If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 19, 12:18*am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:38*pm, Derek C wrote: On Oct 17, 12:32*pm, India November wrote: On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote: On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November wrote: On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith wrote: Darryl Ramm wrote: --- Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the USA. Allegheny 853 MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed Pacific Southwest 182 Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172 San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS carriage requirements in the USA) MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured NetJets N879QS Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29 Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky) Darryl Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number since the 1980s. http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/...pp_module.show... Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the terms "glider" and "US air carrier". The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial passengers are exposed to. Ian Grant IN There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure. However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and have a greater propensity to report such incidents. This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re.../a06o0206/a06o... Airspace separation is the best bet. Ian Grant- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That is why I am against fitting transponders to gliders. They are expensive and do not protect us from 99.9% of the mid-air collisions (glider/glider or glider/light aircraft) that we are ever likely to have. The number of glider/Commercial Transport mid-air collisions is 2 to the best of my knowledge, neither of which caused any fatalities (Reno and Airbus in Class G airspace over France). Derek C This statement again suffers from the assumption that there is one environment that applies to everybody. We have many situations worldwide where I would hope nobody think a glider needs any mandatory collision avoidance technology through situations where there is significant risk of a glider-glider mid-air (e.g. contests, busy clubs), and in other locations maybe GA traffic offers the most significant risk. To situations where gliders are in close proximity to airliners and fast jets and where the product of risk x consequence should be a serious concern. The collision at Reno was with a Hawker 800. There have been "close" incidents with airliners there as well. Large numbers of the glider pilots who fly near Reno undertsand in detail the traffic patterns, conclicts and risks and equip wih transponders. We don't need to wait for a fatality from an airliner collision to prove it is a justified saftey measure. *Risks from other parts of a glider pilots flying activities need to be considered separately from that risk x consequence of a collision with an airliner. Whether you might have a statistically higher probability of having a mid-air with another glider should not drive the risk decision about whether to utilize a transponder in these key areas where we have a serious problem with close proximity of airliner and fast jet traffic. I hope what is going on here is a reaction to concerns about blanket transponder mandates. They don't make sense (unless folks in high risk areas don't volitarilly adopt them or can't be locally forced to if the voluntary stuff just does not happen). Darryl- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, but in one area in Europe where transponders are mandatory for gliders, the ATC controllers often ask the pilots to turn them off on busy gliding days because of information overload on their screens! Hence they are a total waste of money and battery power! Now if we could get a cheap, low power instrument that provides a universal electronic collision avoidance system, that would be different. Derek C |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 19, 3:17*am, Derek C wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:18*am, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 18, 1:38*pm, Derek C wrote: On Oct 17, 12:32*pm, India November wrote: On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote: On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November wrote: On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith wrote: Darryl Ramm wrote: --- Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the USA. Allegheny 853 MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed Pacific Southwest 182 Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172 San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS carriage requirements in the USA) MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured NetJets N879QS Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29 Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky) Darryl Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number since the 1980s. http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/...p_module..show... Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the terms "glider" and "US air carrier". The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial passengers are exposed to. Ian Grant IN There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure. However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and have a greater propensity to report such incidents. This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re.../a06o0206/a06o... Airspace separation is the best bet. Ian Grant- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That is why I am against fitting transponders to gliders. They are expensive and do not protect us from 99.9% of the mid-air collisions (glider/glider or glider/light aircraft) that we are ever likely to have. The number of glider/Commercial Transport mid-air collisions is 2 to the best of my knowledge, neither of which caused any fatalities (Reno and Airbus in Class G airspace over France). Derek C This statement again suffers from the assumption that there is one environment that applies to everybody. We have many situations worldwide where I would hope nobody think a glider needs any mandatory collision avoidance technology through situations where there is significant risk of a glider-glider mid-air (e.g. contests, busy clubs), and in other locations maybe GA traffic offers the most significant risk. To situations where gliders are in close proximity to airliners and fast jets and where the product of risk x consequence should be a serious concern. The collision at Reno was with a Hawker 800. There have been "close" incidents with airliners there as well. Large numbers of the glider pilots who fly near Reno undertsand in detail the traffic patterns, conclicts and risks and equip wih transponders. We don't need to wait for a fatality from an airliner collision to prove it is a justified saftey measure. *Risks from other parts of a glider pilots flying activities need to be considered separately from that risk x consequence of a collision with an airliner. Whether you might have a statistically higher probability of having a mid-air with another glider should not drive the risk decision about whether to utilize a transponder in these key areas where we have a serious problem with close proximity of airliner and fast jet traffic. I hope what is going on here is a reaction to concerns about blanket transponder mandates. They don't make sense (unless folks in high risk areas don't volitarilly adopt them or can't be locally forced to if the voluntary stuff just does not happen). Darryl- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, but in one area in Europe where transponders are mandatory for gliders, the ATC controllers often ask the pilots to turn them off on busy gliding days because of information overload on their screens! Hence they are a total waste of money and battery power! *Now if we could get a cheap, low power instrument that provides a universal electronic collision avoidance system, that would be different. Derek C- P.S. This was a fatal mid-air collision between a glider and a military light aircraft in the UK that might have been avoided by the use of such a device: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/pu...and_g_ckht.cfm One of the problems in the UK is large volumes of Class A and D controlled airspace around major and some minor airports that largely exclude gliders, except by special local agreements. These cause bottlenecks in the open Class G airspace used by non-commercial traffic. This mid-air occured in a fairly narrow gap between the Heathrow and Brize Norton zones on a very good gliding day. One has to question why the Grob (power) pilot, who suffered from restricted neck movement, was carrying out aerobatics in such a congested area! Derek C |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 18, 7:17*pm, Derek C wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:18*am, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 18, 1:38*pm, Derek C wrote: On Oct 17, 12:32*pm, India November wrote: On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote: On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November wrote: On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith wrote: Darryl Ramm wrote: --- Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the USA. Allegheny 853 MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed Pacific Southwest 182 Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172 San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS carriage requirements in the USA) MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured NetJets N879QS Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29 Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky) Darryl Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number since the 1980s. http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/...p_module..show... Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the terms "glider" and "US air carrier". The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial passengers are exposed to. Ian Grant IN There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure. However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and have a greater propensity to report such incidents. This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re.../a06o0206/a06o... Airspace separation is the best bet. Ian Grant- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That is why I am against fitting transponders to gliders. They are expensive and do not protect us from 99.9% of the mid-air collisions (glider/glider or glider/light aircraft) that we are ever likely to have. The number of glider/Commercial Transport mid-air collisions is 2 to the best of my knowledge, neither of which caused any fatalities (Reno and Airbus in Class G airspace over France). Derek C This statement again suffers from the assumption that there is one environment that applies to everybody. We have many situations worldwide where I would hope nobody think a glider needs any mandatory collision avoidance technology through situations where there is significant risk of a glider-glider mid-air (e.g. contests, busy clubs), and in other locations maybe GA traffic offers the most significant risk. To situations where gliders are in close proximity to airliners and fast jets and where the product of risk x consequence should be a serious concern. The collision at Reno was with a Hawker 800. There have been "close" incidents with airliners there as well. Large numbers of the glider pilots who fly near Reno undertsand in detail the traffic patterns, conclicts and risks and equip wih