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

Mike Schumann wrote:
There are no perfect solutions. A transponder will not help you avoid the
vast majority of VFR traffic.

I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR
airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units?
I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers. If so,
then a transponder would help you avoid (indirectly, since they would be
doing the actual "avoiding") the majority of VFR traffic.

Locally, two gliders have PCAS/transponders, 2 have transponders only, 1
has PCAS only, and two have neither. Of course, we all have radios and
track each other that way.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR
airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units?
I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers. If so,
then a transponder would help you avoid (indirectly, since they would be
doing the actual "avoiding") the majority of VFR traffic.
Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org



I fly a fair number of single engine VFR and IFR aircraft throughout
the year. My personal experience is that I have yet to flown one that
had any sort of Transponder Detector. I have talked to a couple pilots
that would like to get one, but have yet to actually do so. So my
personal experience is that very few VFR Single engine aircraft carry a
Transponder Detector. On the other hand very few of these aircraft fly
above 10,000 ft on a regular basis as well.

Brian Case
CFIIG/ASEL

During the last year or so, Garman was selling quite a few Mode S
Transponders to people who already had their Moving Map GPS systems. With
TIS, you got the benefit of seeing traffic on your display.

A number of months ago, the FAA announced that they were phasing out TIS as
they install new radars. As a result, the interest in Mode S transponders
in the GA market has dried up. Now, to get this capability, you have to
wait for ADS-B, which the FAA is taking their sweet time deploying.

Once ADS-B becomes universally deployed and affordable, I suspect you will
start seeing a lot of VFR pilots who will have the able to see ADS-B and
transponder equiped aircraft.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:P36Ng.3190$xh3.2277@trnddc01...
Mike Schumann wrote:
There are no perfect solutions. A transponder will not help you avoid
the vast majority of VFR traffic.

I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR
airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units? I'd
guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers. If so, then a
transponder would help you avoid (indirectly, since they would be doing
the actual "avoiding") the majority of VFR traffic.

Locally, two gliders have PCAS/transponders, 2 have transponders only, 1
has PCAS only, and two have neither. Of course, we all have radios and
track each other that way.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Eric Greenwell wrote:

I wonder about this. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR
airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units?
I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers.

I would think it is actually a tiny fraction. Of all the planes I've
seen or been in over the past year, I can recall only seeing one of
these devices. On the other hand I've been in several with TIS and
one with ADS-B, but even that is a small percentage of the total.

Eric Greenwell wrote:

Does anyone have an idea what percentage of the VFR
airplanes carry a transponder detector, including the low cost units?
I'd guess a majority of them do, but I haven't seen any numbers. If so,
then a transponder would help you avoid (indirectly, since they would be
doing the actual "avoiding") the majority of VFR traffic.

Locally, two gliders have PCAS/transponders, 2 have transponders only, 1
has PCAS only, and two have neither. Of course, we all have radios and
track each other that way.

I don't remember reading any stats on xpndr detector usage. AOPA may
have something. I expect usage will climb steadily from where it has
been. I'm the only one I know with a PCAS unit (no transponder, yet),
but I have not conducted a survey of glider pilots in our club. I should
do so.


Jack