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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
Mike Schumann wrote:
I don't share your confidence in your ability to avoid a Hawker. Not only do you have to luck out and see him in time, but you need to be able to tell exactly where he is going compared to your airspace, not only if he continues on a straight path, but also if he sees you and tries to maneuver. I don't have as much confidence in my ability to avoid a Hawker as I would like to have. But I do have more confidence in that than in my ability to "dodge a bullet", or a baseball, which are the comparisons I made in response to another poster's implication that there was little difference between a Hawker and a bullet. There is more to it than a comparison of numbers, but if you are going to compare the numbers then compare all of them -- and while doing so, season it all with a bit of common sense, and experience, to ferret out the reality with which we must deal in the cockpit. As far as "lucking out", I'm sure the harder I work the luckier I will get when it comes to spotting traffic. I continue to advocate the PCAS as one way to enhance that process, and there are others. If you run right out and install a transponder -- and I think you should -- I will know where you are. You won't know where I am but that apparently doesn't bother you, so I will take care of both of us if I can. You say you can't judge closure. Yes, it does get harder the faster everybody is moving and the smaller is the target. I must ask you then, how have you survived this long? Or have you? I've been assuming here that you have some flight time. Either you and Yuliy have never seen another aircraft in the sky or you both have been extremely fortunate in that the other pilot, or the big-sky concept, saved you. Because, according to each of you, the problem of judging closure is insurmountable. Please, stay at home if that is the case for you. If you wish to have a realistic learning process take place here (and I hope to benefit from it) then we are going to have to deal with specifics, and with outcomes. You know, those unintended consequence things; those unanticipated little complications and inadequacies that make the best planned lays go away. The best strategy is to get and use a transponder so you never get close to this situation. Apparently, you know of a transponder which will erect an impenetrable shield around your aircraft. I hadn't heard of it. But, I hope you do get a transponder, because I'm sure it will help in some situations. And please let us know if you gain some insight into the other 90 % of the traffic avoidance problem, because that will still exist. You are failing to address the other 90% when you put all your faith in a transponder. If we are not willing to understand the whole problem of traffic avoidance, if we do not believe it can be done without ceding control of our flight to another entity, which is the only way that Universal-Transponderism by itself can work, then we have no business getting into a cockpit. Ultimately, we are saying that our sport cannot survive. Psychiatrists should have a field day with all of that. As I pointed out with a comparison of numbers in my response to Yuliy, the problem of visual traffic avoidance is substantial, but not impossible. What it takes to make it work has already been discussed here ad infinitum, occasionally by knowledgeable posters, but still hasn't gotten through to some. There is no way to replace the human eye, and the motivation to use it and all the other tools available to the pilot, by a simple reliance on technology and central control. So let's take it one step at a time. Explain to us, if you don't mind, what will be the result of every glider having a working transponder. A simple question, no? Jack --------------------------------------------- "588" wrote in message m... Yuliy Gerchikov wrote: That's precisely the problem: exactly what volume of air do I need to exit? Only that volume of air (the size of your glider) through which the traffic is about to pass. Quite small, really. At those distances and rates of closure it is very difficult to estimate the point of impact in 3D, especially given the extremely limited time for decision. Difficult? Limited? Relative to what? No ball game that I know comes close to the order of magnitude of parameters that we deal with here. Then you don't know Baseball. If you'd ever stood in the batter's box and had a good pitcher throw a fast ball high and inside, and then compared that experience with a high speed closure with another aircraft, you'd find that the numbers don't really tell the story. No number can describe the actual experience -- you just have to be there, in the game or in the cockpit. But if you do prefer numbers, here they a at 420 kts closure with another aircraft (708.8667 fps) from only 1/2 nm out (3038 feet) you have a leisurely period of 4.2857 seconds which you can use to avoid impact; compare this with the release of the baseball from the pitcher's hand at considerably less than the nominal 60' 6" to the plate (but call it 60 feet) at 90 mph (132 fps, and 13 mph SLOWER than the fastest recorded pitch) which gives you 0.4545 seconds until impact (hopefully with your bat and not your head). If this gives you renewed respect for Ted Williams (life time batting average .344) as a baseball player as well as a fighter pilot, that's good too. Of course, we need to bat 1.000 when it comes to traffic avoidance, but even with only 0.5 nm separation at 420 kts we have almost ten times as long as we would when standing in the batter's box to decide what to do, and make our move. I assume you have already found out that you can hear a powered aircraft from the cockpit of your glider. You can hear that baseball coming too, which adds to the fun. And, you will remember that sound also, but only if the ball misses your head. This is closer to dodging bullets than it is to any ball game. At a muzzle velocity of 860 fps, the .45 pistol bullet is traveling at 509.5458 kts, or about 21% faster than the aircraft in this example. However, it has a diameter of 0.45 inch whereas the cross section of the Hawker 800XP is a 2-3 meter oval, sans wings and tail. Not at all comparable. I'll take the Hawker 800XP challenge at a half mile every time over the .45 ACP challenge at 20 paces. YMMV. As for the baseball, at ~three inches in diameter, it's a better deal than the 230 gr FMJ, but the Hawker 800XP is still the easiest of all to deal with, by far. None of these three "sports" is for the indecisive, or the feint of heart. The advantage is very definitely to the observant, the trained, and the confidant. One must deal successfully with the numbers, and the experience -- and it can be done. Jack |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