transponders. We don't need to wait for a fatality from an airliner collision to prove it is a justified saftey measure. *Risks from other parts of a glider pilots flying activities need to be considered separately from that risk x consequence of a collision with an airliner. Whether you might have a statistically higher probability of having a mid-air with another glider should not drive the risk decision about whether to utilize a transponder in these key areas where we have a serious problem with close proximity of airliner and fast jet traffic. I hope what is going on here is a reaction to concerns about blanket transponder mandates. They don't make sense (unless folks in high risk areas don't volitarilly adopt them or can't be locally forced to if the voluntary stuff just does not happen). Darryl- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, but in one area in Europe where transponders are mandatory for gliders, the ATC controllers often ask the pilots to turn them off on busy gliding days because of information overload on their screens! Hence they are a total waste of money and battery power! *Now if we could get a cheap, low power instrument that provides a universal electronic collision avoidance system, that would be different. Derek C The situation with the Schiphol TMA has come up in this thread earlier and it should never have happened. There are various filters that could have been put in place/developed for the screen display data to avoid that overload. It should have been tested before the deployment. It should be an embarrassment to the Dutch authorities and a caution to others but it is not a fundamental problem with transponders or ATC systems. The search for low-cost universal device is a dangerous red herring. That's what has caused so much confusion and mis-set expectations around ADS-B and UATs in the USA. There are separate threat scenarios and legacy technologies (transponders, SSR, TCAS, etc.) and new systems (ADS-B) coming that are *not* replacements for those legacy systems (and in Europe the ADS-B link layer is Mode S/1090ES) and then we have innovative technology like Flarm. The challenge is exactly how all the different parts fits together and what the most important threats to address for each pilots own situation. And we can't just ignore legacy technology (like TCAS) for scenarios where it is important--some of the silliest comments I've seen are things along the line of dismissing "transponders as old technology"-- they have an important role to fill, especially with that TCAS compatibility. The discussion on "universal" collision avoidance technology starts and ends with there is just no such thing. There are products that combine different technology (like PowerFLARM) but a full solution there would still takes multiple products, will not be "low cost" and such an approach is going to not be justified for most gliders. BTW that is one reason I worry about blanket national/federal regulations for any of this stuff and much prefer to see local voluntary adoption of appropriate technology for these scenarios. Where that does not happen then consider mandating use but I'd hate to see that pushed out nationally. e.g. if needed because voluntary adoption fails I could support putting a transponder TMZ around a busy mixed airliner/glider location or mandating Flarm in busy contests. But I'd hate to see national adoption of one technology or anther mandated especially if it forces people in one location to adopt something they don't need at all and that costs prevents them deploying something more useful for their actual need. And yes some gliders may indeed need more than one technology box (e.g. a PowerFLARM and Mode S transponder) for their threat scenario. Darryl |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 19, 4:35*am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 18, 7:17*pm, Derek C wrote: Darryl- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, but in one area in Europe where transponders are mandatory for gliders, the ATC controllers often ask the pilots to turn them off on busy gliding days because of information overload on their screens! Hence they are a total waste of money and battery power! *Now if we could get a cheap, low power instrument that provides a universal electronic collision avoidance system, that would be different. Derek C The situation with the Schiphol TMA has come up in this thread earlier and it should never have happened. There are various filters that could have been put in place/developed for the screen display data to avoid that overload. It should have been tested before the deployment. It should be an embarrassment to the Dutch authorities and a caution to others but it is not a fundamental problem with transponders or ATC systems. The search for low-cost universal device is a dangerous red herring. That's what has caused so much confusion and mis-set expectations around ADS-B and UATs in the USA. There are separate threat scenarios and legacy technologies (transponders, SSR, TCAS, etc.) and new systems (ADS-B) coming that are *not* replacements for those legacy systems (and in Europe the ADS-B link layer is Mode S/1090ES) and then we have innovative technology like Flarm. The challenge is exactly how all the different parts fits together and what the most important threats to address for each pilots own situation. And we can't just ignore legacy technology (like TCAS) for scenarios where it is important--some of the silliest comments I've seen are things along the line of dismissing "transponders as old technology"-- they have an important role to fill, especially with that TCAS compatibility. The discussion on "universal" collision avoidance technology starts and ends with there is just no such thing. There are products that combine different technology (like PowerFLARM) but a full solution there would still takes multiple products, will not be "low