Two die in Glider mid-air

On Sep 8, 1:35*pm, Dr_Marko_Rocznik wrote:
Flarm helps a great deal preventing this! I have flown it in Europe
and it is even working well with several gliders in one thermal. I
hope the US-version of Power-Flarm will start to ship soon here. It's
so sad not just for the families but for our sport in general..

Marko

CBC radio reported the accident yesterday and interviewed Paul Remde,
Apparently the club is installing PowerFlarms in all their club
ships. I'm still waiting for mine...

Eric Frere (GBSC)

I had a close call with an A310 about 15 years ago. He broke through a light overcast at about 4000 AGL. I was at 3000 and right in this decent path! I put the 1-36 into a dive to get out of his way. I don't like thinking about what might have happened if I wasn't looking in the right direction.

I was directly over top of the gliderport at the time and was surprised as the airway and approaches to the local airport are well to the north and south. He was attending an airshow I later found out and was probably doing a straight in approach to the show box from the west.

Matt

Originally Posted by Dan Marotta

And, speaking of jets...

Years ago, while climbing above the Black Forest Glider Port at about 11,000
MSL (4,000 AGL), I noticed a tiny spot on the horizon to the south. On the
next turn, I saw the B-757 maneuvering to avoid a collision with me! I was
thankful that those guys had their heads outside the cockpit and saw me
because I had no chance to avoid a collision.

I always wondered why the FAA routed airliners traveling between Colorado
Springs (COS) and Denver (DEN) directly over our small airpark at 11,000'
MSL.

And to bore everyone further - back in the late 70s, and before knowing
anything about gliders, I was flight engineer on a B-727 on a leg between
DEN (the old Stapleton airport) and COS. Our clearance took us directly
down the ramparts of the Front Range and the captain said, "Let's see how
fast this baby will go!". We were cruising at 350 KIAS at 11,000 MSL right
over prime glider territory! I don't recall the season and I've always
wondered if there were any gliders there at the time...


"Matt RX" wrote in message
...[color=blue][i]

Mike the Strike;782551 Wrote:
On Sep 6, 8:10*pm, Mike I Green
wrote:
A PowerFlarm might have prevented this accident. *I am getting one.

Mike Green

As I have reported here before, I had a close head-on with a fellow
club member a couple of years ago. We were flying in opposite
directions along a cloudstreet and were in radio contact. I suddenly
saw a flash of orange ahead and slightly to my right, so I
instinctively climbed and banked left. My colleague passed not fifty
feet under my right wing and he never even saw me. One of the few
times that anti-collision markings helped (my glider has none). A
review of our GPS traces showed us closing at a speed of over 200 mph
(300 feet per second) and the time between seeing a head-on glider and
impact was barely sufficient to react.

Electronic countermeasures are the only solution.

Mike

Report on CBC radio this morning indicated that the Canadian Rockies
Soaring Club had just ordered FLARM for all their gliders prior to the
accident.... Unforunatley not installed in time. Not sure if the gliders
involved were club ships. I met Keith Watson a few weeks ago when he
dropped by the club I fly with and we talked for quite some time while I
was working on my LS-3. Nice guy and I was sadened to hear about the
accident.

Mid airs have always been my biggest source of fear in soaring. I get
upset with myself everytime I notice a Cessna after it has already
passed me! I watched a Challenger pass by once at the same altitude and
thought to myself that I would have 0 chance avoiding a head on with a
jet. I`m borderline obsessive with keeping track of every other glider
in the air and I`m still surprised how many times I loose people and
find them again much closer than expected.

Matt




--
Matt RX

Yes, I'm flying with a transponder now and I see a lot of arriving and
departing traffic to ABQ. As you noted, they don't seem too close so I
guess it's working!


"Ramy" wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 8:01 am, "Dan Marotta" wrote:[color=blue][i]
And, speaking of jets...

