Glider Crash - Minden?

"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
...
Stop turning and stick the nose down steeply at the same time.

That's about the quickest way to exit a given volume of air that I can
think of if you're starting from a low airspeed.

That's precisely the problem: exactly what volume of air do I need to exit?
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. No ball game that I know comes close to the order of magnitude of
parameters that we deal with here. This is closer to dodging bullets than it
is to any ball game.

Oh, and by the way, from the other side this situation does not look nearly
as dramatic. If initiated 20 seconds before impact, a mere 2g pull (in
either direction) for 5 seconds (followed by straight flight) puts the jet's
trajectory nearly a mile from the point of impact -- the distance that
glider can not possibly cover in the same time even in the worst case. This
assumes the jet speed of 300 kts.

(Could this possibly have been at least the part of the logic behind giving
gliders right-of-way over powered aircrafts?)
--
Yuliy

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

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.

The best strategy is to get and use a transponder so you never get close to
this situation.

Mike Schumann

"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

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

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

"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

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

In article , Martin Gregorie
writes
Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
"kirk.stant" wrote in message
oups.com...

Plus, 20 seconds is an eternity when it comes to getting out of the
way.

I asked this question several times, and never saw a convincing answer:
exactly how do you use even the 20 seconds if you have them to avoid
something coming at you at 300 (or, it was suggested, possibly much more)
knots?

Stop turning and stick the nose down steeply at the same time.

That's about the quickest way to exit a given volume of air that I can
think of if you're starting from a low airspeed. I'll be interested to
hear of anything that would be faster and/or of something what would
work if you're too low to dive away from the threat.


Yebbut, what if the threat is coming from below? This happened to me
when I spotted what I took to be a glider and tug combination, below and
at my 10 o'clock, which rather too rapidly resolved itself into 2 A-10s
climbing to my level. They went by about 100 feet higher, one each side.
I filed an airmiss report, but by the time it was investigated, the A-10
drivers concerned had returned home across the Pond.
--
Mike Lindsay