cost" and such an approach is going to not be justified for most gliders. BTW that is one reason I worry about blanket national/federal regulations for any of this stuff and much prefer to see local voluntary adoption of appropriate technology for these scenarios. Where that does not happen then consider mandating use but I'd hate to see that pushed out nationally. e.g. if needed because voluntary adoption fails I could support putting a transponder TMZ around a busy mixed airliner/glider location or mandating Flarm in busy contests. But I'd hate to see national ... read more »- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If ATC are filtering out the transponder returns from gliders to avoid screen clutter, then there is no point in gliders carrying these expensive, power hungry and difficult to service bits of kit! Generally I am happy with the UK situation where Commercial Air Traffic flies under IFR in Class A to D airspace and gliders fly VFR in Class G. This keeps me separated from the airliners. Problem is that low cost carriers such as Ryanair are increasing flying into minor regional airfields and creating a demand for more and more controlled airspace. We are being squeezed into what's left, with a greater risk of mid-air collisions with GA and military aircraft that are also largely forced to use the same airspace. If a low cost/low power collision alert device can be developed, I would welcome it, especially if it gives me more access to Class D airspace. The Americans seem to be forcing Mode S transponders on the whole World purely because of problems around Reno Nevada! Derek C |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On 10/18/2010 9:25 PM, Derek C wrote:
If a low cost/low power collision alert device can be developed, I would welcome it, especially if it gives me more access to Class D airspace. We all would welcome it, but what do we do until it appears? How many years do we wait for our dream to come true? I installed a Mode C transponder in my glider in 2002. At that time, many pilots decided that transponders were a good idea, but they were going to wait for the nifty new Mode S transponders with the lower cost and lower current drain, which were going to be available "real soon now". Well, seven (7!) years later, that nifty new Mode S transponder was finally available - the Trig TT21! I'm afraid this is what is going to happen now, where many pilots decide that transponders, or Flarm, are a good idea, but they are going to wait for the nifty new ADS-B transceivers with the lower cost and lower current drain, which are going to be available "real soon now". I have no crystal ball, but I expect it will also be many years before these units are available. In the meantime, these pilots will ignore usable, affordable devices they could install now (Flarm and transponders). US pilots will have to wait till April next year for Flarm, but the transponder everyone wanted in 2002 is available now. The Americans seem to be forcing Mode S transponders on the whole World purely because of problems around Reno Nevada! Nonsense. Mode S is not required in the US for general aviation, only for airliners. The US does not require transponders of any kind for gliders and general aviation around Reno. Europe, however, is requiring Mode S for some aircraft besides airliners. They have the density that requires Mode S, the US doesn't. They are leading on this issue. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 18, 9:25*pm, Derek C wrote:
On Oct 19, 4:35*am, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 18, 7:17*pm, Derek C wrote: Darryl- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, but in one area in Europe where transponders are mandatory for gliders, the ATC controllers often ask the pilots to turn them off on busy gliding days because of information overload on their screens! Hence they are a total waste of money and battery power! *Now if we could get a cheap, low power instrument that provides a universal electronic collision avoidance system, that would be different. Derek C The situation with the Schiphol TMA has come up in this thread earlier and it should never have happened. There are various filters that could have been put in place/developed for the screen display data to avoid that overload. It should have been tested before the deployment. It should be an embarrassment to the Dutch authorities and a caution to others but it is not a fundamental problem with transponders or ATC systems. The search for low-cost universal device is a dangerous red herring. That's what has caused so much confusion and mis-set expectations around ADS-B and UATs in the USA. There are separate threat scenarios and legacy technologies (transponders, SSR, TCAS, etc.) and new systems (ADS-B) coming that are *not* replacements for those legacy systems (and in Europe the ADS-B link layer is Mode S/1090ES) and then we have innovative technology like Flarm. The challenge is exactly how all the different parts fits together and what the most important threats to address for each pilots own situation. And we can't just ignore legacy technology (like TCAS) for scenarios where it is important--some of the silliest comments I've seen are things along the line of dismissing "transponders as old technology"-- they have an important role to fill, especially with that TCAS compatibility. The discussion on "universal" collision avoidance technology starts and ends with there is just no such thing. There are products that combine different technology (like PowerFLARM) but a full solution there would still takes multiple products, will not be "low cost" and such an approach is going to not be justified for most gliders. BTW that is one reason I worry about blanket national/federal regulations for any of this stuff and much prefer to see local voluntary adoption of appropriate technology for these scenarios. Where that does not happen then