There are no perfect solutions. A transponder will not help you avoid the
vast majority of VFR traffic. It will help IFR traffic see you and stay away. I have never claimed anything more. I'm just pragmatic about the limitations of see and avoid. Converging traffic can be very difficult to see, particularly if it is overtaking you from behind. I'm not disputing that having a PCAS type of device would be helpful. Mike Schumann "588" wrote in message ... Mike Schumann wrote: I don't share your confidence in your ability to avoid a Hawker. Not only do you have to luck out and see him in time, but you need to be able to tell exactly where he is going compared to your airspace, not only if he continues on a straight path, but also if he sees you and tries to maneuver. I don't have as much confidence in my ability to avoid a Hawker as I would like to have. But I do have more confidence in that than in my ability to "dodge a bullet", or a baseball, which are the comparisons I made in response to another poster's implication that there was little difference between a Hawker and a bullet. There is more to it than a comparison of numbers, but if you are going to compare the numbers then compare all of them -- and while doing so, season it all with a bit of common sense, and experience, to ferret out the reality with which we must deal in the cockpit. As far as "lucking out", I'm sure the harder I work the luckier I will get when it comes to spotting traffic. I continue to advocate the PCAS as one way to enhance that process, and there are others. If you run right out and install a transponder -- and I think you should -- I will know where you are. You won't know where I am but that apparently doesn't bother you, so I will take care of both of us if I can. You say you can't judge closure. Yes, it does get harder the faster everybody is moving and the smaller is the target. I must ask you then, how have you survived this long? Or have you? I've been assuming here that you have some flight time. Either you and Yuliy have never seen another aircraft in the sky or you both have been extremely fortunate in that the other pilot, or the big-sky concept, saved you. Because, according to each of you, the problem of judging closure is insurmountable. Please, stay at home if that is the case for you. If you wish to have a realistic learning process take place here (and I hope to benefit from it) then we are going to have to deal with specifics, and with outcomes. You know, those unintended consequence things; those unanticipated little complications and inadequacies that make the best planned lays go away. The best strategy is to get and use a transponder so you never get close to this situation. Apparently, you know of a transponder which will erect an impenetrable shield around your aircraft. I hadn't heard of it. But, I hope you do get a transponder, because I'm sure it will help in some situations. And please let us know if you gain some insight into the other 90 % of the traffic avoidance problem, because that will still exist. You are failing to address the other 90% when you put all your faith in a transponder. If we are not willing to understand the whole problem of traffic avoidance, if we do not believe it can be done without ceding control of our flight to another entity, which is the only way that Universal-Transponderism by itself can work, then we have no business getting into a cockpit. Ultimately, we are saying that our sport cannot survive. Psychiatrists should have a field day with all of that. As I pointed out with a comparison of numbers in my response to Yuliy, the problem of visual traffic avoidance is substantial, but not impossible. What it takes to make it work has already been discussed here ad infinitum, occasionally by knowledgeable posters, but still hasn't gotten through to some. There is no way to replace the human eye, and the motivation to use it and all the other tools available to the pilot, by a simple reliance on technology and central control. So let's take it one step at a time. Explain to us, if you don't mind, what will be the result of every glider having a working transponder. A simple question, no? Jack --------------------------------------------- "588" wrote in message m... Yuliy Gerchikov wrote: That's precisely the problem: exactly what volume of air do I need to exit? Only that volume of air (the size of your glider) through which the traffic is about to pass. Quite small, really. At those distances and rates of closure it is very difficult to estimate the point of impact in 3D, especially given the extremely limited time for decision. Difficult? Limited? Relative to what? No ball game that I know comes close to the order of magnitude of parameters that we deal with here. Then you don't know Baseball. If you'd ever stood in the batter's box and had a good pitcher throw a fast ball high and inside, and then compared that experience with a high speed closure with another aircraft, you'd find that the numbers don't really tell the story. No number can describe the actual experience -- you just have to be there, in the game or in the cockpit. But if you do prefer numbers, here they a