A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 27th 17, 01:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
richard wilkening
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

I fly airliners, power GA airplanes, and gliders so here are some observations from both worlds:

When flying no matter what/ where I'm looking for other traffic, more so "down low." Here in the Midwest that is 10,000' MSL. Gliders are by design small with little frontal area. It is hard to see them from very far off even when I'm also in a glider and know they're there. Even when ATC calls other airliner traffic at altitude, I sometimes resort to looking for contrails as the actual aircraft is no where to be seen- many times with a closure rate of 1,000 MPH. Sometimes we never do see them. Yes, we ARE looking.

Airline pilots are taught that the Flying Pilot does just that, and only that. If ATC assigns a different route, approach, or runway the Non Flying Pilot should be the one "heads down" inputting the change in "the box" while the Pilot Flying keeps flying, while also confirming the correctness of the change. I assume Flight Safety teaches GA jet drivers the same.

Back in the early 90s when Mode C transponders were first required in power planes to fly in ARSAs, I remember the complaining from GA pilots about the cost. I also remember a comment made that these same pilots had no problem dropping more money on fancy LORANs than what the transponders cost. But that was DIFFERENT. Look at the resistance to Flarm. I don't own a glider and I've never used one, but I feel almost naked flying without TCAS.

To me this is the same. Guys drool over the latest glide computer and the batteries to operate it, but complain about transponders and being required to install them.

Lastly, the comment about gliders and balloons being here first: 1) Balloons are generally easier to see due to their size; and 2) I guess you're right. So what? Are you willing to be dead right?

Should a glider and airliner crash killing many, it won't matter who was "right." Public outcry will be loud and swift. We won't like the results.
Ads
  #12  
Old September 27th 17, 01:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?



With that childish attitude you are a complete liability to the entire soaring community, not just from a safety viewpoint, but from the damage you will do the the impression of our sport. I sure hope the rest of the pilots who fly out of Post Mills Soaring Club have a much more responsible attitude about safety than you do. If not well, oh well thanks to your posts here, everybody, including the FAA, now knows what they might possibly be facing there. Lets hope it is nothing as bad as your attitude implies it might be.


Amen, thermaling in an airway without providing ATC a clue is not nice, regardless of who was there first. The attitude reflects poorly on our community and invites oversight (see 91.13).

That said, the FAA is making it less likely the clue will be provided with the ADSB program. I have mode C + Flarm now. To move to ADSB 2020 will cost $4k. (1800 for the transponder + $1800 for the GPS + install)

The cost give me pause especially because the 2x cost premium for the certified GPS appears to net a system which emits state vectors which are less accurate than the Flarm. This issue could be greatly improved if ATC were to use ADSB emissions with COTS GPS and increased uncertainty spheres. We already routinely depend on the Flarm Brick GPS for close encounters. It would be neat if FAA could approve at least that specific receiver.


  #13  
Old September 27th 17, 01:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

The CUUPP intersection has a cross between FL180 and 15000, CLSBY between 15000 and 13000. Every once in a while ZAU will drop you down to 9 or 7000 and hand you off to RFD approach. If you don't fly this arrival regularly there's no reason to expect 121 traffic at 7000.
  #14  
Old September 27th 17, 01:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,953
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 5:32:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:
The CUUPP intersection has a cross between FL180 and 15000, CLSBY between 15000 and 13000. Every once in a while ZAU will drop you down to 9 or 7000 and hand you off to RFD approach. If you don't fly this arrival regularly there's no reason to expect 121 traffic at 7000.


Janesville Eight STAR has "Arrivals expect... 20 miles west of JVL at 13000, TEDDY at 7000" That puts those aircraft right in this area and altitude. While the B737 was clearly not flying that STAR it should set expectations that significant traffic can be in that area. And with possible holds potentially coming at you from any direction. How busy that STAR is in reality I have no idea. Anybody discussed that with local ATC? FAA folks have produced some very useful traffic density maps in other discussions about gliders and traffic safety (intersting to see both the clustering of traffic density and long tail of of outlyers of aircraft being everywhere).
  #15  
Old September 27th 17, 05:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 687
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 11:59:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
What about the hot air balloons, ultralights, antique airplanes, hanggliders, skydivers, drones, birds, and mountains?
It is our airspace too and we were there first. Airlines and motorplanes need to do a better job of avoiding all of the stuff in the sky. And if you guys start advocating for limiting my ability to fly without a transponder than I am going to start advocating to limit your flying regardless of how powerful a ball roasting beeper you put in your gliders.


