Midair Warning

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 2:13:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Warning/Caution:

Surprised...thread has gone way off OP's intent.

You're talking final approach and it's probably a bit more than that.
I'm talking vectors or own navigation to a fix outside the IAF/FAF.

On 7/11/2015 7:20 PM, SoaringXCellence wrote:
Having watched and flown with F-16s in a pattern, I would guess that they're more like 120 in the pattern.


--
Dan Marotta

Ah, yes, limitations...

I once almost swapped paint with an Army OV-10 at about 6,000' above
Eielson AFB, AK. He was inbound to Ft. Wainwright AAF, about 25 miles
away. I was talking to tower on a simulated flameout approach. I'm
pretty certain he was talking to Fairbanks Approach. Draw your own
conclusions.

And what's all this got to do with soaring? It's not winter. :-D

On 7/11/2015 10:23 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 8:39:21 PM UTC-7, Bob Pasker wrote:
if he was in fact doing an approach at the time
the RADAR works whether you're on approach or not
I do know how RADAR works, in lots more detail than we need to get into here. But SSR surveillance only "works" in any useful collision avoidance sense if:

1. The transponders in both aircraft are on and operating correctly, (I'll skip for now any discussion about the KCHS Approach ASR-8(?) primary radar limitations/performance issues)
2. The aircraft are at a suitable height (and location) for SSR coverage for that ATC facility
3. One or both pilots are talking to approach/ATC
4. Approach/ATC provides them with some traffic warning/separation instructions, and
5. The pilot(s) are able to use that warning/instructions to avoid each other

Which is why there are lots of relevant questions about what exactly was happening, which AFAIK at the moment can only be guessed at, including.... Was the F-16 flying an approach or otherwise talking to KCHS Approach (and on VHF/UHF?)? Was the F-16 actually in IMC? Just exiting IMC? Was the Cessna 150 on flight following/talking to KCHS Approach (on the same frequency so they could hear the F-16?)? What altitude did the collision happen at? When/did the F-16 hand off from Shaw RAPCON to KCHS Approach? Were both transponders and encoders actually working correctly? What traffic warning/separation did Approach provide if anything? What were the pilots reactions to any warning? etc., etc., etc.

--
Dan Marotta

Sorry... Make that an OV-1 Mohawk.

On 7/12/2015 7:00 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
Ah, yes, limitations...

I once almost swapped paint with an Army OV-10 at about 6,000' above
Eielson AFB, AK. He was inbound to Ft. Wainwright AAF, about 25 miles
away. I was talking to tower on a simulated flameout approach. I'm
pretty certain he was talking to Fairbanks Approach. Draw your own
conclusions.

And what's all this got to do with soaring? It's not winter. :-D

On 7/11/2015 10:23 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 8:39:21 PM UTC-7, Bob Pasker wrote:
if he was in fact doing an approach at the time
the RADAR works whether you're on approach or not
I do know how RADAR works, in lots more detail than we need to get into here. But SSR surveillance only "works" in any useful collision avoidance sense if:

1. The transponders in both aircraft are on and operating correctly, (I'll skip for now any discussion about the KCHS Approach ASR-8(?) primary radar limitations/performance issues)
2. The aircraft are at a suitable height (and location) for SSR coverage for that ATC facility
3. One or both pilots are talking to approach/ATC
4. Approach/ATC provides them with some traffic warning/separation instructions, and
5. The pilot(s) are able to use that warning/instructions to avoid each other

Which is why there are lots of relevant questions about what exactly was happening, which AFAIK at the moment can only be guessed at, including.... Was the F-16 flying an approach or otherwise talking to KCHS Approach (and on VHF/UHF?)? Was the F-16 actually in IMC? Just exiting IMC? Was the Cessna 150 on flight following/talking to KCHS Approach (on the same frequency so they could hear the F-16?)? What altitude did the collision happen at? When/did the F-16 hand off from Shaw RAPCON to KCHS Approach? Were both transponders and encoders actually working correctly? What traffic warning/separation did Approach provide if anything? What were the pilots reactions to any warning? etc., etc., etc.

