Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

Hey Darryl, PMSC exists the the USA and still supports people and pilots constitutional rights on free speech . Don't freakin squeeze my fellow club member. That's as arrogant as it gets. You want a solution? It begins with lowing the cost of Flarm. I can't afford another $1600 toy either. We don't all ow 100plus k gliders.

That's is the solution. GA participation is in decline and some of that is cost. Get the cost down and pilots will buy.

Dennis DC

I fly airliners, power GA airplanes, and gliders so here are some observations from both worlds:

When flying no matter what/ where I'm looking for other traffic, more so "down low." Here in the Midwest that is 10,000' MSL. Gliders are by design small with little frontal area. It is hard to see them from very far off even when I'm also in a glider and know they're there. Even when ATC calls other airliner traffic at altitude, I sometimes resort to looking for contrails as the actual aircraft is no where to be seen- many times with a closure rate of 1,000 MPH. Sometimes we never do see them. Yes, we ARE looking.

Airline pilots are taught that the Flying Pilot does just that, and only that. If ATC assigns a different route, approach, or runway the Non Flying Pilot should be the one "heads down" inputting the change in "the box" while the Pilot Flying keeps flying, while also confirming the correctness of the change. I assume Flight Safety teaches GA jet drivers the same.

Back in the early 90s when Mode C transponders were first required in power planes to fly in ARSAs, I remember the complaining from GA pilots about the cost. I also remember a comment made that these same pilots had no problem dropping more money on fancy LORANs than what the transponders cost. But that was DIFFERENT. Look at the resistance to Flarm. I don't own a glider and I've never used one, but I feel almost naked flying without TCAS.

To me this is the same. Guys drool over the latest glide computer and the batteries to operate it, but complain about transponders and being required to install them.

Lastly, the comment about gliders and balloons being here first: 1) Balloons are generally easier to see due to their size; and 2) I guess you're right. So what? Are you willing to be dead right?

Should a glider and airliner crash killing many, it won't matter who was "right." Public outcry will be loud and swift. We won't like the results.

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 8:19:04 PM UTC-4, Richard Wilkening wrote:
Look at the resistance to Flarm.

In the contest community (i.e. where Flarm makes sense), the equipage rate seems to be North of 80%, DESPITE the fact that Flarm is expensive, hard to set up & test, has customer service that is pretty much non-existent.

In high traffic corridors (NYC, Reno...) transponder installations are nearly universal among XC guys.

So... your premise that safety doesn't sell appears to be incorrect.

Going forward, the obvious thing to do is send a bottle of smart pills to the guys at the FAA that can pave the way to approval for a low cost VFR only TABS system for low cost VFR only aircraft. Safety is a much easier sell when the cost is reasonable and if the FAA were concerned with VFR **safety** they'd act on this obvious fact.

Oh and btw: the airliners can see me at 6 miles RIGHT NOW by adding flarm. Quit laughing, I'm serious. Send the serial output data to TCAS or whatever. I don't expect them to do this. The airlines, like the FAA, are more interested in having some powerless victim to blame when the **** hits the fact than they are in prevention.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 11:59:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
What about the hot air balloons, ultralights, antique airplanes, hanggliders, skydivers, drones, birds, and mountains?
It is our airspace too and we were there first. Airlines and motorplanes need to do a better job of avoiding all of the stuff in the sky. And if you guys start advocating for limiting my ability to fly without a transponder than I am going to start advocating to limit your flying regardless of how powerful a ball roasting beeper you put in your gliders.

All we need is one glider-airliner collision and you can fully expect to be grounded until ADSB is installed in your glider. Gliders came very close to loosing their exemption for Mode C due to the non-fatal collision between a biz jet and a glider near Reno. It will not be "us guys" limiting your ability to fly, it will be the FAA. The economic reality is that it matters not a whit who "was there first". Airline safety will take priority over any other consideration.

Indeed.

Did you miss this from yesterday?
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!...ng/drv1sFbYkPs

Or, are you just on a rant?

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it he http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687

The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.

I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.

The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually.. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.

When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…

In flying out of a small private airport (cyrp) and finding that
some of the aircraft do not see me, I am installing a 10W LED strobe.
In the next week or so , I shall get reports of how useful this is as an alert.

Glad to see the "near miss" (= collision) is being replaced with
close encounter , or near collision!

John Firth

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it he http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687

The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.

I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.

The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually.. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.

