U.K. near-midairs

Carl J. Niedermeyer wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

The accident occurred approximately 7 or 8 nm miles West of Ephrata,
where we fly from. The altimeter in the LS1-f was broken with the hands
indicating about 6700 feet MSL (IIRC), about 5000 feet AGL. There were
no clouds that day and visibilty was 150 miles. I have the complete
report somewhere in my files.

Geez. This sounds like a pure one-in-a-million case of crappy luck.
The chance of two aircraft in all that 3-dimensional space hitting each
other, while just flying around, is almost astronomical.

An astronomical number of hours of flight in the USA in the past
century multiplied by a miniscule chance of a random collision = ?

I don't know what to conclude from this, but thank you for your
investigation and response. Perhaps others will have comments.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

There was another collision.

It was over Farnborough airfield between a glider from the Farnborough
gliding club and a light aircraft from Blackbushe.

The Astir pilot baled out and landed safely on the airfield.

The power pilot flew back to Blackbushe with his pupil instead of landing on
the vast airfield underneath him.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Chris Rollings"
wrote in message ...

I'm aware of one airplane/glider collision in the UK
not with 4 miles of the gliders base. A piston single
cruising at about 140 knots ran into the back of a
std cirrus on a straight glide. If I remember correctly the
glider pilot was probably killed by the aircrafts propeller.
I think the airplane pilot survived.

I'm also aware of one in the UK and one in the USA
where, although near the gliders base airports, both
involved transiting powered airplanes - so not 'landing
related'. In both cases the powered airplane removed
the outboard few feet of the gliders wing. Both gliders
landed safely, both airplane pilots were killed.

Some years ago, as part of a discussion with officialdom
about proposed increases in regulated airspace, I did
a calculation that suggested that incidents that one
might expect an airplane pilot to report as a near
miss (which I reckoned was passing within 500 feet
vertically and 300 yards horizontally of another aircraft
and not seeing early enough to take avoiding action)
would occur about 1000 times more often than actual
collisions.

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." wrote in message
...
There was another collision.

It was over Farnborough airfield between a glider from the Farnborough
gliding club and a light aircraft from Blackbushe.

The Astir pilot baled out and landed safely on the airfield.

The power pilot flew back to Blackbushe with his pupil instead of landing
on
the vast airfield underneath him.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

Back in the 70's ( before you were at the Long Mynd) there was an incident
which I witnessed where a pair of Hunters crossed the airfield. Approaching
from the West they slightly diverted apart as if they had suddenly seen the
gliders and the southerly one passed underneath the K13 just as it released
the cable. Two seconds earlier it would have hit the cable whilst it was
attached to the glider.

I was interviewed by an RAF investigator (we had reported the incident) who
stated that the Hunters were based in Germany , were on exercise over the UK
and that their maps showed the Long Mynd as an area of intense gliding
activity.

DB

On 29 Nov 2004 22:57:25 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:


Geez. This sounds like a pure one-in-a-million case of crappy luck.
The chance of two aircraft in all that 3-dimensional space hitting each
other, while just flying around, is almost astronomical.

They are not, unfortunately.

In my vicinity there have been two jet-glider midairs in the last 15
years and one near-collision where the motorglider was damaged badly
by wake turbulence. The winch cable of my club was cut once by a
fighter about 25 years ago.


Bye
Andreas

Dave Rolley wrote:
In the USA there are simple and fatal flaws with any system that
includes ground based radar and a controller near a high density airport.

First, as already mentioned, the controller's normal display is
processed information. The is often referred to as secondary radar.
Basically it is just the transponder equipped traffic with data tags.

Second, as already mentioned, the system is normally configured to drop
out targets that have a low ground speed or don't have a ground track
that is going somewhere (e.g. circling). So a radar reflector wouldn't
be much help. It isn't the size of the return that gets the target
filtered out under these circumstances.

Third, and probably the greatest problem, if there are too many 12XX
returns (VFR transponder equipped traffic in the USA) the controller can
filter the specific codes or blocks of codes.

These may be "simple" flaws, but they aren't "fatal" to transponder
equipped gliders:

#1 this isn't a problem for transponder equipped aircraft, since they
will show on the display along with their data tag. Primary returns may
not be displayed, depending on the situation; however, if you call ATC,
they may be able and willing to put your primary return on the screen.