--
Dan Marotta

--
Dan Marotta

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 7:30:07 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 2:13:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Warning/Caution:

Surprised...thread has gone way off OP's intent.

Not really - the original OP's intent was to say that everybody should have a transponder to prevent the kind of midair that just happened between the Cessna 150 and the F-16. Since both of them had transponders, that is obviously not entirely correct.

My earlier comment about PowerFLARM was purely in reference to the PCAS function incorporated in PF - unlike others I think the approximately 30 seconds of warning that there is traffic closing at your altitude is extremely useful - because it gets your head out of the cockpit and your eyes focused on finding the approaching traffic. That is why I always have my ZAON PCAS when I fly power and non-PF club gliders, and have PF in my glider.

I didn't mean to suggest that GA should adopt PF - although it sure wouldn't hurt!

One comment on the whole "high speed jet" scenario: Unless you are transiting an active MOA, military aircraft will mostly be either be high up (above 18k) on an IFR flight plan (saving gas) or down low (below 1500' or so) on VR low level route. In a MOA or on a VR route they can be fast and maneuvering but a call to the local FSS will reveal if the MOA or VR route is active - if so it's a good idea to avoid them!

If the mil jet is in the IFR system (intrument ride, for example), they will be fying pretty much the same profile as a bizjet, perhaps a bit faster (300 to 350 knots until configured for landing, for example). Those speeds give you time to see and avoid, and that is where I think the benefit of a PCAS warning is highly valuable.

As far as waiting for F-16s, etc to get TCAS or ADS-B: Forget it. Probably never happen, because military jets are not certified and don't have to comply with FARs - and the budget wouldn't support it. I would expect the transports to get 1090ES ADS-b for international flights.

Sad event, interesting discussion, food for thought.

Kirk
66

While it is a good idea to avoid MOA (although I understand this midair did not happen in MOA) the fact is that in the Great Basin we flying in MOAs on a regular basis as they occupy large portion of the soaring area. Avoiding the MOAs basically mean avoiding flying cross country in the Great Basin. I doubt pilots are talking to flight services, we are all on 123.30 all the time. I always believed that by flying with a transponder at least they know I am there and can avoid me, sounds like this is not the case.

Ramy

Flying with a transponder in those MOA *is* a good idea,... and yes I'm especially thinking of Sevier MOA complex out towards Ely--pretty busy with F-16s out of Hill AFB, and with good radar coverage. But there are no guarantees anything will save your life. Communicating with the appropriate ATC facility can also help. You can always contact them, find out if there is something happening, decide to stay on frequency or tell them you need to leave the frequency. Newer radios with the ability to guard a second frequency are handy.

On Sunday, 12 July 2015 14:50:42 UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
Flying with a transponder in those MOA *is* a good idea,... and yes I'm especially thinking of Sevier MOA complex out towards Ely--pretty busy with F-16s out of Hill AFB, and with good radar coverage. But there are no guarantees anything will save your life. Communicating with the appropriate ATC facility can also help. You can always contact them, find out if there is something happening, decide to stay on frequency or tell them you need to leave the frequency. Newer radios with the ability to guard a second frequency are handy.

The Sevier MOA's, A, B, C and D along with many others and restricted areas north of Ely and W/NW of Nephi are controlled by Clover Center, frequency 134.1 or you can call them at (801) 777-7575 before you fly to get a planned schedule of events

We had daily contact with them while flying out of Nephi late June and early July by telephone, Monday through Friday. Pilots also contacted them while in the air and were told the areas were either hot or cold and if they were hot they were told where and what altitude activity was at.

The folks at Clover center have been very friendly, approachable and are aware of the glider activity in the area. and YES they appreciate it when you have a transponder!

