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?)