#2 doesn't apply to transponder equipped aircraft, as they are not
filtered by speed or track, but may apply to aircraft without
transponders, as primary returns may be filtered by speed or track.
Filtering out transponder

#3 applies in only a very few, very high density areas that gliders
aren't likely to be flying in, such as the area near LAX (Los Angles).

The was a mid-air between a commuter flight and a skydiving jump plane
between Denver CO and Cheyenne WY about 15 or 20 years ago. The
commuter flew into the climbing jump plane. Since they we both above
12,500 MSL (about 7,000 AGL), it was assumed the commuter pilots were
heads down in the cockpit. The jump plane was using a transponder code
of 1234 and ATC had 12XX code filtered for the higher altitudes. The
jump plane was not talking to ATC. Oops...

Errors happen, and this has got to be a rare one, where both ATC and the
jump plane make them. I've asked the controllers at Seattle Center if
they ever filter out VFR code 1200 - "NO SIR"! The jump plane flying out
of our airport gets every transponder equipped aircraft (including my
glider) called out to him before he lets any jumpers loose.

Other than a TCAS installation (aircraft to aircraft),

This is actually the BEST reason to carry a transponder - so airliners
in particular, but also many corporate aircraft and military aircraft
can avoid you!

the only way a
transponder will help us is if the ATC facility in the area knows about
the glider operations and can (or will) operate their equipment in a
manner that allows the controller to see the glider traffic. That means
we have to work with the local ATC folks. Otherwise, it is so much extra
ballast and power draw in the glider.

THis is definitely NOT true. ATC is operating their equipment so they
can track VFR aircraft (that includes you in your glider), and they
don't need to know if it's an airplane or a glider. If they can see the
airplanes, they'll see you, even if you are circling or moving slowly.


Even when the technology should help, local procedures can negate the
technology. Since the way we operate gliders does not fit in the
general transportation model the ATC system is designed to support,
putting a transponder into a glider without working with the affected
ATC organization does little to help the situation.

The essence of the VFR 1200 code is that ATC _doesn't_ need to "work"
with you: that's why it's a "VFR" code. You just fly around, minding
your own business like the airplanes flying VFR, and their radar will
pick you up. They want to know where the VFR traffic is so they can
direct the IFR traffic away from it. Folks, we aren't that special. The
only place in the USA that I know of that has a different situation is
at Reno, where gliders may use the 0440 code to identify themselves as a
glider. It's not required that gliders use it, only that they are
allowed to use it as an aid to the Reno controllers. If you use 1200,
they'll still see you.

Note that it's not just the IFR and TCAS traffic that can be steered
away from you, but also VFR aircraft using "flight following", and the
already mentioned skydivers.

If you think you need a transponder, but are concerned that it will be
just "so much extra ballast and power draw", please, please, contact the
ATC in your flying area and ask them if they will see you on their
radar! My experience is they will be delighted to have you equipped with
one.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
Dave Rolley wrote:
In the USA there are simple and fatal flaws with any system that
includes ground based radar and a controller near a high density
airport.

First, as already mentioned, the controller's normal display is
processed information. The is often referred to as secondary radar.
Basically it is just the transponder equipped traffic with data tags.

Second, as already mentioned, the system is normally configured to drop
out targets that have a low ground speed or don't have a ground track
that is going somewhere (e.g. circling). So a radar reflector wouldn't
be much help. It isn't the size of the return that gets the target
filtered out under these circumstances.

Third, and probably the greatest problem, if there are too many 12XX
returns (VFR transponder equipped traffic in the USA) the controller can
filter the specific codes or blocks of codes.

These may be "simple" flaws, but they aren't "fatal" to transponder
equipped gliders:

#1 this isn't a problem for transponder equipped aircraft, since they
will show on the display along with their data tag. Primary returns may

not be displayed, depending on the situation; however, if you call ATC,
they may be able and willing to put your primary return on the screen.

#2 doesn't apply to transponder equipped aircraft, as they are not
filtered by speed or track, but may apply to aircraft without
transponders, as primary returns may be filtered by speed or track.
Filtering out transponder

#3 applies in only a very few, very high density areas that gliders
aren't likely to be flying in, such as the area near LAX (Los Angles).