at 420 kts closure with another aircraft (708.8667 fps) from only 1/2 nm out (3038 feet) you have a leisurely period of 4.2857 seconds which you can use to avoid impact; compare this with the release of the baseball from the pitcher's hand at considerably less than the nominal 60' 6" to the plate (but call it 60 feet) at 90 mph (132 fps, and 13 mph SLOWER than the fastest recorded pitch) which gives you 0.4545 seconds until impact (hopefully with your bat and not your head). If this gives you renewed respect for Ted Williams (life time batting average .344) as a baseball player as well as a fighter pilot, that's good too. Of course, we need to bat 1.000 when it comes to traffic avoidance, but even with only 0.5 nm separation at 420 kts we have almost ten times as long as we would when standing in the batter's box to decide what to do, and make our move. I assume you have already found out that you can hear a powered aircraft from the cockpit of your glider. You can hear that baseball coming too, which adds to the fun. And, you will remember that sound also, but only if the ball misses your head. This is closer to dodging bullets than it is to any ball game. At a muzzle velocity of 860 fps, the .45 pistol bullet is traveling at 509.5458 kts, or about 21% faster than the aircraft in this example. However, it has a diameter of 0.45 inch whereas the cross section of the Hawker 800XP is a 2-3 meter oval, sans wings and tail. Not at all comparable. I'll take the Hawker 800XP challenge at a half mile every time over the .45 ACP challenge at 20 paces. YMMV. As for the baseball, at ~three inches in diameter, it's a better deal than the 230 gr FMJ, but the Hawker 800XP is still the easiest of all to deal with, by far. None of these three "sports" is for the indecisive, or the feint of heart. The advantage is very definitely to the observant, the trained, and the confidant. One must deal successfully with the numbers, and the experience -- and it can be done. Jack |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
Mike Schumann wrote:
There are no perfect solutions. A transponder will not help you avoid the vast majority of VFR traffic. I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units? I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers. If so, then a transponder would help you avoid (indirectly, since they would be doing the actual "avoiding") the majority of VFR traffic. Locally, two gliders have PCAS/transponders, 2 have transponders only, 1 has PCAS only, and two have neither. Of course, we all have radios and track each other that way. -- Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006 Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units? I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers. If so, then a transponder would help you avoid (indirectly, since they would be doing the actual "avoiding") the majority of VFR traffic. Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org I fly a fair number of single engine VFR and IFR aircraft throughout the year. My personal experience is that I have yet to flown one that had any sort of Transponder Detector. I have talked to a couple pilots that would like to get one, but have yet to actually do so. So my personal experience is that very few VFR Single engine aircraft carry a Transponder Detector. On the other hand very few of these aircraft fly above 10,000 ft on a regular basis as well. Brian Case CFIIG/ASEL |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
During the last year or so, Garman was selling quite a few Mode S
Transponders to people who already had their Moving Map GPS systems. With TIS, you got the benefit of seeing traffic on your display. A number of months ago, the FAA announced that they were phasing out TIS as they install new radars. As a result, the interest in Mode S transponders in the GA market has dried up. Now, to get this capability, you have to wait for ADS-B, which the FAA is taking their sweet time deploying. Once ADS-B becomes universally deployed and affordable, I suspect you will start seeing a lot of VFR pilots who will have the able to see ADS-B and transponder equiped aircraft. Mike Schumann "Eric Greenwell" wrote in message news:P36Ng.3190$xh3.2277@trnddc01... Mike Schumann wrote: There are no perfect solutions. A transponder will not help you avoid the vast majority of VFR traffic. I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units? I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers. If so, then a transponder would help you avoid (indirectly, since they would be doing the actual "avoiding") the majority of VFR traffic. Locally, two gliders have PCAS/transponders, 2 have transponders only, 1 has PCAS only, and two have neither. Of course, we all have radios and track each other that way. -- Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006 Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
"588" wrote in message
m... No ball game that I know comes close to the order of magnitude of parameters that we deal with here. Then you don't know Baseball. In fact, I don't, indeed. So thanks for the numbers. Now, if only all Hawkers were *coming* from a very well defined -- and known in advance -- point in space (as pitcher's throw is defined by human body mechanics), and *going* into a similarly well defined box in space, our job would be easy. Imagine that the pitcher can be ANYWHERE around you in 3D, and that he is invisible -- you don't see him when he throws, only the ball and only once it is speeding SOMEWHERE towards you. Now, bat! I assume you have already found out that you can hear a powered aircraft from the cockpit of your glider. Nope -- never been close enough, I guess. I doubt it, however, given that (1) bizjets are amazingly quiet, (2) bizjets descending at flight idle are quieter yet, and (3) the wind noise is very noticeable even in the best of the modern gliders. So I would not rely on hearing. Funny, BTW, that in a parallel thread somebody is suggesting earplugs . None of these three "sports" is for the indecisive, or the feint of heart. The advantage is very definitely to the observant, the trained, and the confidant. One must deal successfully with the numbers, and the experience -- and it can be done. Jack -- Yuliy |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