All we need is one glider-airliner collision and you can fully expect to be grounded until ADSB is installed in your glider. Gliders came very close to loosing their exemption for Mode C due to the non-fatal collision between a biz jet and a glider near Reno. It will not be "us guys" limiting your ability to fly, it will be the FAA. The economic reality is that it matters not a whit who "was there first". Airline safety will take priority over any other consideration.
  #16  
Old September 27th 17, 03:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 999
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

Indeed.
  #17  
Old September 27th 17, 03:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 447
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 8:19:04 PM UTC-4, Richard Wilkening wrote:
Look at the resistance to Flarm.


In the contest community (i.e. where Flarm makes sense), the equipage rate seems to be North of 80%, DESPITE the fact that Flarm is expensive, hard to set up & test, has customer service that is pretty much non-existent.

In high traffic corridors (NYC, Reno...) transponder installations are nearly universal among XC guys.

So... your premise that safety doesn't sell appears to be incorrect.

Going forward, the obvious thing to do is send a bottle of smart pills to the guys at the FAA that can pave the way to approval for a low cost VFR only TABS system for low cost VFR only aircraft. Safety is a much easier sell when the cost is reasonable and if the FAA were concerned with VFR **safety** they'd act on this obvious fact.

Oh and btw: the airliners can see me at 6 miles RIGHT NOW by adding flarm. Quit laughing, I'm serious. Send the serial output data to TCAS or whatever. I don't expect them to do this. The airlines, like the FAA, are more interested in having some powerless victim to blame when the **** hits the fact than they are in prevention.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8
  #18  
Old September 27th 17, 04:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 999
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

Near 100% personal responsibility (“trust us”) in high traffic areas? Come on! Apparently this was not the case in Chicago (see the near miss just last weekend) and I would immediately put a bet down to challenge that figure as “highly inaccurate” and, more importantly, utterly meaningless strategical (if a major accident was to occur). Bottom line: soaring currently has a significant safety culture problem. The outsider would see our recent political maneuvering (fighting the ADSB mandate under the SSA organization) as an aviation community that is trying to avoid safety in the name of a relatively small amount of money. Much of the gliding community is motivated by a culture which prides itself on keeping all aspects of the sport as absolutely cheap as possible. Some even enjoy trying to shame those with modern gliders as “the Rich,” etc. Most old timers seem to furiously hate any new technology and many of them have banded together in the SSA good old boys ranks. All of this is systemic and easily demonstrated. See Flarm. See ADSB. See contest trackers and safety trackers. See, for example, how long it takes to find pilots who have crashed in the trees at ridge contests (no Satelite tracker, poorly functioning ELTs, or no safety device at all...). Etc.

If you listen to some of the attitudes expressed on this thread alone, and especially similar attitudes over the years, you’re “100%” premise is disproven almost immediately. It’s those general “cheap before safety” attitudes that are the key problem. And, that is why, in my opinion, the FAA ADSB mandate was a good thing. The sport of soaring desperately needs some technology catch up and some minimum new standards. Small alterations or changes to the FAA ADSB mandate would have made sense but dropping it entirely will eventually prove to be a disaster, I fear. Again see Chicago last weekend.

I have not flown much this summer but have seen large airliners nearby several times (including Reno last week). It’s amazing how close we fly to them, and how often. We all know the truth here. The risk in having non ADSB (or even Transponder (for now, very old and outgoing tech)) equipped gliders in such constant proximity to airline traffic is unacceptably high. Furthermore, we do not need a major airline accident to have the same PR catastrophe. A fatal collision with a family flying along in their light private airplane will also due just fine for the politicians who will react swiftly to such an accident.

