Case Study Near Mid Air Glider and C421 - Benefits of PowerFlarm and Transponders

Well there are good controllers and not so good. I have had many very close calls, while flying under flight following, IFR plan, or under the Tower's control. Four of my nearest (one within inches) happened within several hundred or less feet of actually taking off, and still over the runway. Burbank, Santa Barbra (twice), and El Cajon. The one in Burbank also involved an United Airlines MD80, in Santa Barbra the control tower actually was ****ed off at the C414 pilot that loudly complained he had to take sudden low altitude evasive manouvers (we both did!) and go around because the control tower had directed me (departing in a helicopter) nose to nose with the C414 on short final. To this day I can hear the controller with a very annoyed tone, "yeah just go around, cleared to land..."

Another time flying a C340 through the Owens valley on flight following, Joshua approach in a harried/worried tone informed me that two F/A-18's were converging on my position from behind, then he asked if I had the traffic. Told him I did not have much rear visibility. He then told me in a worried tone "they are approaching fast!" I asked him for a course to deviated, it was like he had never thought of that! I do not include this as a near miss, I have had so many. Some you cannot control like the AS---le that flew underneath me (i could see him via Mode S traffic display on my HSI/map/traffic instrument) and as he dove to go under I turned 90 degrees only to see him zoom up where I had been. I think this fool was trying to fly under me then scare me by zooming up from underneath, however, had I not turned, he would have hit me as he did not have vision above. I am in full support of anything that gives me the most situational awareness as possible!

Perhaps a better use of Flarm resources rather than to develop a stealth mode would be to certify the Flarm GPS for use with trig and garrecht transponders that have ADS-B out and then output the data so our computers will display all traffic from any acronym source. I already have three GPS' I am hoping I will not have to buy a fourth to get ADS-B.

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
That was very good watching, Walt.* I wonder why the ATC controller
did not give the 421 a slight turn rather than simply issuing a
warning of a conflict.* This also shows that it's not a bad idea to
monitor Approach and Departure frequencies when you're in or near
standard routes.* Glad there was nothing more than some unnecessary
excitement!




On 1/20/2016 12:09 AM, WaltWX wrote:



With all the discussion about FLARM, ADS-B and the Pros/Cons, I thought the time is right to bring some facts into the discussion. Last September I had a near mid air with a C421. Since I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.

Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions. I filed a near mid report to the FAA which resulted in two interviews and this radar ARTCC video with ATC controller audio. I think you'll find it quite interesting.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/k8ph9wogyif...1 TT.wmv?dl=0

The FAA statement incorrectly identified the twin as a King Air with only (my visual esimate)
horizontal separation estimate of 500ft.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/e6gvhn6dybx...FAA.pdf?dl =0

According to the radar we passed by at 10,000msl zero vertical and 1300ft horizontal. By pure luck and good scanning technique, I sighted the C421 15 seconds before crossing. PowerFlarm PCAS went off 2-3 seconds later. PowerFlarm would have got my attention if my visual scanning had failed me. No evasive action occurred on my part.

When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.

I am complete agreement with Darryl Ramm's analysis of this whole transponder (Mode S) PowerFlarm recommendation. They complement each other quite well... and this is the best solution for the time being. As he has said, the whole ADS-B thing with TABS looming in the near future is in a state of flux. I wouldn't be surprised to see combined Mode-S/ADS-B transponders coming onto the market in abundance within 3 or 4 years.

In case you are wondering ... I did NOT recommend in my response to the FAA NPRM immediately equipage of gliders with transponders. Instead, utilize good airspace practices, training and a short "wait and see" for more affordable equipment to become available. However, if you have the money... by all means equip with a transponder and PowerFlarm.

Walter Rogers "WX" Discus 2A





--

Dan, 5J

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:10:06 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Well there are good controllers and not so good. I have had many very close calls, while flying under flight following, IFR plan, or under the Tower's control. Four of my nearest (one within inches) happened within several hundred or less feet of actually taking off, and still over the runway. Burbank, Santa Barbra (twice), and El Cajon. The one in Burbank also involved an United Airlines MD80, in Santa Barbra the control tower actually was ****ed off at the C414 pilot that loudly complained he had to take sudden low altitude evasive manouvers (we both did!) and go around because the control tower had directed me (departing in a helicopter) nose to nose with the C414 on short final. To this day I can hear the controller with a very annoyed tone, "yeah just go around, cleared to land..."