Eric Greenwell wrote:
I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units? I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers. I would think it is actually a tiny fraction. Of all the planes I've seen or been in over the past year, I can recall only seeing one of these devices. On the other hand I've been in several with TIS and one with ADS-B, but even that is a small percentage of the total. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
Ron Natalie wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote: I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units? I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers. I would think it is actually a tiny fraction. Of all the planes I've seen or been in over the past year, I can recall only seeing one of these devices. On the other hand I've been in several with TIS and one with ADS-B, but even that is a small percentage of the total. Do you suppose these pilots are using flight following, and decided a PCAS unit wouldn't improve their odds any? They seem cheap and plentiful, and airplanes usually fly where there are other airplanes, all with transponders. -- Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006 Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
When I was flying power cross countries, I would always try to use flight
following. Unfortunately, most VFR traffic is probably pretty localized where pilots wouldn't necessarily be doing this. It's really too bad that the FAA is phasing out TIS. I suspect that almost everyone who is buying or upgrading to a glass cockpit or even a Garman 430 / 530 would have taken a really hard look at springing the extra $3-4K for a Mode S transponder to get the traffic info. Mike Schumann "Eric Greenwell" wrote in message news:NEFNg.3724$xr.257@trnddc03... Ron Natalie wrote: Eric Greenwell wrote: I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units? I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers. I would think it is actually a tiny fraction. Of all the planes I've seen or been in over the past year, I can recall only seeing one of these devices. On the other hand I've been in several with TIS and one with ADS-B, but even that is a small percentage of the total. Do you suppose these pilots are using flight following, and decided a PCAS unit wouldn't improve their odds any? They seem cheap and plentiful, and airplanes usually fly where there are other airplanes, all with transponders. -- Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006 Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Glider Crash - Minden?
Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
Now, if only all Hawkers were *coming* from a very well defined -- and known in advance -- point in space (as pitcher's throw is defined by human body mechanics), and *going* into a similarly well defined box in space, our job would be easy. No, it wouldn't be "easy" -- it also wouldn't be as difficult as has been claimed. The problem may be that we have not separated the process into its constituent parts: 1) find the traffic; 2) avoid the traffic. Finding the traffic is the most difficult. Avoiding it depends on finding it before it gets so close that you don't have time to avoid. The only traffic you must be concerned with is that which is "going into a similarly well defined box in space" -- your aircraft. Your cockpit is the batters box, the plate is all of your aircraft which you must protect, to continue the baseball analogy (probably overworked by now). So how are we going to find the traffic in time to avoid it? In ALL cases, by using our eyes. Whether we are initially alerted by some electronic tool, a radio message, another crew member, or by our own visual scan, we still must have acquired the traffic visually before we can determine the proper response. The exception to this today is TCAS, which is currently beyond our reach. With the availability of inexpensive PCAS devices, the complaints about the steep cost/benefit ratio of any proposed transponder mandate are less convincing. If all aircraft carry operating mode-C transponders _and_ PCAS/TCAS devices, then virtually all aircraft posing a potential collision hazard will be identifiable to all other aircraft. I assume you have already found out that you can hear a powered aircraft from the cockpit of your glider. Nope -- never been close enough, I guess. I doubt it, however, given that (1) bizjets are amazingly quiet, (2) bizjets descending at flight idle are quieter yet, and (3) the wind noise is very noticeable even in the best of the modern gliders. So I would not rely on hearing. For a guy who has never been close enough to hear another aircraft (or is it only a bizjet?), you are very sensitive to the possibility of a midair. Would that more people were. I wouldn't know about "modern gliders", but from the cockpit of my 1-26, a type not noted for its inherent silence, I can sometimes hear other gliders with whom I share a thermal. Mentioning sound doesn't mean that I expect it to be a useful collision avoidance device, however. If we identify which phase of the traffic avoidance problem we are addressing, we will probably find we have very few points of disagreement. Jack |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VQ-1's P4M-1Q crash off China - 1956 | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | May 6th 06 11:13 PM |
Yet another A36 crash | H.P. | Piloting | 10 | April 23rd 05 05:58 PM |
Seniors Contest | Bob Fidler | Soaring | 68 | March 17th 05 04:50 AM |
Sport Pilot - School Won't Offer | Gary G | Piloting | 38 | February 16th 05 11:41 AM |
Announce/USA: FAA Glider Flying Handbook / Bob Wander | SoarBooks | Soaring | 0 | August 11th 03 03:55 PM |