![]() |
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 19, 12:18*am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:38*pm, Derek C wrote: On Oct 17, 12:32*pm, India November wrote: On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote: On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November wrote: On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith wrote: Darryl Ramm wrote: --- Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the USA. Allegheny 853 MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed Pacific Southwest 182 Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172 San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS carriage requirements in the USA) MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured NetJets N879QS Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29 Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky) Darryl Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number since the 1980s. http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/...pp_module.show... Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the terms "glider" and "US air carrier". The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial passengers are exposed to. Ian Grant IN There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure. However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and have a greater propensity to report such incidents. This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re.../a06o0206/a06o... Airspace separation is the best bet. Ian Grant- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That is why I am against fitting transponders to gliders. They are expensive and do not protect us from 99.9% of the mid-air collisions (glider/glider or glider/light aircraft) that we are ever likely to have. The number of glider/Commercial Transport mid-air collisions is 2 to the best of my knowledge, neither of which caused any fatalities (Reno and Airbus in Class G airspace over France). Derek C This statement again suffers from the assumption that there is one environment that applies to everybody. We have many situations worldwide where I would hope nobody think a glider needs any mandatory collision avoidance technology through situations where there is significant risk of a glider-glider mid-air (e.g. contests, busy clubs), and in other locations maybe GA traffic offers the most significant risk. To situations where gliders are in close proximity to airliners and fast jets and where the product of risk x consequence should be a serious concern. The collision at Reno was with a Hawker 800. There have been "close" incidents with airliners there as well. Large numbers of the glider pilots who fly near Reno undertsand in detail the traffic patterns, conclicts and risks and equip wih transponders. We don't need to wait for a fatality from an airliner collision to prove it is a justified saftey measure. *Risks from other parts of a glider pilots flying activities need to be considered separately from that risk x consequence of a collision with an airliner. Whether you might have a statistically higher probability of having a mid-air with another glider should not drive the risk decision about whether to utilize a transponder in these key areas where we have a serious problem with close proximity of airliner and fast jet traffic. I hope what is going on here is a reaction to concerns about blanket transponder mandates. They don't make sense (unless folks in high risk areas don't volitarilly adopt them or can't be locally forced to if the voluntary stuff just does not happen). Darryl- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, but in one area in Europe where transponders are mandatory for gliders, the ATC controllers often ask the pilots to turn them off on busy gliding days because of information overload on their screens! Hence they are a total waste of money and battery power! Now if we could get a cheap, low power instrument that provides a universal electronic collision avoidance system, that would be different. Derek C |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Swallow - Me 262 A-1a of KG 51 at Frankfurt 27 Mar 45.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | December 29th 07 03:33 AM |
Airports and Air Strips frankfurt.jpg (2/2) | J.F. | Aviation Photos | 0 | October 20th 07 02:07 AM |
Glider-Airliner Near Miss | jcarlyle | Soaring | 0 | June 12th 07 04:52 PM |
Why Screeners Miss Guns and Knives (and why pilots miss planes and airports) | cjcampbell | Piloting | 2 | January 3rd 06 04:24 AM |
ATC of Near-Miss over BOS | Marco Leon | Piloting | 40 | August 31st 05 01:53 PM |