The was a mid-air between a commuter flight and a skydiving jump plane
between Denver CO and Cheyenne WY about 15 or 20 years ago. The
commuter flew into the climbing jump plane. Since they we both above
12,500 MSL (about 7,000 AGL), it was assumed the commuter pilots were
heads down in the cockpit. The jump plane was using a transponder code
of 1234 and ATC had 12XX code filtered for the higher altitudes. The
jump plane was not talking to ATC. Oops...

Errors happen, and this has got to be a rare one, where both ATC and the
jump plane make them. I've asked the controllers at Seattle Center if
they ever filter out VFR code 1200 - "NO SIR"! The jump plane flying out
of our airport gets every transponder equipped aircraft (including my
glider) called out to him before he lets any jumpers loose.

Other than a TCAS installation (aircraft to aircraft),

This is actually the BEST reason to carry a transponder - so airliners
in particular, but also many corporate aircraft and military aircraft
can avoid you!

the only way a
transponder will help us is if the ATC facility in the area knows about
the glider operations and can (or will) operate their equipment in a
manner that allows the controller to see the glider traffic. That means
we have to work with the local ATC folks. Otherwise, it is so much extra
ballast and power draw in the glider.

THis is definitely NOT true. ATC is operating their equipment so they
can track VFR aircraft (that includes you in your glider), and they
don't need to know if it's an airplane or a glider. If they can see the
airplanes, they'll see you, even if you are circling or moving slowly.


Even when the technology should help, local procedures can negate the
technology. Since the way we operate gliders does not fit in the
general transportation model the ATC system is designed to support,
putting a transponder into a glider without working with the affected
ATC organization does little to help the situation.

The essence of the VFR 1200 code is that ATC _doesn't_ need to "work"
with you: that's why it's a "VFR" code. You just fly around, minding
your own business like the airplanes flying VFR, and their radar will
pick you up. They want to know where the VFR traffic is so they can
direct the IFR traffic away from it. Folks, we aren't that special. The
only place in the USA that I know of that has a different situation is
at Reno, where gliders may use the 0440 code to identify themselves as a
glider. It's not required that gliders use it, only that they are
allowed to use it as an aid to the Reno controllers. If you use 1200,
they'll still see you.

Note that it's not just the IFR and TCAS traffic that can be steered
away from you, but also VFR aircraft using "flight following", and the
already mentioned skydivers.

If you think you need a transponder, but are concerned that it will be
just "so much extra ballast and power draw", please, please, contact the
ATC in your flying area and ask them if they will see you on their
radar! My experience is they will be delighted to have you equipped with
one.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric, I think you got all that right.

I have spoken to the Denver Center about transponders in gliders.
Specifically, I asked if "Flight Following" would be available to
transponder equipped gliders after explaining the erratic path gliders fly.
The answer was, "On a workload permitting basis, of course". (They also
mentioned that the "erratic" description would fit some of the instrument
training flights they work.)

"Flight following" means that you get your very own transponder code for
that flight and somebody to talk to if you're in trouble. Workload
permitting, they will call out your position to other conflicting traffic
and tell you about them. You're guaranteed to be on their radar screens
until the end of the flight or until you get a call from center that "Flight
following is terminated" due to workload.

The downside is that you would have to constantly monitor the center
frequency listening to all the other chatter. You can leave the frequency
for short periods by request to contact your crew.

For those readers outside the USA, this is as close as we get to "Controlled
VFR". For those properly trained and equipped, Flight Following morphs
nicely into an IFR clearance if the need arises.

I always used flight following in place of a flight plan when flying powered
aircraft. I made sure whoever I was meeting at my destination knew my ETA,
my N number and who to call. I didn't have to remember to cancel it and, if
I went down, the radar track would pinpoint my location.

Bill Daniels

Not fatal to the glider or occupant, but possibly fatal to the scheme of
"transponders will solve midair problems". Probably a poor choice of
wording on my part.

OK, I try again. My comments came from personal observation and quotes
from FAA officials in response to problems in the Denver area. Just as
Eric's comments come from his knowledge and contacts with the FAA.
While there are policies at the agency level, implementation around the
country may vary. The transponder is just one tool in a set of tools
used by ATC to perform their tasks. ATC will manage those tools in a
manner that allows them accomplish their mission.