I’m happy to be on the record here and remain deeply concerned at the safety attitudes displayed here and elsewhere from the gliding community, rules committee, etc. I find it sad. I hope it changes.
  #19  
Old September 27th 17, 05:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 999
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

Near 100% personal responsibility (“trust us”) in high traffic areas? Come on! Apparently, this was not the case in Chicago (see the near miss just last weekend), and I would immediately put a bet down to challenge that figure as “highly inaccurate” and, more importantly, utterly meaningless strategical (if a major accident was to occur). Bottom line: soaring has a significant safety culture problem. The outsider would see our recent political maneuvering (fighting the ADSB mandate under the SSA organization) as an aviation community that is trying to avoid safety in the name of a relatively small amount of money. Much of the gliding community appears motivated by a culture which prides itself on keeping all aspects of the sport as absolutely cheap as possible. Some even enjoy trying to shame those with modern gliders as “the Rich,” etc. Most old-timers seem too furiously hate any new technology, and many of them have banded together in the SSA good old boys ranks. All of this is systemic and easily demonstrated. See Flarm. See ADSB. See contest trackers and safety trackers. See, for example, how long it takes to find pilots who have crashed in the trees at ridge contests (no Satelite tracker, poorly functioning ELTs, or no safety device at all). Etc.

If you listen to some of the attitudes expressed on this thread alone, and especially similar opinions over the years, your “100%” premise is disproven almost immediately. It’s those general “cheap before safety” attitudes that are the fundamental problem. And, that is why, in my opinion, the FAA ADS-B mandate was a good thing. The sport of soaring desperately needs some technology "catch up" and some minimum new standards. Small alterations or changes to the FAA ADS-B mandate would have made sense, but entirely dropping the mandate will eventually prove to be a disaster, I fear. Again see Chicago last weekend.

I have not flown much this summer but have seen large airliners nearby several times (including SE of Reno airspace last week, well outside of class C, at around 12,000 MSL). It’s amazing how close we fly to them, and how often. We all know the truth here. The risk in having non-ADSB (or even Transponder) equipped gliders in such constant proximity to airline traffic is unacceptably high to our sport. Furthermore, we do not need a major airline accident to have the same PR catastrophe. A fatal collision with a family flying along in their light private airplane will also do just fine for the politicians who will react swiftly to such an accident.

I’m happy to be on the record here and remain highly concerned at the safety attitudes displayed here and elsewhere from the gliding community, rules committee, etc. I find it sad. I hope it changes.

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 10:33:09 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 8:19:04 PM UTC-4, Richard Wilkening wrote:
Look at the resistance to Flarm.


In the contest community (i.e. where Flarm makes sense), the equipage rate seems to be North of 80%, DESPITE the fact that Flarm is expensive, hard to set up & test, has customer service that is pretty much non-existent.

In high traffic corridors (NYC, Reno...) transponder installations are nearly universal among XC guys.

So... your premise that safety doesn't sell appears to be incorrect.

Going forward, the obvious thing to do is send a bottle of smart pills to the guys at the FAA that can pave the way to approval for a low cost VFR only TABS system for low cost VFR only aircraft. Safety is a much easier sell when the cost is reasonable and if the FAA were concerned with VFR **safety** they'd act on this obvious fact.

Oh and btw: the airliners can see me at 6 miles RIGHT NOW by adding flarm.. Quit laughing, I'm serious. Send the serial output data to TCAS or whatever. I don't expect them to do this. The airlines, like the FAA, are more interested in having some powerless victim to blame when the **** hits the fact than they are in prevention.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

  #20  
Old September 27th 17, 05:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 999
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

Near 100% personal responsibility (“trust us”) in high traffic areas? Come on! Apparently, this was not the case in Chicago last weekend (see the near miss of a glider by a United 737). I would immediately put a bet down to challenge that "near" 100% figure as “highly inaccurate” and, more importantly, utterly meaningless regarding strategic positioning for our sport (if a major accident was to occur).