Another time flying a C340 through the Owens valley on flight following, Joshua approach in a harried/worried tone informed me that two F/A-18's were converging on my position from behind, then he asked if I had the traffic.. Told him I did not have much rear visibility. He then told me in a worried tone "they are approaching fast!" I asked him for a course to deviated, it was like he had never thought of that! I do not include this as a near miss, I have had so many. Some you cannot control like the AS---le that flew underneath me (i could see him via Mode S traffic display on my HSI/map/traffic instrument) and as he dove to go under I turned 90 degrees only to see him zoom up where I had been. I think this fool was trying to fly under me then scare me by zooming up from underneath, however, had I not turned, he would have hit me as he did not have vision above. I am in full support of anything that gives me the most situational awareness as possible!

Perhaps a better use of Flarm resources rather than to develop a stealth mode would be to certify the Flarm GPS for use with trig and garrecht transponders that have ADS-B out and then output the data so our computers will display all traffic from any acronym source. I already have three GPS' I am hoping I will not have to buy a fourth to get ADS-B.

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
That was very good watching, Walt.* I wonder why the ATC controller
did not give the 421 a slight turn rather than simply issuing a
warning of a conflict.* This also shows that it's not a bad idea to
monitor Approach and Departure frequencies when you're in or near
standard routes.* Glad there was nothing more than some unnecessary
excitement!




On 1/20/2016 12:09 AM, WaltWX wrote:



With all the discussion about FLARM, ADS-B and the Pros/Cons, I thought the time is right to bring some facts into the discussion. Last September I had a near mid air with a C421. Since I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.

Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions. I filed a near mid report to the FAA which resulted in two interviews and this radar ARTCC video with ATC controller audio. I think you'll find it quite interesting.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/k8ph9wogyif...1 TT.wmv?dl=0

The FAA statement incorrectly identified the twin as a King Air with only (my visual esimate)
horizontal separation estimate of 500ft.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/e6gvhn6dybx...FAA.pdf?dl =0

According to the radar we passed by at 10,000msl zero vertical and 1300ft horizontal. By pure luck and good scanning technique, I sighted the C421 15 seconds before crossing. PowerFlarm PCAS went off 2-3 seconds later. PowerFlarm would have got my attention if my visual scanning had failed me. No evasive action occurred on my part.

When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.

I am complete agreement with Darryl Ramm's analysis of this whole transponder (Mode S) PowerFlarm recommendation. They complement each other quite well... and this is the best solution for the time being. As he has said, the whole ADS-B thing with TABS looming in the near future is in a state of flux. I wouldn't be surprised to see combined Mode-S/ADS-B transponders coming onto the market in abundance within 3 or 4 years.

In case you are wondering ... I did NOT recommend in my response to the FAA NPRM immediately equipage of gliders with transponders. Instead, utilize good airspace practices, training and a short "wait and see" for more affordable equipment to become available. However, if you have the money... by all means equip with a transponder and PowerFlarm.

Walter Rogers "WX" Discus 2A





--

Dan, 5J

Flarm only outputs NMEA over a serial port. What does a Mode S Transponder with ADS-B Out capability look for as an input for GPS? I don't think the physical or logical interfaces are compatible are they? Also - the Flarm GPS is an off the shelf consumer unit so it is not clear to me that it would ever be able to be certified and may not even qualify for TABS.

I'm mostly asking (waiting for Darryl...)

9B

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 8:01:06 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:10:06 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Well there are good controllers and not so good. I have had many very close calls, while flying under flight following, IFR plan, or under the Tower's control. Four of my nearest (one within inches) happened within several hundred or less feet of actually taking off, and still over the runway. Burbank, Santa Barbra (twice), and El Cajon. The one in Burbank also involved an United Airlines MD80, in Santa Barbra the control tower actually was ****ed off at the C414 pilot that loudly complained he had to take sudden low altitude evasive manouvers (we both did!) and go around because the control tower had directed me (departing in a helicopter) nose to nose with the C414 on short final. To this day I can hear the controller with a very annoyed tone, "yeah just go around, cleared to land..."

Another time flying a C340 through the Owens valley on flight following, Joshua approach in a harried/worried tone informed me that two F/A-18's were converging on my position from behind, then he asked if I had the traffic. Told him I did not have much rear visibility. He then told me in a worried tone "they are approaching fast!" I asked him for a course to deviated, it was like he had never thought of that! I do not include this as a near miss, I have had so many. Some you cannot control like the AS---le that flew underneath me (i could see him via Mode S traffic display on my HSI/map/traffic instrument) and as he dove to go under I turned 90 degrees only to see him zoom up where I had been. I think this fool was trying to fly under me then scare me by zooming up from underneath, however, had I not turned, he would have hit me as he did not have vision above. I am in full support of anything that gives me the most situational awareness as possible!