Years ago, while climbing above the Black Forest Glider Port at about
11,000
MSL (4,000 AGL), I noticed a tiny spot on the horizon to the south. On the
next turn, I saw the B-757 maneuvering to avoid a collision with me! I was
thankful that those guys had their heads outside the cockpit and saw me
because I had no chance to avoid a collision.

I always wondered why the FAA routed airliners traveling between Colorado
Springs (COS) and Denver (DEN) directly over our small airpark at 11,000'
MSL.

And to bore everyone further - back in the late 70s, and before knowing
anything about gliders, I was flight engineer on a B-727 on a leg between
DEN (the old Stapleton airport) and COS. Our clearance took us directly
down the ramparts of the Front Range and the captain said, "Let's see how
fast this baby will go!". We were cruising at 350 KIAS at 11,000 MSL right
over prime glider territory! I don't recall the season and I've always
wondered if there were any gliders there at the time...

"Matt RX" wrote in message

...





Mike the Strike;782551 Wrote:
On Sep 6, 8:10*pm, Mike I Green
wrote:
A PowerFlarm might have prevented this accident. *I am getting one.

Mike Green

As I have reported here before, I had a close head-on with a fellow
club member a couple of years ago. We were flying in opposite
directions along a cloudstreet and were in radio contact. I suddenly
saw a flash of orange ahead and slightly to my right, so I
instinctively climbed and banked left. My colleague passed not fifty
feet under my right wing and he never even saw me. One of the few
times that anti-collision markings helped (my glider has none). A
review of our GPS traces showed us closing at a speed of over 200 mph
(300 feet per second) and the time between seeing a head-on glider and
impact was barely sufficient to react.

Electronic countermeasures are the only solution.

Mike

Report on CBC radio this morning indicated that the Canadian Rockies
Soaring Club had just ordered FLARM for all their gliders prior to the
accident.... Unforunatley not installed in time. Not sure if the gliders
involved were club ships. I met Keith Watson a few weeks ago when he
dropped by the club I fly with and we talked for quite some time while I
was working on my LS-3. Nice guy and I was sadened to hear about the
accident.

Mid airs have always been my biggest source of fear in soaring. I get
upset with myself everytime I notice a Cessna after it has already
passed me! I watched a Challenger pass by once at the same altitude and
thought to myself that I would have 0 chance avoiding a head on with a
jet. I`m borderline obsessive with keeping track of every other glider
in the air and I`m still surprised how many times I loose people and
find them again much closer than expected.

Matt

--
Matt RX- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dan, I assume you were not flying with a transponder at that time, but
flying with one now. Since I started flying with transponders I never
saw an airliner too close, and I am flying in some of the most busy
airspaces in the US (Bay Area and Reno).
But transponder wouldn't have saved those folks. Flarm could. How
tragic.

Ramy

Transponders are not a magic shield.

I fly with a Mode S transponder in the busy Philadelphia / New York
airspace. I often see airliners diverting course to go around me
(particularly commuters), but then there was the Southwest 737 that
flew 300 feet directly over me. I was thermalling at 5700, he was
straight and level at 6000. Gliders in this area have a discrete
transponder code, and we know from conversations with ATC that they're
keeping track of us specifically as glider traffic. So, I know for
certain that (1) the Southwest pilot was aware of me (long before I
was aware of him), and (2) he was also aware that I was a glider.

I'm not standing on principle here, if I'd seen him sooner I would
have quit thermalling and flown 90 degrees to his track while losing
altitude (quickly). But it was a hazy day, I was thermalling, he was
doing 250 kts, and I just flat didn't see him until he was about a
mile away.

Moral - keep a good lookout, amd remember that stuff can happen in
spite of a transponder...

-John

On Sep 8, 1:56 pm, Ramy wrote:
Since I started flying with transponders I never
saw an airliner too close, and I am flying in some of the most busy
airspaces in the US (Bay Area and Reno).

On Sep 9, 8:54*am, jcarlyle wrote:
Transponders are not a magic shield.