Bottom line: soaring has a significant safety culture problem. The outsider would see our recent political maneuvering (fighting the ADSB mandate under the SSA organization) as an aviation community that is trying to avoid safety in the name of a relatively small amount of money. Much of the gliding community appears motivated by a culture which prides itself on keeping all aspects of the sport as cheap as possible. Most old-timers seem to despise any new technology, of any sort, often furiously, and many of them have now banded together in the SSA good old boys ranks in a constant crusade to prevent any new technologies successful adoption. All of this has been systemic, consistent and is easily demonstrable. See Flarm. See ADSB. See contest tracking and satellite safety trackers. See mobile phones. See weather. See, for example, consider how long it can take to find a pilot who crashes in the trees at ridge contests (often with no Satellite tracker, an inadequate or non-functioning ELT, or no location device at all). Etc.

If you listen to some of the attitudes expressed on this thread (or the parallel one he https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ng/drv1sFbYkPs) alone, and especially similar opinions on RAS over the years, your “100%” premise is disproven almost immediately. It’s those general “cheap before safety” attitudes that are the fundamental problem. And, that is why, in my opinion, the FAA ADS-B mandate was a good thing. The sport of soaring needs important technology "catch up" and some minimum new safety standards moving forward in regards to electronic collision safety and general aircraft. Small alterations or changes to the FAA ADS-B mandate for gliders would have made sense, but dropping the FAA ADS-B mandate entirely may eventually prove to be a total disaster, I fear. Again, see Chicago last weekend and the near miss of a glider by a 737. See the numerous other collisions and near misses.

I have not flown that much this summer, but I have still witnessed a significant number of commercial airliners nearby (including SE of Reno airspace last week, well outside of class C, at around 12,000 MSL, with a transponder on). It’s amazing how close we glider pilots fly to commercial traffic, even in rural locations, and how often. Most of us tend to loiter near and under clouds, where visual detection becomes significantly limited or just plain impossible. We all know the truth here. The risk of having non-ADSB (or even transponder) equipped gliders in such constant proximity to airline traffic is unacceptably high to our sport. Furthermore, we do not need a major airline accident to have the same PR catastrophe for the sport of gliding. A fatal collision with a family flying along in their light private airplane will also do just fine for the politicians who undoubtedly will react swiftly to preventing future accidents and calming public concern.

I’m happy to be on the record here and remain highly concerned about the safety attitudes displayed both here and elsewhere from the gliding community, rules committee, etc. I find it disappointing. I hope it changes.


On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 10:33:09 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 8:19:04 PM UTC-4, Richard Wilkening wrote:
Look at the resistance to Flarm.


In the contest community (i.e. where Flarm makes sense), the equipage rate seems to be North of 80%, DESPITE the fact that Flarm is expensive, hard to set up & test, has customer service that is pretty much non-existent.

In high traffic corridors (NYC, Reno...) transponder installations are nearly universal among XC guys.

So... your premise that safety doesn't sell appears to be incorrect.

Going forward, the obvious thing to do is send a bottle of smart pills to the guys at the FAA that can pave the way to approval for a low cost VFR only TABS system for low cost VFR only aircraft. Safety is a much easier sell when the cost is reasonable and if the FAA were concerned with VFR **safety** they'd act on this obvious fact.

Oh and btw: the airliners can see me at 6 miles RIGHT NOW by adding flarm.. Quit laughing, I'm serious. Send the serial output data to TCAS or whatever. I don't expect them to do this. The airlines, like the FAA, are more interested in having some powerless victim to blame when the **** hits the fact than they are in prevention.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stinson Airliner pics 1 [04/11] - Chicago Municipal Airport - American Airlines - Stinson Model A Tri-Motor.jpg (1/1) Miloch Aviation Photos 0 August 14th 17 02:55 PM
Need to move a glider from Chicago to Los Angeles Maciek Arkuszewski Soaring 14 May 18th 16 11:59 PM
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt Karen Soaring 70 October 23rd 10 05:27 AM
Glider-Airliner Near Miss jcarlyle Soaring 0 June 12th 07 04:52 PM
Report on "Old" Glider/airliner midair? Jim Kellett Soaring 5 October 13th 03 02:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.