Perhaps a better use of Flarm resources rather than to develop a stealth mode would be to certify the Flarm GPS for use with trig and garrecht transponders that have ADS-B out and then output the data so our computers will display all traffic from any acronym source. I already have three GPS' I am hoping I will not have to buy a fourth to get ADS-B.

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
That was very good watching, Walt.* I wonder why the ATC controller
did not give the 421 a slight turn rather than simply issuing a
warning of a conflict.* This also shows that it's not a bad idea to
monitor Approach and Departure frequencies when you're in or near
standard routes.* Glad there was nothing more than some unnecessary
excitement!




On 1/20/2016 12:09 AM, WaltWX wrote:



With all the discussion about FLARM, ADS-B and the Pros/Cons, I thought the time is right to bring some facts into the discussion. Last September I had a near mid air with a C421. Since I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.

Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions. I filed a near mid report to the FAA which resulted in two interviews and this radar ARTCC video with ATC controller audio. I think you'll find it quite interesting.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/k8ph9wogyif...1 TT.wmv?dl=0

The FAA statement incorrectly identified the twin as a King Air with only (my visual esimate)
horizontal separation estimate of 500ft.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/e6gvhn6dybx...FAA.pdf?dl =0

According to the radar we passed by at 10,000msl zero vertical and 1300ft horizontal. By pure luck and good scanning technique, I sighted the C421 15 seconds before crossing. PowerFlarm PCAS went off 2-3 seconds later. PowerFlarm would have got my attention if my visual scanning had failed me. No evasive action occurred on my part.

When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.

I am complete agreement with Darryl Ramm's analysis of this whole transponder (Mode S) PowerFlarm recommendation. They complement each other quite well... and this is the best solution for the time being. As he has said, the whole ADS-B thing with TABS looming in the near future is in a state of flux. I wouldn't be surprised to see combined Mode-S/ADS-B transponders coming onto the market in abundance within 3 or 4 years.

In case you are wondering ... I did NOT recommend in my response to the FAA NPRM immediately equipage of gliders with transponders. Instead, utilize good airspace practices, training and a short "wait and see" for more affordable equipment to become available. However, if you have the money... by all means equip with a transponder and PowerFlarm.

Walter Rogers "WX" Discus 2A





--

Dan, 5J

Flarm only outputs NMEA over a serial port. What does a Mode S Transponder with ADS-B Out capability look for as an input for GPS? I don't think the physical or logical interfaces are compatible are they? Also - the Flarm GPS is an off the shelf consumer unit so it is not clear to me that it would ever be able to be certified and may not even qualify for TABS.

I'm mostly asking (waiting for Darryl...)

9B

For a TSO GPS source you can't do it over NMEA. You can do TABS Class B over NMEA. Pretty sure I've been over this before, sigh, many times. At this point its just a memory retention/IQ test.

Look FLARM is just not ever going to produce a TSO- or "meets TSO" or even TABS spec GPS device... that would be effectively be a lot of work just for the tiny USA market. Even something as simple as TABS requires a manufacture used to dealing with TSO approval, engineering and paperwork teams, GPS constellation testers, folks to write test suites,... not the stuff that a small nimble company like FLARM which plays in the unregulated electronics space is ever likely to do, or anybody in the glider community should be asking them to do. And yes I now some parts of their OEMs do play in this space, but the economics and hassle required is just awful. Bad bad waste of their resources. All this stuff will likely come from GPS vendors used to doing this regulatory approval dance. If I heard rumors of FLARM wanting to do even TABS certification, I'd be banging on them pointing out how that is likely a lot of work and a bad business decision. I like for good companies doing good stuff to make smart decisions and be around in future.

Oh and on TABS. We have no relevant installation or use regulations *at all* yet do we? So getting too worried about any of that stuff now is kinda premature. It may work out that there is no way this can be done in practice and actually installed in a glider even if FLARM wanted to.

I know just waiting and seeing must be *SO* hard...