My real point, which got lost in the details, is simple. For the most
part, the ATC system is not designed for General Aviation. It is
designed to keep things from bumping into the airliners. It is not
designed for our kind of flying. My assertion is that simply adding a
transponder to our gliders will not necessarily improve the situation.

I believe that there needs to be an educational outreach on both sides
that lets each see what the needs and concerns are in a particular
geographical area. For instance, the practices used in the Reno area.

I have visited the local radar facility on several occasions. The folks
there are very helpful and very interested in where and how we fly. Our
understanding where and how they route the airliners in our area helps
us. It is time well spent. BTW, the right of pilots to visit FAA
facilities was just reaffirmed. Contact your local radar facility and
arrange a tour. It may just give you the information you need to help
your decision on that transponder installation.

But remember, it takes more than a transponder to keep two aircraft from
going bump!

Dave

Eric Greenwell wrote:


The essence of the VFR 1200 code is that ATC _doesn't_ need to "work"
with you: that's why it's a "VFR" code. You just fly around, minding
your own business like the airplanes flying VFR, and their radar will
pick you up. They want to know where the VFR traffic is so they can
direct the IFR traffic away from it. Folks, we aren't that special. The
only place in the USA that I know of that has a different situation is
at Reno, where gliders may use the 0440 code to identify themselves as a
glider. It's not required that gliders use it, only that they are
allowed to use it as an aid to the Reno controllers. If you use 1200,
they'll still see you.

Note that it's not just the IFR and TCAS traffic that can be steered
away from you, but also VFR aircraft using "flight following", and the
already mentioned skydivers.

If you think you need a transponder, but are concerned that it will be
just "so much extra ballast and power draw", please, please, contact the
ATC in your flying area and ask them if they will see you on their
radar! My experience is they will be delighted to have you equipped with
one.

Dave Rolley wrote:

My real point, which got lost in the details, is simple. For the most
part, the ATC system is not designed for General Aviation. It is
designed to keep things from bumping into the airliners. It is not
designed for our kind of flying. My assertion is that simply adding a
transponder to our gliders will not necessarily improve the situation.

By "situation", do you mean keeping gliders from bumping into gliders?
If so, I agree that a adding a transponder won't help any, unless
gliders also start carrying the transponder "alerting" devices that
Monroy and others sell. These devices can also help with the airliners
bumping into gliders situation, but they depend on the glider pilot
instead of ATC.


I believe that there needs to be an educational outreach on both sides
that lets each see what the needs and concerns are in a particular
geographical area. For instance, the practices used in the Reno area.

Again, I'm not sure what you are thinking of here. The Reno transponder
practices are aimed at keeping airliners from bumping into gliders,
which is the usual goal of a glider pilot that installs one. There is
education aimed at the glider pilot (transponder equipped or not) to
help them avoid the flight paths of aircraft going into Reno.

In any case, the density of glider traffic around Reno is routinely very
high compared to any other US area I'm aware of. The point I'm slowly
(and maybe poorly) making is putting in a transponder will provide most
of it's collision-avoidance value without any formal contact or
agreement with the local tower or ATC. A few situations, like Reno, may
be further improved with some contact.


I have visited the local radar facility on several occasions. The folks
there are very helpful and very interested in where and how we fly. Our
understanding where and how they route the airliners in our area helps
us. It is time well spent. BTW, the right of pilots to visit FAA
facilities was just reaffirmed. Contact your local radar facility and
arrange a tour. It may just give you the information you need to help
your decision on that transponder installation.

Good advice.

But remember, it takes more than a transponder to keep two aircraft from
going bump!

It's another layer of protection, but not an impervious shield. It does
address a weakness in the "see and be seen" technique that isn't easily
accomplished any other way, except by flying somewhere the airliners,
corporate jets, and some military aircraft (generally transports) don't fly.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Dave Rolley wrote:

My real point, which got lost in the details, is simple. For the most
part, the ATC system is not designed for General Aviation. It is
designed to keep things from bumping into the airliners. It is not
designed for our kind of flying. My assertion is that simply adding a
transponder to our gliders will not necessarily improve the situation.

