWN THE
FIXES TARVR AND SPOON, THE CAPT SPOTTED THE GLIDER AT CLOSE RANGE ON
THE APPROX SAME HDG AND ALT. THE CAPT TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT. THE CAPT
TOOK EVASIVE MANEUVERS TO AVOID THE GLIDER. THE CLOSEST POINT OF APCH
WAS APPROX 200 FT. WE INFORMED THE CTLR OF THE NMAC AND CONTINUED
UNEVENTFULLY INTO RENO. I BELIEVE THE GLIDER HAD NO SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS AS TO HIS LOCATION ALONG THE ARR INTO RENO. PERHAPS THE
GLIDER PLTS NEED SOME WAY OF BEING INFORMED WHEN RENO IS CONDUCTING N
ARRS.

ACN: 656782
Date : 200505
Synopsis: B737 FLT CREW WITH ZAU AT 7000 FT EXPERIENCED NMAC WITH
UNRPTED SAILPLANE DURING ARR TO MDW.
Narrative: I WAS ON THE MOTIF ARR TO MDW TALKING TO ZAU. I CANNOT
RECALL THE FREQ, BUT THE LAST ONE BEFORE HDOF TO APCH. WE WERE
ORIGINALLY CLRED TO CROSS 5 MI S OF JOT AT 6000 FT AND WERE THEN CLRED
TO CROSS 10 MI S OF JOT AT 7000 FT, WHICH WE COMPLIED. FLT CONDITIONS
WERE CLR OF CLOUDS AND HAZY WITH FLT VISIBILITY AROUND 5 MI. WE WERE
LEVEL AT 7000 FT INDICATING 250 KTS WITH THE FO FLYING. I WAS DOING MY
NORMAL SCAN FOR TFC WHEN JUST AHEAD, APPROX 11 O'CLOCK POS, A
SAILPLANE APPEARED STRAIGHT-ON IN A STEEP R BANK. IT WENT PAST MY SIDE
WINDOW STILL IN THE BANK, BUT VERY CLOSE, MAYBE 200 FT LEFT AND LESS
THAN 50 FT ABOVE. THIS ALL HAPPENED IN AN INSTANT, BUT I ACTUALLY SAW
THE PLT IN HIS SEAT. THE SAILPLANE WAS A T-TAIL SINGLE SEAT VERSION.
MY FO ALSO SAW THE ACFT FOR AN INSTANT AFTER HE MUST HAVE HEARD ME SAY
AN '&^%$#.' THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO TIME FOR AN EVASIVE MANEUVER. THE
ACFT APPEARED OUT OF NOWHERE AND ITS CROSS SECTION STRAIGHT-ON IN HAZY
CONDITIONS MADE IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE. I CALLED THE CTR AND SAID
I HAD A CLOSE CALL WITH A SAILPLANE AND WAS ASKED HOW CLOSE. I SAID
LESS THAN 500 FT, AND HE ACKNOWLEDGED SAYING THAT NO ACFT WAS BEING
PAINTED NEAR ME. I WAS THEN HANDED OVER TO CHICAGO APCH CTL AND ALSO
TOLD HIM ABOUT THE SAILPLANE ACTIVITY ON THE ARR, AND HE SAID HE WAS
GETTING A HIT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE IN THAT AREA. I BELIEVE THAT IF WE
WERE 100 FT LEFT AND A FEW FT HIGHER, A COLLISION WOULD HAVE OCCURRED.
AS A CREW, WE WERE ACTIVELY SCANNING AND PREPARING FOR 'NORMAL'
VECTORS TO THE APCH. I SAW NO FAULT IN ATC WHATSOEVER. I WOULD LIKE TO
KNOW WHY SAILPLANES ARE ALLOWED TO FLY ON A KNOWN ARR RTE TO ONE OF
THE BUSIEST AIRSPACES IN THE COUNTRY, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT A XPONDER. I
HAVE WRACKED MY BRAIN TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT I COULD HAVE DONE
DIFFERENTLY, BUT FIND NOTHING. WE WERE A STERILE COCKPIT WITH ALL ACFT
LIGHTS. I JUST DID NOT SEE THE ACFT COMING, AND ANY REACTION WOULD
HAVE BEEN TOO LATE. THE GLIDERS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE FLYING, BUT
MAYBE A CHANGE IN THE ARR RTE AWAY FROM GLIDER FIELDS OR AN ALT CAP
FOR THEM IN THAT AREA SHOULD BE LOOKED AT. ALSO, TRAINING TO THE
GLIDER PLTS IN THE AREA OUGHT TO BE GIVEN, OUTLINING THE HIGH DENSITY
ARR RTES TO THE CHICAGO AREA. IT WAS A CHILLING EVENT TO MY FO AND ME.
IT WAS A VERY CLOSE CALL.

ACN: 621472
Date : 200406
Synopsis: S56 CTLR RPTED NMAC BTWN B737 ARR TO SLC AND GLIDER AT 11000
FT.
Narrative: I WAS WORKING THE JORDAN RADAR SECTOR (SALT LAKE CITY
TRACON) AND HAD CLRED ACFT X FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 34R. AT 11000 FT
HE RPTED TAKING EVASIVE ACTION TO MISS A GLIDER AND RPTED AN NMAC. I
NEVER OBSERVED ANY TFC IN HIS VICINITY. THE AREA IS APPROX 8 MI FROM A
KNOWN GLIDER AREA, WHERE THERE IS A 'GLIDER BOX' FOR GLIDERS TO CLB/
DSND THROUGH ...

read more


Great post - sobering.
  #67  
Old January 11th 08, 05:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
JJ Sinclair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 388
Default Troubling story and some questions

On Jan 10, 4:06*pm, " wrote:
Hi:

Jumping into the fray here (both feet!) with some ASRS reports about
NMACs at altitude.