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 8:18:45 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 8:01:06 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:10:06 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Well there are good controllers and not so good. I have had many very close calls, while flying under flight following, IFR plan, or under the Tower's control. Four of my nearest (one within inches) happened within several hundred or less feet of actually taking off, and still over the runway. Burbank, Santa Barbra (twice), and El Cajon. The one in Burbank also involved an United Airlines MD80, in Santa Barbra the control tower actually was ****ed off at the C414 pilot that loudly complained he had to take sudden low altitude evasive manouvers (we both did!) and go around because the control tower had directed me (departing in a helicopter) nose to nose with the C414 on short final. To this day I can hear the controller with a very annoyed tone, "yeah just go around, cleared to land..."

Another time flying a C340 through the Owens valley on flight following, Joshua approach in a harried/worried tone informed me that two F/A-18's were converging on my position from behind, then he asked if I had the traffic. Told him I did not have much rear visibility. He then told me in a worried tone "they are approaching fast!" I asked him for a course to deviated, it was like he had never thought of that! I do not include this as a near miss, I have had so many. Some you cannot control like the AS---le that flew underneath me (i could see him via Mode S traffic display on my HSI/map/traffic instrument) and as he dove to go under I turned 90 degrees only to see him zoom up where I had been. I think this fool was trying to fly under me then scare me by zooming up from underneath, however, had I not turned, he would have hit me as he did not have vision above. I am in full support of anything that gives me the most situational awareness as possible!

Perhaps a better use of Flarm resources rather than to develop a stealth mode would be to certify the Flarm GPS for use with trig and garrecht transponders that have ADS-B out and then output the data so our computers will display all traffic from any acronym source. I already have three GPS' I am hoping I will not have to buy a fourth to get ADS-B.

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
That was very good watching, Walt.* I wonder why the ATC controller
did not give the 421 a slight turn rather than simply issuing a
warning of a conflict.* This also shows that it's not a bad idea to
monitor Approach and Departure frequencies when you're in or near
standard routes.* Glad there was nothing more than some unnecessary
excitement!




On 1/20/2016 12:09 AM, WaltWX wrote:



With all the discussion about FLARM, ADS-B and the Pros/Cons, I thought the time is right to bring some facts into the discussion. Last September I had a near mid air with a C421. Since I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.

Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions. I filed a near mid report to the FAA which resulted in two interviews and this radar ARTCC video with ATC controller audio. I think you'll find it quite interesting.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/k8ph9wogyif...1 TT.wmv?dl=0

The FAA statement incorrectly identified the twin as a King Air with only (my visual esimate)
horizontal separation estimate of 500ft.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/e6gvhn6dybx...FAA.pdf?dl =0

According to the radar we passed by at 10,000msl zero vertical and 1300ft horizontal. By pure luck and good scanning technique, I sighted the C421 15 seconds before crossing. PowerFlarm PCAS went off 2-3 seconds later.. PowerFlarm would have got my attention if my visual scanning had failed me. No evasive action occurred on my part.

When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.

I am complete agreement with Darryl Ramm's analysis of this whole transponder (Mode S) PowerFlarm recommendation. They complement each other quite well... and this is the best solution for the time being. As he has said, the whole ADS-B thing with TABS looming in the near future is in a state of flux. I wouldn't be surprised to see combined Mode-S/ADS-B transponders coming onto the market in abundance within 3 or 4 years.

In case you are wondering ... I did NOT recommend in my response to the FAA NPRM immediately equipage of gliders with transponders. Instead, utilize good airspace practices, training and a short "wait and see" for more affordable equipment to become available. However, if you have the money.... by all means equip with a transponder and PowerFlarm.

Walter Rogers "WX" Discus 2A





--

Dan, 5J

Flarm only outputs NMEA over a serial port. What does a Mode S Transponder with ADS-B Out capability look for as an input for GPS? I don't think the physical or logical interfaces are compatible are they? Also - the Flarm GPS is an off the shelf consumer unit so it is not clear to me that it would ever be able to be certified and may not even qualify for TABS.

I'm mostly asking (waiting for Darryl...)

9B

For a TSO GPS source you can't do it over NMEA. You can do TABS Class B over NMEA. Pretty sure I've been over this before, sigh, many times. At this point its just a memory retention/IQ test.