I fly with a Mode S transponder in the busy Philadelphia / New York
airspace. I often see airliners diverting course to go around me
(particularly commuters), but then there was the Southwest 737 that
flew 300 feet directly over me. I was thermalling at 5700, he was
straight and level at 6000. Gliders in this area have a discrete
transponder code, and we know from conversations with ATC that they're
keeping track of us specifically as glider traffic. So, I know for
certain that (1) the Southwest pilot was aware of me (long before I
was aware of him), and (2) he was also aware that I was a glider.

I'm not standing on principle here, if I'd seen him sooner I would
have quit thermalling and flown 90 degrees to his track while losing
altitude (quickly). But it was a hazy day, I was thermalling, he was
doing 250 kts, and I just flat didn't see him until he was about a
mile away.

Moral - keep a good lookout, amd remember that stuff can happen in
spite of a transponder...

-John

On Sep 8, 1:56 pm, Ramy wrote:







Since I started flying with transponders I never
saw an airliner too close, and I am flying in some of the most busy
airspaces in the US (Bay Area and Reno).

out here in Boeing country it's not uncommon to see test flights
returning right thru the same airspace we fly gliders. it's quite a
sight to have then drop out of the clouds at 3000' just south of KAWO.
it's also quite a sight to see the big dreamlifter do the same
thing................I've taken a few pics of this big bird and had it
fill the frame.

Brad

jcarlyle wrote:
Transponders are not a magic shield.

I fly with a Mode S transponder in the busy Philadelphia / New York
airspace. I often see airliners diverting course to go around me
(particularly commuters), but then there was the Southwest 737 that
flew 300 feet directly over me. I was thermalling at 5700, he was
straight and level at 6000. Gliders in this area have a discrete
transponder code, and we know from conversations with ATC that they're
keeping track of us specifically as glider traffic. So, I know for
certain that (1) the Southwest pilot was aware of me (long before I
was aware of him), and (2) he was also aware that I was a glider.

I'm not standing on principle here, if I'd seen him sooner I would
have quit thermalling and flown 90 degrees to his track while losing
altitude (quickly). But it was a hazy day, I was thermalling, he was
doing 250 kts, and I just flat didn't see him until he was about a
mile away.

Moral - keep a good lookout, amd remember that stuff can happen in
spite of a transponder...

-John

Something is a little strange here as this seems well within the
altitude difference window that should have generated an RA. Which is a
big deal to the 737 crew both from the immediate required response to
the RA and subsequent reporting/paperwork.

Darryl

I'm also puzzled as to why he didn't react to my presence. I would
think that his TCAS would have detected me. Nevertheless, there he was
- no course or alititude variation at all, he just flew right over me,
going _real_ fast. The other thing about it was that he wasn't on a
normal arrival path for PHL. I had my biannual VFR transponder check 3
weeks after this experience, and the Trig TT21 passed just fine. I
don't know what happened, but I hope not to be caught in a similar
situation again.

-John

On Sep 9, 5:14 pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
Something is a little strange here as this seems well within the
altitude difference window that should have generated an RA. Which is a
big deal to the 737 crew both from the immediate required response to
the RA and subsequent reporting/paperwork.

Darryl

John

So my very next thought was has the encoder/altimeter system been tested
recently?

A standard biannual transponder check for a non-IFR aircraft does not
include a check of the altimeter/altitude encoder system, it just
includes RF tests--a fairly useless throwback to the days of much less
reliable traveling wave tube based transponders. The tests on first
install does include altimeter/encoder tests.

I've seen quite a few owners assume that the encoder/altimeter is being
tested, but unless you've made arrangement with the test provider this
just usually won't be done for these subsequent checks.

A simple test is to compare the altimeter (when set to 29.92"Hg) and
what the TT21 display says for the altitude. But that does not exclude
problems like the static line being disconnected behind the panel or
contaminated with water etc.

If this had happened to me and I'm sure my transponder was working I'd
probably contact the ATC/approach folks and have a chat - this just
should not happen with a TCAS II equipped 737. Unfortunately we don't
have Mode-S RA downlink really used in the USA. When used (like more
widely in Europe) that provides ATC controllers with direct visibility
to RA events in their airspace.

