Glider Crash - Minden?

snoop wrote:
Must be nice to walk on water!

Actually, it's the water into wine trick that really wows the crowd I
hang with...

No apologies - the bizjet should have seen the glider. The glider also
should have seen the bizjet. There may be reasons why that didn't
happen - and I'll be the first to admit I've been guilty of late
detection of aircraft nearby. If I screw up, I've got no problem
admitting it - there really isn't much room for ego where flight safety
is concerned.

But I also know from first hand that all this hysteria about closing
speed is BS. Even jet fighters can be seen in time to avoid.
Airliners are huge and almost impossible to miss. Bizjets fit in
between.

But you have to be looking.

Kirk

schrieb:

But I also know from first hand that all this hysteria about closing
speed is BS. Even jet fighters can be seen in time to avoid.

No.

http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_003/nn_415..._3X191-1-2.pdf
http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/1598

Stefan

Water into wine? Bubba and I have been tryin' to figure out how to turn
water into Shiner Bock. Anyway, Kirk, I was looking at the Reno/Minden
area arrival procedures and almost all of them have in a BIG box the
words, Caution Intensive Glider traffic, or something to that effect.
I haven't read back through the thread, to see which arrival is in
question, but it appears to me that our local glider folks have done
their homework, with regard to putting up the big billboard for those
of us who come zipping through that airspace in hi performance
aircraft, that there are other aircraft in the area. Be aware.
I fly out of Dallas Love for work and Texas Soaring for fun. When I've
been at work and flying that one arrival, which puts us on top of TSA,
I always ask the controller, "is there any glider activity today"? Plus
I call on 123.3 to see if anyone is up. This doesn't happen that often,
but when it has been a nice day, and the possibility of glider activity
exists I do these things.
Playing the devils advocate, I was asking Bubba, in another thread,
what the chances are that the glider pilot will be asked about his
installation and use of oxygen at 16000ft. Another angle.

wrote:
snoop wrote:
Must be nice to walk on water!

Actually, it's the water into wine trick that really wows the crowd I
hang with...

No apologies - the bizjet should have seen the glider. The glider also
should have seen the bizjet. There may be reasons why that didn't
happen - and I'll be the first to admit I've been guilty of late
detection of aircraft nearby. If I screw up, I've got no problem
admitting it - there really isn't much room for ego where flight safety
is concerned.

But I also know from first hand that all this hysteria about closing
speed is BS. Even jet fighters can be seen in time to avoid.
Airliners are huge and almost impossible to miss. Bizjets fit in
between.

But you have to be looking.

Kirk

Although both aircraft were VMC, the jet may have been
(probably was) flying IFR. He may have been recieving
a radar service from Reno. If so, he should have been
passed traffic information by ATC. Even if the glider
was not transponding it would still have produced a
primary return; don't believe that myth about gliders
not providing radar returns, they do.

I've done the same thing by calling up ATC and asking if they are
getting a reply and if the altitude checks with my altimeter.

Not official, but I sometimes am suspicious of certified transponders
and don't want pay a shop to find out if I need to take it to the shop.

Brian Case



Eric Greenwell wrote:
Jack wrote:
Mike the Strike wrote:
...and what is the downside of operating a new but uncertified
transponder? Can't be worse than getting run over by a bizjet.


One serious downside would be to cause a false Resolution Advisory
indication on another ship's TCAS, resulting in a traffic conflict where
none was likely otherwise, either with the "offending" glider or another
ship.

What does "certification" entail? When my transponder was installed, all
it got was a 5 minute "VFR check" with a little box about 5 feet from
the glider that showed it responded to interrogations and that the mode
C altitude reported was the airport elevation. It that all it takes to
ensure a TCAS isn't fooled?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

Let me rephrase that; It is very difficult to see converging traffic
approaching at 100 - 200 knots.

Mike Schumann

"SAM 303a" brentDAHTsullivanATgmailDAHTcom wrote in message
...
Is that an appropriate and prudent speed to fly in an area know for
soaring?

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
nk.net...
The reality is that it is incredibly difficult to see converging traffic
that is approaching at 200-300 knots.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:Zn6Jg.3900$nR2.1435@trnddc03...
kirk.stant wrote:
Hmm, the glider is thermalling - probably the easiest thing in the air
to see from another aircraft approaching.

So much for professional pilots looking out the window.

If the glider had been cruising I could understand it. I've lost
gliders I've been following when I knew where they were. But there is
little excuse in a two-crew cockpit to miss something as substantial
as
an 18 meter glider thermalling in front of you!

A thermalling glider should be able to see approaching aircraft more
easily, too. Quite different from being run down by a faster aircraft
coming up behind. We probably shouldn't be too smug at this point,
until
we know the facts for sure.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

snoop wrote:
Water into wine? Bubba and I have been tryin' to figure out how to turn
water into Shiner Bock.

We were enjoying a single malt Scotch after a fine day of soaring and
some one said "that stuff looks like p*ss". My comment was "get me the
guy that passed it and 5 gallons of water" :-).

Tony V "6N"

Stefan wrote:
No.

Yes. I've done it in fighters, light planes, and gliders. Dodged
F-16s and AV-8Bs in Arizona for many years in my LS6.

Of course, if you don't see it, for whatever reason, then yes it can
hit you. If you were deaf, you could even get run over by a blimp!
(except the shadow might warn you!).

Worse case is getting run down from behind. It helps if you hear the
fighters and throw up a wing so they see you (done that too - it worked
just fine). You do have to be willing to move your glider around to
look all around when you suspect there is someone in your blind spot.

I'll keep on looking out the window instead of fiddling with my PDA.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

Mark Dickson wrote:
Although both aircraft were VMC, the jet may have been
(probably was) flying IFR. He may have been recieving
a radar service from Reno. If so, he should have been
passed traffic information by ATC. Even if the glider
was not transponding it would still have produced a
primary return; don't believe that myth about gliders
not providing radar returns, they do.

IFR does not relieve anyone of "see and avoid" when VMC. This is a
common misconception when receiving IFR handling from ATC. I think we
need to educate others as to the fact that there are aircraft above
10,000 MSL without Transponders. I have heard from more than one
airline pilot "What's he doing up here" when our field is on the
sectional and Tucson Approach puts a warning on ATIS with altitudes
we're operating at. I've had pilots defend thier position saying they
were IFR and don't even have a sectional with them to know they are in
the vicinity of a glider field.

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:

What does "certification" entail? When my transponder was installed, all
it got was a 5 minute "VFR check" with a little box about 5 feet from
the glider that showed it responded to interrogations and that the mode
C altitude reported was the airport elevation. It that all it takes to
ensure a TCAS isn't fooled?

Presumably "certification" was being used as shorthand for
the 91.413 tests, which reference Appendix F of Part 43. As
a matter of interest, I looked them up:

Appendix F--ATC Transponder Tests and Inspections

The ATC transponder tests required by Sec. 91.413 of this
chapter may be conducted using a bench check or portable
test equipment and must meet the requirements prescribed in
paragraphs (a) through (j) of this appendix. If portable

Big snip. An awful lot of stuff that doesn't apply to a mode C VFR
transponder check. Does any of it make my "box on the ground check"
insufficient to meet the standards? It would take longer to read, let
alone understand, than the actual check took.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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