Look FLARM is just not ever going to produce a TSO- or "meets TSO" or even TABS spec GPS device... that would be effectively be a lot of work just for the tiny USA market. Even something as simple as TABS requires a manufacture used to dealing with TSO approval, engineering and paperwork teams, GPS constellation testers, folks to write test suites,... not the stuff that a small nimble company like FLARM which plays in the unregulated electronics space is ever likely to do, or anybody in the glider community should be asking them to do. And yes I now some parts of their OEMs do play in this space, but the economics and hassle required is just awful. Bad bad waste of their resources. All this stuff will likely come from GPS vendors used to doing this regulatory approval dance. If I heard rumors of FLARM wanting to do even TABS certification, I'd be banging on them pointing out how that is likely a lot of work and a bad business decision. I like for good companies doing good stuff to make smart decisions and be around in future.

son_of_flubber wrote on 1/20/2016 7:14 AM:
I've a Trig T21. An ATC controller told me that I might be
filtered/deleted from his display when circling or flying in wave due
to my low ground speed.

I know primary radar signals might be filtered based on speed to remove
ground clutter, but never heard that would be done to a transponder
equipped aircraft. Gliders in wave aren't the only thing that can move
slowly - consider helicopters and balloons.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

Eric, I take offense to that statement, helicopters are as fast as gliders, in fact they have a high cruise speed! ) Having said that, one day I flew above LA class Bravo airspace without speaking with control (above 10,000 ft). I was tuned into LA approach and could hear them telling airliners, "I think it is a helicopter, or maybe a small Cessna, but I doubt that". I think back then I still had a mode C transponder.

I have many times been parked in a glider in wave over Julian VOR speaking with ATC who had me on radar, could confirm altitude and position. I would have had nearly zero ground speed and no transponder.
Same in Owens valley, no transponder and no problem with ATC seeing me, circling or not.

I now have a mode S transponder in the glider, plus a power Flarm. Looks like to get ADS-B out I will have to get a fourth GPS.


On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 9:12:34 PM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
son_of_flubber wrote on 1/20/2016 7:14 AM:
I've a Trig T21. An ATC controller told me that I might be
filtered/deleted from his display when circling or flying in wave due
to my low ground speed.

I know primary radar signals might be filtered based on speed to remove
ground clutter, but never heard that would be done to a transponder
equipped aircraft. Gliders in wave aren't the only thing that can move
slowly - consider helicopters and balloons.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:51:56 AM UTC+3, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Eric, I take offense to that statement, helicopters are as fast as gliders, in fact they have a high cruise speed! )

Depends which helicopter. the Hughes/Schweizer/whatever 300 cruises at 160 km/h. I believe there are plenty of 300+ km glider flights done at higher average speed.

The R22 is a little faster, 90 knots or 167 km/h. I've blasted past them a few times, climbing, with both of us in ridge lift.

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 6:50:09 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:

Monitoring of local ARTCC or Approach frequencies for traffic, I've found is not worth the trouble.

So you did not hear ATC communicating with the C421 about the conflict? Was there any way for ATC to contact you by radio?

My only piston helicopter time is 3 hours in a Bell 47, amazing easy to fly bird, that can actually glide (very unusual for a helicopter). And comparing a piston copter to a glass glider is unfair, they should be compared to Ka-6, 1-26..etc. I believe the 300 and 22 both beat the older birds.

In the turbine machines, a bit more of the same era as glass gliders, cruise is 110 to 150 knots. Not many 200 - 400 nm mile flights in glider are in that speed range. Even in a lowly MD 500 at 64% power (top of green 89%) I would cruise at 120 knots, want to race?



On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:56:45 AM UTC-8, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:51:56 AM UTC+3, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Eric, I take offense to that statement, helicopters are as fast as gliders, in fact they have a high cruise speed! )

Depends which helicopter. the Hughes/Schweizer/whatever 300 cruises at 160 km/h. I believe there are plenty of 300+ km glider flights done at higher average speed.

The R22 is a little faster, 90 knots or 167 km/h. I've blasted past them a few times, climbing, with both of us in ridge lift.

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:00:49 AM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 6:50:09 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:

Monitoring of local ARTCC or Approach frequencies for traffic, I've found is not worth the trouble.

So you did not hear ATC communicating with the C421 about the conflict? Was there any way for ATC to contact you by radio?

I was not monitoring ATC frequency. It was in ARTCC airspace and the frequency was not obvious unless you have an IFR map or are "in the system". There was another glider a mile or two away with a transponder, so ... I suppose it would have alerted me to increase my scanning for traffic. But, there is no way to know which direction to look and that is the basis for my original comment that monitoring ATC frequencies doesn't help that much for collision awareness. I was just lucky that my scanning caught the C421 while in a right turn, but the PowerFlarm PCAS went off a second or two later.

Walt Rogers