When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…

Pere,

That is an excellent analogy and I could not agree more. Unfortunately, the political weight of any discussion these days will have the clout of the safety of passengers as having foremost weight in the discussion of what ensues after a collision with an airliner carrying passengers. The days of open cockpit daredevil biplanes flown in the yesteryears of aviation history are long gone in terms of requirements for safety. It is incumbent on glider pilots to show concern in real action, that is, outfitting gliders soaring cross country to outfit their gliders with electronic means of warnings and alerts. Does that mean even a 2-33 flying patterns at a local airport for training purposes need install a transponder? No, but others who go cross country should. The least costly way I know of alerting others is purchasing a transponder, about the same price as a radio. I always turn my on when flying. It may be my right to fly without it, but that wont mitigate the disaster of hundreds of lives lost if there was a collision.

The least costly way I know of alerting others is purchasing a transponder, about the same price as a radio.

It looks to me like this gold plated system's cost is about 4x the cost of a radio, and that makes me grumpy. (Or perhaps it could be ARG (Age Related Grumpy, or both.) ;-)

I'm also grumpy because this is about 10% the cost of the glider. If the airlines, with more political clout, had to pay 10% for ADSB, ADSB would be much different.

But my grumps aside, this thread is actually useful because it made me think that except for battery issues, my reasons for grumpy are no more compelling than the rest of the GA community. These days, the battery issues are not so bad. For a glider with lithium, a 4 hour flight is a no brainer. I can see 6 or 8 without much trouble. 12 may be a head scratcher, but hey, I'm an engineer and if I get to where I need it, I bet I can figure out a way.

In other words, I'm to the state where I think there should not be a glider exemption for gliders flying where airlines are likely to be. I think this even though it will cost me a small fortune to buy a system which is way more complicated that is necessary for the task at hand.

I say this because I don't see any other reliable way to provide separation between my cross country butt and an airline. An interesting question is are there other reasonable, reliable separation rules which might work for non-cross country flights?

Perhaps if within a published distance (5nm?) of a glider symbol on the chart and below cloudbase, other traffic won't depend on electronic means for traffic separation. Such a compromise is bad because it raises the bar for cross country, but at least it might provide a safe glider exemption for how many gliders are actually used. (Some GA might benefit from the same separation plan?)

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 6:20:45 PM UTC-7, wrote:
The least costly way I know of alerting others is purchasing a transponder, about the same price as a radio.

It looks to me like this gold plated system's cost is about 4x the cost of a radio, and that makes me grumpy. (Or perhaps it could be ARG (Age Related Grumpy, or both.) ;-)

I'm also grumpy because this is about 10% the cost of the glider. If the airlines, with more political clout, had to pay 10% for ADSB, ADSB would be much different.

But my grumps aside, this thread is actually useful because it made me think that except for battery issues, my reasons for grumpy are no more compelling than the rest of the GA community. These days, the battery issues are not so bad. For a glider with lithium, a 4 hour flight is a no brainer. I can see 6 or 8 without much trouble. 12 may be a head scratcher, but hey, I'm an engineer and if I get to where I need it, I bet I can figure out a way.

In other words, I'm to the state where I think there should not be a glider exemption for gliders flying where airlines are likely to be. I think this even though it will cost me a small fortune to buy a system which is way more complicated that is necessary for the task at hand.

I say this because I don't see any other reliable way to provide separation between my cross country butt and an airline. An interesting question is are there other reasonable, reliable separation rules which might work for non-cross country flights?

Perhaps if within a published distance (5nm?) of a glider symbol on the chart and below cloudbase, other traffic won't depend on electronic means for traffic separation. Such a compromise is bad because it raises the bar for cross country, but at least it might provide a safe glider exemption for how many gliders are actually used. (Some GA might benefit from the same separation plan?)

Trig TT22 is around $2k plus installation.

I'm thinking most radios are around $1,300 to $1,500 plus installation. A good comparison point BTW since radios are an important safety option.

So I don't agree with 4X for a transponder, maybe closer to 1.5X-2X all up, being aware as well that individual installation costs can always vary signifcantly.

If we have to install 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out then sure, that might be in the 4X range. The silliness there is so much of the safety benefit, certainly vs airliners and fast jets, is obtained with just a transponder. I would hope voluntary use of transponders would help to prevent potential incidents and accidents that are likely to remove both the transponder and ADS-B out exemptions.

If it was not for the possibility of ADS-B Out becoming required in gliders I'd be suggesting pilots who fly in/near busy traffic areas and who want to use a transponder look to pick up cheaper used Mode C units. That may still make sense if you find one cheap, but you won't have a ADS-B Out upgrade path if gliders lose their ADS-B Out exemption.