Darryl


On 9/9/11 2:48 PM, jcarlyle wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to why he didn't react to my presence. I would
think that his TCAS would have detected me. Nevertheless, there he was
- no course or alititude variation at all, he just flew right over me,
going _real_ fast. The other thing about it was that he wasn't on a
normal arrival path for PHL. I had my biannual VFR transponder check 3
weeks after this experience, and the Trig TT21 passed just fine. I
don't know what happened, but I hope not to be caught in a similar
situation again.

-John

On Sep 9, 5:14 pm, Darryl wrote:
Something is a little strange here as this seems well within the
altitude difference window that should have generated an RA. Which is a
big deal to the 737 crew both from the immediate required response to
the RA and subsequent reporting/paperwork.

Darryl

Darryl,

Although the encoder/altimeter weren't formally checked during the
biannual transponder check, the technician did me a favor and quickly
checked the correspondance at 0, 5000, 10000 and 20000 feet - they
were OK. I also routinely check the transponder altitude reading
against my alitimeter during each flight. So I'm pretty sure that's
all OK. As for your suggestion about chatting with ATC, that didn't
happen.

-John

On Sep 9, 6:48 pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
John

So my very next thought was has the encoder/altimeter system been tested
recently?

A standard biannual transponder check for a non-IFR aircraft does not
include a check of the altimeter/altitude encoder system, it just
includes RF tests--a fairly useless throwback to the days of much less
reliable traveling wave tube based transponders. The tests on first
install does include altimeter/encoder tests.

I've seen quite a few owners assume that the encoder/altimeter is being
tested, but unless you've made arrangement with the test provider this
just usually won't be done for these subsequent checks.

A simple test is to compare the altimeter (when set to 29.92"Hg) and
what the TT21 display says for the altitude. But that does not exclude
problems like the static line being disconnected behind the panel or
contaminated with water etc.

If this had happened to me and I'm sure my transponder was working I'd
probably contact the ATC/approach folks and have a chat - this just
should not happen with a TCAS II equipped 737. Unfortunately we don't
have Mode-S RA downlink really used in the USA. When used (like more
widely in Europe) that provides ATC controllers with direct visibility
to RA events in their airspace.

Darryl

Ann Welch, a many time steward at WGC s , always warned against setting G
and R tasks due to the risk of collision; one nearly got me; about 3 secs
warning.
If you are running a cloud street, use the L/R lift indications to turn
slightly; no longer will you be a "stationary" speck to the other pilot and
the wing movment will make you easier to see.
A climbing turn is even better.
John F

Although the encoder/altimeter weren't formally checked during the
biannual transponder check, the technician did me a favor and quickly
checked the correspondance at 0, 5000, 10000 and 20000 feet - they
were OK. I also routinely check the transponder altitude reading
against my alitimeter during each flight. So I'm pretty sure that's
all OK. As for your suggestion about chatting with ATC, that didn't
happen.

-John

On Sep 9, 6:48 pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
John

So my very next thought was has the encoder/altimeter system been
tested
recently?

A standard biannual transponder check for a non-IFR aircraft does not
include a check of the altimeter/altitude encoder system, it just
includes RF tests--a fairly useless throwback to the days of much less
reliable traveling wave tube based transponders. The tests on first
install does include altimeter/encoder tests.

I've seen quite a few owners assume that the encoder/altimeter is being
tested, but unless you've made arrangement with the test provider this
just usually won't be done for these subsequent checks.

A simple test is to compare the altimeter (when set to 29.92"Hg) and
what the TT21 display says for the altitude. But that does not exclude
problems like the static line being disconnected behind the panel or
contaminated with water etc.

If this had happened to me and I'm sure my transponder was working I'd
probably contact the ATC/approach folks and have a chat - this just
should not happen with a TCAS II equipped 737. Unfortunately we don't
have Mode-S RA downlink really used in the USA. When used (like more
widely in Europe) that provides ATC controllers with direct visibility
to RA events in their airspace.

Darryl