consider mandating use but I'd hate to see that pushed out nationally. e.g. if needed because voluntary adoption fails I could support putting a transponder TMZ around a busy mixed airliner/glider location or mandating Flarm in busy contests. But I'd hate to see national ... read more »- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If ATC are filtering out the transponder returns from gliders to avoid screen clutter, then there is no point in gliders carrying these expensive, power hungry and difficult to service bits of kit! No they filter by altitude band, by assigned controller, etc. And as I've pointed out in this thread before the TCAS in the airliners keep working regardless of what the controller sees. Generally I am happy with the UK situation where Commercial Air Traffic flies under IFR in Class A to D airspace and gliders fly VFR in Class G. This keeps me separated from the airliners. Problem is that low cost carriers such as Ryanair are increasing flying into minor regional airfields and creating a demand for more and more controlled airspace. We are being squeezed into what's left, with a greater risk of mid-air collisions with GA and military aircraft that are also largely forced to use the same airspace. If a low cost/low power collision alert device can be developed, I would welcome it, especially if it gives me more access to Class D airspace. Yes and that device will look and smell like a transponder. If not what kind of device do you think it will be that can interoperate with SSR radar and TCAS etc. or be a link in future for 1090ES? I don't see anybody making something significantly cheaper than a Trig TT21 or similar Transponder? I don't know how Trig and others keep the costs down on such small volumes as they are. The Americans seem to be forcing Mode S transponders on the whole World purely because of problems around Reno Nevada! The Americans are doing nothing to you. Ryanair maybe. Derek C |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 19, 6:49*am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 18, 9:25*pm, Derek C wrote: On Oct 19, 4:35*am, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 18, 7:17*pm, Derek C wrote: Darryl- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, but in one area in Europe where transponders are mandatory for gliders, the ATC controllers often ask the pilots to turn them off on busy gliding days because of information overload on their screens! Hence they are a total waste of money and battery power! *Now if we could get a cheap, low power instrument that provides a universal electronic collision avoidance system, that would be different. Derek C The situation with the Schiphol TMA has come up in this thread earlier and it should never have happened. There are various filters that could have been put in place/developed for the screen display data to avoid that overload. It should have been tested before the deployment.. It should be an embarrassment to the Dutch authorities and a caution to others but it is not a fundamental problem with transponders or ATC systems. The search for low-cost universal device is a dangerous red herring. That's what has caused so much confusion and mis-set expectations around ADS-B and UATs in the USA. There are separate threat scenarios and legacy technologies (transponders, SSR, TCAS, etc.) and new systems (ADS-B) coming that are *not* replacements for those legacy systems (and in Europe the ADS-B link layer is Mode S/1090ES) and then we have innovative technology like Flarm. The challenge is exactly how all the different parts fits together and what the most important threats to address for each pilots own situation. And we can't just ignore legacy technology (like TCAS) for scenarios where it is important--some of the silliest comments I've seen are things along the line of dismissing "transponders as old technology"-- they have an important role to fill, especially with that TCAS compatibility. The discussion on "universal" collision avoidance technology starts and ends with there is just no such thing. There are products that combine different technology (like PowerFLARM) but a full solution there would still takes multiple products, will not be "low cost" and such an approach is going to not be justified for most gliders. BTW that is one reason I worry about blanket national/federal regulations for any of this stuff and much prefer to see local voluntary adoption of appropriate technology for these scenarios. Where that does not happen then consider mandating use but I'd hate to see that pushed out nationally. e.g. if needed because voluntary adoption fails I could support putting a transponder TMZ around a busy mixed airliner/glider location or mandating Flarm in busy contests. But I'd hate to see national ... read more »- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If ATC are filtering out the transponder returns from gliders to avoid screen clutter, then there is no point in gliders carrying these expensive, power hungry and difficult to service bits of kit! No they filter by altitude band, by assigned controller, etc. And as I've pointed out in this thread before the TCAS in the airliners keep working regardless of what the controller sees. Generally I am happy with the UK situation where Commercial Air Traffic flies under IFR in Class A to D airspace and gliders fly VFR in Class G. This keeps me separated from the airliners. Problem is that low cost carriers such as Ryanair are increasing flying into minor regional airfields and creating a demand for more and more controlled airspace. We are being squeezed into what's left, with a greater risk of mid-air collisions with GA and military aircraft that are also largely forced to use the same airspace. If a low cost/low power collision alert device can be developed, I would welcome it, especially if it gives me more access to Class D airspace. Yes and that device will look and