As Hill AFB gets the F35's, starting in September, I have been told we can expect more activity in all MOA's and restricted areas around the Utah and Nevada Test Range (UTTR) controlled by Clover

Ron Gleason

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 2:54:00 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
On Sunday, 12 July 2015 14:50:42 UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
Flying with a transponder in those MOA *is* a good idea,... and yes I'm especially thinking of Sevier MOA complex out towards Ely--pretty busy with F-16s out of Hill AFB, and with good radar coverage. But there are no guarantees anything will save your life. Communicating with the appropriate ATC facility can also help. You can always contact them, find out if there is something happening, decide to stay on frequency or tell them you need to leave the frequency. Newer radios with the ability to guard a second frequency are handy.

The Sevier MOA's, A, B, C and D along with many others and restricted areas north of Ely and W/NW of Nephi are controlled by Clover Center, frequency 134.1 or you can call them at (801) 777-7575 before you fly to get a planned schedule of events

We had daily contact with them while flying out of Nephi late June and early July by telephone, Monday through Friday. Pilots also contacted them while in the air and were told the areas were either hot or cold and if they were hot they were told where and what altitude activity was at.

The folks at Clover center have been very friendly, approachable and are aware of the glider activity in the area. and YES they appreciate it when you have a transponder!

As Hill AFB gets the F35's, starting in September, I have been told we can expect more activity in all MOA's and restricted areas around the Utah and Nevada Test Range (UTTR) controlled by Clover

Ron Gleason

Fantastic Ron. And great saftey work from the Nephi organizers as we would expect. :-)

The radar coverage is very good in that area, I'm not sure exactly how things are tied in to Clover but there is ASR radar (=high scan rate/approach type radar with SSR/transponder interrogators) sites at Trout Creek and Cedar Mountain area out in that MOA complex.

It is also worth bearing in mind in an emergency that you can contact folks like Clover and even in unclear on your position they may very well be able to find you on SSR even when well out in the boondocks. Use cautiously of course.

I've generally found military related ATC folks very approachable, especially in my case Travis RAPCON in California. Travis are very willing to provide flight following to gliders. It just takes folks a little preparation, learn how to ask for and cancel flight following, check in with a power pilot/instructor to run though this if needed. Travis AFB deal with a lot of their own heavy jet traffic and mixed/GA traffic into/out of the San Francisco Bay Area. A few phone calls helped explain to them how gliders operate and some limitations (and they had some folks on staff who kinda knew it already). In that case they really like gliders with transponders because of the Doppler scatter from power generating windmills really impacts their use of primary radar right where gliders will want to fly thought their airspace. And all those big C-5s flying from Travis are TCAS equipped... so again a very good reason to equip with a transponder if you fly in/near these sort of areas.

The USAF talk about "MACA" Mid Air Collision Avoidance" and RAPCONs and AFBs will have MACA programs, you can usually search their web sites or ask them about their MACA program or get information packets/presentations from them. They'll also often be wiling/wanting to present about MACA to clubs and pilot organizations. e.g. Here is a MACA packet from Hill AFB, don't know why it's on a BLM site, but it's the first one that Google found....

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medial...Operations.pdf

Folks flying near MOA etc. airspace might want to look out for similar information/talk with those folks.

Just so we do not get too high on our horse, I recently became aware (and check 4 sale adds on W&W) many gliders DO NOT have power Flarm. One pilot was just asking about renting a unit for the Standard Class Nationals, as he was not ready to buy yet! When i was flying powered aircraft, I had an S-mode transponder and Sandel HSI which helped point out traffic, on many occasions I was glad and I paid the money At that time TCAS was about $30,000.. I am not a firm believer in the "Big Sky" theory, from personal experience swapping paint, and several Very near misses while both myself and the other aircraft were under positive control, twice at an airport, Santa Barbra and Torrence.

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 7:23:43 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
Indeed most GA never heard of PowerFlarm.
The soaring community is obviously ahead of power pilots with collision avoidance technology, and the reason is that we took the matter in our own hands and did not wait for the FAA to protect us. It is too bad that most GA is still depending on See and Avoid when the technology exists for more than a decade!

Ramy