By "situation", do you mean keeping gliders from bumping into gliders?
If so, I agree that a adding a transponder won't help any, unless
gliders also start carrying the transponder "alerting" devices that
Monroy and others sell. These devices can also help with the airliners
bumping into gliders situation, but they depend on the glider pilot
instead of ATC.

If ATC ran the show, they'd require mode-S in everything immediately.
ATC doesn't mind if the Cubs and Champs and 2-33s of the world are grounded.

Is grounding everything safer? Of course. Sept 12th was the safest
day in modern US aviation history.

I think the best path is to get to cheap GPS transponders (and flight
recorders for that matter). If it's $100 and uses 4 "D" batteries and
runs for 30 days, everyone (well, almost) will get one.

This isn't so far off, with WAAS and all...



I believe that there needs to be an educational outreach on both sides
that lets each see what the needs and concerns are in a particular
geographical area. For instance, the practices used in the Reno area.

Again, I'm not sure what you are thinking of here. The Reno transponder
practices are aimed at keeping airliners from bumping into gliders,
which is the usual goal of a glider pilot that installs one. There is
education aimed at the glider pilot (transponder equipped or not) to
help them avoid the flight paths of aircraft going into Reno.

In any case, the density of glider traffic around Reno is routinely very
high compared to any other US area I'm aware of. The point I'm slowly
(and maybe poorly) making is putting in a transponder will provide most
of it's collision-avoidance value without any formal contact or
agreement with the local tower or ATC. A few situations, like Reno, may
be further improved with some contact.


I have visited the local radar facility on several occasions. The folks
there are very helpful and very interested in where and how we fly. Our
understanding where and how they route the airliners in our area helps
us. It is time well spent. BTW, the right of pilots to visit FAA
facilities was just reaffirmed. Contact your local radar facility and
arrange a tour. It may just give you the information you need to help
your decision on that transponder installation.

Good advice.

But remember, it takes more than a transponder to keep two aircraft from
going bump!

It's another layer of protection, but not an impervious shield. It does
address a weakness in the "see and be seen" technique that isn't easily
accomplished any other way, except by flying somewhere the airliners,
corporate jets, and some military aircraft (generally transports) don't fly.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

This is curious as like all things in british bureacracy it takes time for
stats to be reported and given that the AIB has only just released the
results of 2003 It must be that that is referred to. If so then as usual
there has been a slight case of exageration as there were only 8 airprox
involving civil gliders in 2003 in the uk - 3GA, 1 GA heli, 1 glider vs
glider, 1 Civil, 1 milatry & 1 unknown ? (ufo??). But there were also 3
military gliders who filed airproxes 1 vs Military the other 2 GA. and had 2
Airproxes filed against them. This was out of a total of 181. Also note that
I am not sure that the aib differentiates between gliders and hang gliders.
The biggest total was unsurprisingly Military who claimed the top two spaces
with 18 airproxes against themselves and 18 vs Civil. The worst class
overall was military who had 65 airprox filed against them with GA a close
second with 50. ( Civil Gliders only had 2 airprox filed against them and
one of these was by another glider pilot)

full report at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/423/Pages%...%20BK11web.pdf see
page 7 for summary table

I have yet to see a Light aircraft take avoiding action - I suspect they are
concentrating on the instruments and gps far too intently. The only time I
know I have been spotted is when I have been thermaling near ATZs and heard
complaints to the local traffic management (tower/radio) that I was actually
in the ATZ when I was a good 3-4+ miles clear. I think the only time power
pilots are looking out the window is on Final aproach and then they get a
completely false sense of prospective. I would suspect our wingspan may have
something to do with it as they they think we are smaller thatn we actualy
are and thus get the distance wrong.
As for the altitude comment given the usable airspace in the UK is sub 7k ft
and mostly sub 5k ft I dont see that anything has changed with the newer
models this was well within reach of pre-glass gliders.


"Jack" wrote in message
om...
"Gliders in the U.K. were involved in 10 near-midairs
in the second half of last year, safety investigators
said recently, noting that newer models fly at high
altitudes without transponders and are hard to see,
both visually and on radar...."

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#188600


e.g., http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3763766.stm