Last year I installed a transponder and PCAS and I wouldn't fly around
Reno without them. Last spring a light twin and I saw and talked (on
123.3) We were below Reno's radar coverage, he saw my 0440 squawk on
his TCAS and I picked up his transponder on my
PCAS........................That report about gliders coming down the
ridge line at 12,000 feet is undoubtedly from the Dog Skins Ridge just
west of Air Sailing. This is serious, folks..........we can
voluntarialy install transponders now (around areas like Reno) or
have them mandated right after a glider gets shredded by an airliner!
I can see the headline now, "Pleasure seekers flying plastic toys,
endanger the flying public".
JJ
  #68  
Old January 11th 08, 06:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Shawn[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Troubling story and some questions

JJ Sinclair wrote:
On Jan 10, 4:06 pm, " wrote:
Hi:

Jumping into the fray here (both feet!) with some ASRS reports about
NMACs at altitude.


Last year I installed a transponder and PCAS and I wouldn't fly around
Reno without them. Last spring a light twin and I saw and talked (on
123.3) We were below Reno's radar coverage, he saw my 0440 squawk on
his TCAS and I picked up his transponder on my
PCAS........................That report about gliders coming down the
ridge line at 12,000 feet is undoubtedly from the Dog Skins Ridge just
west of Air Sailing. This is serious, folks..........we can
voluntarialy install transponders now (around areas like Reno) or
have them mandated right after a glider gets shredded by an airliner!
I can see the headline now, "Pleasure seekers flying plastic toys,
endanger the flying public".


Jeeze JJ, don't write the headlines for them!
I agree otherwise.

Shawn
  #69  
Old January 11th 08, 06:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Troubling story and some questions

On Jan 11, 12:06 am, Soarin Again
wrote:
The SparrowHawk may be either operated as an ultralight
vehicle or
an experimental aircraft - choice of owner. There are
advantages and
disadvantages in either category. I operate my SparrowHawk
as an
ultralight but have it equipped probably better than
many gliders with
EDS O2, a transponder and a ballistic parachute. Since
I still belong
to USHPA (US Hang Gliding Paragliding Association)
I am covered for
$1,000,000 liability insurance for only $60. Also because
there is no
N number the SparrowHawk falls into the same category
as hang gliders/
paragliders and there are no local property taxes to
be paid. Since I
have 10 years of sailplane experience and most operators
know me in
this part of the world I have no problems getting a
tow from the local
FBOs. For me the obvious choice was ultralight category.
For others
there may be good reasons for experimental category.
These may include
getting hull insurance and the requirement from the
FBO have a
registered aircraft if you want a tow.
Because the FAA never envisioned a SparrowHawk when
Part 103 was
generated there are almost no operating restrictions
on an unpowered
ultralights - no pilot license, no air worthiness certificate,
no
pilot flying experience, no stall speed requirements,
no maximum speed
restrictions, no O2 requirements and the list goes
on. The only
restrictions are weight (155lbs without installed safety
equipment),
one person, no flying over populous areas and keeping
out of ATC
controlled airspace (A, B,C and D) except with permission.
I still
have yet to land the SparrowHawk at Reid Hillview Airport
(D airspace)
in San Jose, CA which is a very busy towered GA airport,
but they are
quite comfortable with me landing the Stemme as a glider
that I am
sure after a couple of questions and clarifications
I would be given
permission.
Dave


I went to the Sparrowhawk web page where it
shows the empty weight as 155 lbs. Are you saying
that with a transponder, radio, batteries and oxygen
system installed the Sparrowhawk still weighs only
155 lbs?


  #70  
Old January 11th 08, 06:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
5Z
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 405
Default Troubling story and some questions

So why the %$#@& won't the FAA let someone build a modern, inexpensive
"transponder" that we could install for under $500 (perhaps even
less)??

Why must all equipment meet the highest standards??

Why is it that a "certificated" version of FLARM would likely cost
several thousand dollars and likely not be available for many years?

Think about it:

FLARM exists now and is portable. It may take some work on the
software and perhaps transmitter for it to work with closing speeds of
500+ knots, such as two jets on a head on course or glider above 10K
head on to fast jet, etc...

But, if some mandate came along to use these "as is" and every
aircraft in the US must carry one, the sheer volume would reduce the
price to just a few hundred dollars.

It wouldn't be perfect, but would likely eliminate several fatalities
a year, and many more near misses.

Granted, it wouldn't be PERFECT, but it would be MUCH better than what
we have now. Unfortunately, at least 2 problems exist:

FAA: If it's not PERFECT, we don't want it

Lawyers: It's not perfect, you knew it, and you sold it. My client's
life was saved a dozen times over the last few years, but that's not
important because last time there was a problem. So I want this
"defective" system shut down immediately and lots of $$$ as well.

---sigh.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More Troubling Planetary News!!! Michael Baldwin, Bruce[_2_] Products 1 August 24th 07 07:10 AM
More Troubling Planetary News Michael Baldwin, Bruce Products 3 January 24th 07 04:40 AM
More Troubling Planetary News Michael Baldwin, Bruce Products 2 November 20th 06 04:15 AM
More Troubling Planetary News Michael Baldwin, Bruce Products 10 November 17th 06 03:57 AM
Erosion of U.S. Industrial Base Is Troubling The Enlightenment Military Aviation 1 July 29th 03 06:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.