smell like a transponder. If not what kind of device do you think it will be that can interoperate with SSR radar and TCAS etc. or be a link in future for 1090ES? I don't see anybody making something significantly cheaper than a Trig TT21 or similar Transponder? I don't know how Trig and others keep the costs down on such small volumes as they are. The Americans seem to be forcing Mode S transponders on the whole World purely because of problems around Reno Nevada! The Americans are doing nothing to you. Ryanair maybe. The original poster in this thread sort of suggested that because of an alleged near miss between a Ryanair jet and a glider near Frankfurt, all gliders should carry transponders and that is irresponsible not to do so. While I would not like to be responsible for bringing down a passenger jet, there are other procedural and technical ways of addressing this almost infinitesimally small risk. The vast majority of glider mid-air collisions are with other gliders and light GA aircraft, which transponders don't help with. Derek C |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
Mike - It is common procedure for controllers in the Reno area to route
heavies away from transponder equipped gliders. I find it difficult to comprehend why you are so antagonistic towards what many others and I feel is common sense. MG Mike Schumann wrote: On 10/17/2010 4:43 AM, Mark Dickson wrote: Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar. At 23:39 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote: Mark Dickson wrote: No, it's Ryanair. They always look for direct routings, even if it takes them outside controlled airspace. They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who doesn't even know that class E airspace is controlled? Contrary to popular myth, gliders show as a primary return on radar displays Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered out by the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the controller's display. Even if non-equipped gliders show up, there is no altitude info. In the US, standard procedure is that IFR traffic is not routed around VFR airplanes, even if they are transponder equipped. If you are lucky, the IFR traffic will get a traffic advisory. Keep your fingers crossed that the IFR traffic has TCAS and that the pilots follow the RA instructions. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On 10/20/2010 12:20 AM, Mike I Green wrote:
Mike - It is common procedure for controllers in the Reno area to route heavies away from transponder equipped gliders. I find it difficult to comprehend why you are so antagonistic towards what many others and I feel is common sense. MG I think that you misinterpret my attitude. My view is that see and avoid is obsolete in today's airspace environment and that the FARs need to be changed so that ALL ATC controllers are responsible to provide separation services between VFR and IFR aircraft. As things stand today in the US, technically, ATC only provides separation services between IFR aircraft outside of Class A and B airspace. It is up to the IFR pilots to see and avoid VFR aircraft at all times. If the IFR pilots get a verbal traffic advisory that's a marginally helpful plus. If they get rerouted, that's ideal. We need to work on getting the local procedures that you have negotiated with your controllers in RENO implemented nation wide. Mike Schumann Mike Schumann wrote: On 10/17/2010 4:43 AM, Mark Dickson wrote: Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar. At 23:39 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote: Mark Dickson wrote: No, it's Ryanair. They always look for direct routings, even if it takes them outside controlled airspace. They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who doesn't even know that class E airspace is controlled? Contrary to popular myth, gliders show as a primary return on radar displays Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered out by the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the controller's display. Even if non-equipped gliders show up, there is no altitude info. In the US, standard procedure is that IFR traffic is not routed around VFR airplanes, even if they are transponder equipped. If you are lucky, the IFR traffic will get a traffic advisory. Keep your fingers crossed that the IFR traffic has TCAS and that the pilots follow the RA instructions. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:43:34 -0500, Mike Schumann
wrote: For FLARM to be effective, everyone has to install. From my point of view, this is totally false. I require my Flarm unit to help me spot gliders I may have not seen yet. If one of those is flarm-equipped, it will (wiht a high probability, not certainly) warn me of it's existence and position. And it does this very, very well. It will also trigger an alarm if the projected cone of possible trajectories may interfere with my own path. If other gliders are not equipped, it won't bother the functions of my Flarm, nor I will suffer for this. I will keep on relying on my vision for separation, like I always do. Maybe I will spot them later, maybe I won't see them at all. They just don't know what they're missing. Or.. what gliders they're not spotting. But, there's no such thing as a "Flarm system". There are Flarms, and Flarms work. Aldo Cernezzi |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Swallow - Me 262 A-1a of KG 51 at Frankfurt 27 Mar 45.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | December 29th 07 03:33 AM |
Airports and Air Strips frankfurt.jpg (2/2) | J.F. | Aviation Photos | 0 | October 20th 07 02:07 AM |
Glider-Airliner Near Miss | jcarlyle | Soaring | 0 | June 12th 07 04:52 PM |
Why Screeners Miss Guns and Knives (and why pilots miss planes and airports) | cjcampbell | Piloting | 2 | January 3rd 06 04:24 AM |
ATC of Near-Miss over BOS | Marco Leon | Piloting | 40 | August 31st 05 01:53 PM |