Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios

If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
electrical systems too?

How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
this issue?

Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?

Is the big-sky-theory a myth?


----------------------------------------
http://www.examiner.com/a-1314730~Fe...Gliders.ht ml

Feds Call for Alerts on All Air Gliders
Apr 1, 2008 5:28 PM (25 days ago) By SCOTT SONNER, AP

RENO, Nev. (Map, News) - All gliders should be required to operate
with devices that alert air traffic controllers and other aircraft to
their presence, federal regulators recommended Tuesday, citing 60
near-collisions over the past two decades.

Gliders and other aircraft without engine-driven electrical systems
are exempt from a rule the Federal Aviation Administration imposed in
1988 requiring transponders for aircraft that operate near primary
airports and in airspace above 10,000 feet.

NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker recommended in a March 31 letter to the
board that the glider exemption be eliminated in part because of an
NTSB investigation into a collision between a glider and a private jet
about 40 miles southeast of Reno in August 2006.

In that case, the glider pilot - who parachuted to safety - had a
transponder on his aircraft but had turned it off to conserve battery
power. The Hawker 800XP airplane he collided with was significantly
damaged but was able to land safely at Reno-Tahoe International
Airport.

"As evidenced by this accident, aircraft that are not using or not
equipped with transponders and are operating in areas transited by air
carrier traffic represent a collision hazard," Rosenker wrote in the
letter first made public on Tuesday.

"This hazard has persisted more than 20 years since the Safety Board
initially expressed concern," he said.

Many gliders object to required use of transponders, saying they are
expensive and energy-consuming.

Of the 60 near mid-air collisions from 1988 to 2007, nine occurred in
northern Nevada. That's due primarily to the large number of gliders
that fly along the Sierra's eastern front where thermal air flows
create what enthusiasts describe as "world-class" gliding conditions.

Other frequent sites of near-collisions were Chicago and Washington,
D.C., with four each. Colorado Springs, Colo., had three.

More than 10 years before the latest incident, the FAA's Reno Flight
Standards District Office...

The FAA has 90 days to respond to the NTSB's recommendations, FAA
spokesman Ian Gregor said.

"We take NTSB recommendations very seriously," he said from Los
Angeles.

Leaders of the Soaring Society of America, based in Hobbs, N.M., and
other gliding enthusiasts oppose the NTSB's move. They advocate
alternatives including increasing awareness among pilots of areas
where gliders are often in use and implementing technology already
used in some parts of Europe that provides low-cost, real-time
information to pilots....

Most modern gliders have solar-powered batteries that help conserve
power, but even those don't help on longer flights, which can stretch
eight hours and cover 500 miles, he said.

"Having a transponder on all the time becomes a real problem with
energy conservation on your glider," he said.

Fred La Sor, an owner of Soaring NV in Minden who helped develop new
safety plans for the Reno area after the last accident, said it costs
$2,200 to $3,000 to put transponders on most gliders.

Besides, he said, most collisions or close calls involve not a glider
and a jet, but two gliders - something he said transponders would not
affect.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
electrical systems too?

Almost certainly

How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
this issue?

Not at all. Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.

Right-of-way rules have two uses:
1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and are
inclined to follow them).

And now the big one: (2) It provides lawers and bureaucrats with a
methodology for assigning blame after an accident.

Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?

No more than they do now.

Is the big-sky-theory a myth?

It always has been a myth.

Vaughn

On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

...



If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
electrical systems too?

Almost certainly



How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
this issue?

Not at all. Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.

Right-of-way rules have two uses:
1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and are
inclined to follow them).

And now the big one: (2) It provides lawers and bureaucrats with a
methodology for assigning blame after an accident.



Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?

No more than they do now.



Is the big-sky-theory a myth?

It always has been a myth.


No it is not a myth. If you evenly spread the number of GA aircraft
below 12,000 ft across the U.S all traveling at random directions, the
probability of collision will be extremely low enough to be considered
zero. The problem is that the big sky theory does not apply near
terminal airspace where the airplanes are not traveling in random
directions and altitudes.

The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
proposal. However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be
necessary. A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:01:31 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
electrical systems too?

Almost certainly


That's the way I saw it also.

Here are a few pertinent questions:

What are the full implications of installing an electrical system in a
glider?

If implemented, will the requirement for an electrical system kill
low-cost glider training operations?

Would the CAP glider training operations, which typically provide
winch launch and pattern work, be impacted?

What are the full implications of installing an electrical system in a
Champ or Cub? Isn't their performance so marginal already, that they
will become impractical due to increased empty weight and drag, and
power reduction with the addition of an alternator, battery,
communications radio, transponder, antennas, wiring, switches, etc?

Would the work have to be done by an A&P and approved by the FAA for
each aircraft/glider modified?

Will aircraft/glider useful load be affected?


How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
this issue?

Not at all.


So you don't believe there is any possibility that Part 121 or 135
operator advocate organizations have been lobbying the government to
increase the conspicuity of gliders or to enable their TCAS systems to
warn operators of glider proximity?

What is the possibility of NextGen ATC accommodating non-metallic
aircraft without electrical systems? Without transponders? Without
radio communications?


Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.


It's difficult to deny that. But it doesn't address the issue of
liability.


Right-of-way rules have two uses:
1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and are
inclined to follow them).


Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.


And now the big one: (2) It provides lawers and bureaucrats with a
methodology for assigning blame after an accident.


So Right-of-way regulations provide a basis for aggrieved parties to
seek compensation from regulation violators, and assign responsibility
too.


Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?

No more than they do now.


I would find ATC's responsibility for separating NORDO gliders that
paint no primary target to be nonexistent presently. If this proposal
is enacted, the situation will change.


Is the big-sky-theory a myth?

It always has been a myth.


At the risk of tangential drift, isn't the BST currently employed by
the FAA to separate high-speed military aircraft on VFR low-level
Military Training Routs from civil flights? In light of the mythical
status of the BST, shouldn't that flaw in the NAS be corrected also?


Vaughn


Thank you for your insightful comments.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
wrote in
:

On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...


Is the big-sky-theory a myth?

It always has been a myth.


No it is not a myth. If you evenly spread the number of GA aircraft
below 12,000 ft across the U.S all traveling at random directions, the
probability of collision will be extremely low enough to be considered
zero. The problem is that the big sky theory does not apply near
terminal airspace where the airplanes are not traveling in random
directions and altitudes.


It also doesn't apply within 150 miles of Los Angeles, and I'd
venture, to other areas of large population concentrations, nor near
navaids, nor airports (controlled or not), nor islands, ... In fact,
in today's aerial environment, the Big-Sky-Theory is not only a myth,
but a recipe for disaster, IMO.


The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
proposal.

What is it that you see? Is it the necessity to outlaw all aircraft
that were certified without electrical systems from operation within
the NAS?

However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be necessary.
A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.


That's a constructive suggestion.

How large must such a radar reflector be?

Will it activate TCAS?

Does ATC normally enable the display of primary targets?

On Apr 27, 11:09*am, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
proposal. However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be
necessary. A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.- Hide quoted text -

Just to clarify, The FAA does not classify a glider as an airplane so
this has nothing to do with the exemption. The press release is poorly
worded. There is some good anti collision technology available but it
is not legal (yet) to use in the US. Most soaring is not done near
busy terminal areas so the Mode C thing would pretty much be a waste
for most sailplanes.
F Baum

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
electrical systems too?

Almost certainly
How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
this issue?

Not at all. Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.

Right-of-way rules have two uses:
1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and are
inclined to follow them).


Further, the class preference in the rule applies to only certain
circumstances: converging courses from directions other than
head-on (or nearly so), when neither is distress, when one is
not overtaking the other, and when neither is in the final
approach to land.

None of this overrides the fundamental rule that starts off
91.113: do what you have to do to avoid collisions.
Unlike nautical rules, there's no stand-on vessel in
aviation.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and
are
inclined to follow them).


Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.

Not so.

If the other plane does not see you, it can't be expected/trusted to behave
according to the ROW regulations, so you can't know what it is going to do.
There is usually little that you can do to get the other pilot's attention (you
have no horn in an aircraft). So it is up to the pilot that DOES see the other
to do whatever it takes to avoid a collision...regulations be dammed.

In that situation, I usually manuver in such a way that I never lose sight of
the other aircraft. If I happen to be driving a glider, my manuvering options
are limited to left, right, and down. I probably can't climb, and I certainly
can't outrun an oncoming airplane.

Vaughn

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:55:53 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and
are
inclined to follow them).


Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.

Not so.


So if you see a glider in you path while piloting a powered aircraft,
but its pilot doesn't see you, you don't give it the right of way?

On Apr 28, 6:02*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
wrote in
:





On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..

Is the big-sky-theory a myth?

* *It always has been a myth.

No it is not a myth. If you evenly spread the number of GA aircraft
below 12,000 ft across the U.S all traveling at random directions, the
probability of collision will be extremely low enough to be considered
zero. The problem is that the big sky theory does not apply near
terminal airspace where the airplanes are not traveling in random
directions and altitudes.

It also doesn't apply within 150 miles of Los Angeles, and I'd
venture, to other areas of large population concentrations, nor near
navaids, nor airports (controlled or not), nor islands, ... *In fact,
in today's aerial environment, the Big-Sky-Theory is not only a myth,
but a recipe for disaster, IMO.



The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
proposal.

What is it that you see? *Is it the necessity to outlaw all aircraft
that were certified without electrical systems from operation within
the NAS? *

However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be necessary.
A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.

That's a constructive suggestion. *

How large must such a radar reflector be? *

It's a retroreflector, I have one in the form of a tube about 3 inches
in diameter and 2 feet long. The corner cubes are inside that. I have
no idea how effective it is compared to a classic reflector which
occupies a cube about 1 foot across and retroreflects the radar
equally in all directions.
...

Will it activate TCAS? *

Don't see how it could, TCAS uses the information in the active
return from the transponder.

Does ATC normally enable the display of primary targets?

As fas as I know ATC radar picks up as many moving targets as it cam
"see". Not sure what you mean by primary tho'.

Cheers