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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 11, 2:19*pm, Peter Scholz
wrote: Am 11.10.2010 22:55, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, Peter wrote: Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote: Hi Gang * * I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports. Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen. Dave On Oct 11, 9:54 am, * *wrote: Lessons to be learned? http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2 Join the discussion. I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident report. 1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D) and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65 and *surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or 1700AGL/FL100) 2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial (heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsrück ridge) and many XC flights go along there. 3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. *Also the situatuion of approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed. 4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this. Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion contact with FIS will normally suffice. 5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E! 6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected" airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh those glider pilots behave totally legal. 7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be passed on the the approaching traffic. In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the *rule "see and be seen" is to obey. -- Peter Scholz ASW24 JE Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to adopt transponders. Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider? And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places. The two just do not mix well. Darryl Darryl, in Germany, for many years because of the pure separation of commercial traffic and gliders by the different airspace they use, there was no need for transponders in gliders. In the last years, this has changed a bit, as more and more airports are beeing used by commercial carriers that serve the German market on top of the traditional "state airline" Lufthansa, and more and more restricted airspaces appear on the maps. You see more transponders in gliders now, and there are talks about making them mandatory. In fact, the Netherlands have tried to do this, but have after a few weeks asked the glider pilots to switch them off again near some major airports, because ATC just had a black cloud on there radar screens... But ambitioned XC pilots have more possibilities with transponders, because it is possible to get clearances for airspace that otherwise would not be usable by a glider, so if you have the money and the ambition, you'll get a transponder sooner or later. I think it will take some more years to make it common for XC flights,, but we try to avoid to make it mandatory, as it would make the traditional glider instruction in clubs a lot more expensive, many clubs wouldnT survive this. It's not only € 2000 for the transpionder itself, you have to get it installed and certified for each glider. This would exceed the value of many gliders used in training nowadays. -- Peter Scholz ASW24 JE Peter I was not suggesting it be mandatory (actually the reverse - voluntary adoption where needed to avoid blanket regulations), I was just surprised it does not seem to be listed as something that was encouraged locally. And I understand the extra cost of the installations in Europe thanks to EASA bureaucracy. BTW I think it is entirely reasonable for glider communities especially in key locations in Europe to approach carriers like Ryanair and try to seek some help in offsetting transponder costs. This may be plausible where there is a noticeable change on the part of one airline. A potentially tricky situation to handle, but companies like Ryanair should be aware of the hazards of them not taking action extend beyond the loss of one of their aircraft, especially if approached by the glider community with a reasonable proposal. Darryl |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
Large areas of airspace are Class A-D reserved for IFR traffic under full
ATC control, to ensure Caommercial Air Trafic passenger safety. Then you get low-cost carriers saving money by flying into small airports without such airspace, and taking fuel-saving short cuts through non-protected airspace. The cost of installing transponders in EASAland is substantially greater than the equipment cost due to excessive modification/certification fees. I guess 'kd6veb' just screwed one in his Sparrowhawk and wired it up. I could do that to my glider, risk invalidating the insurance and attracting legal action from the airworthiness police. I would appreciate a logical reason why I should spend a high proportion of the cost of my glider to protect the profits of a commercial orgnisation. At 20:55 11 October 2010, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 11, 12:22=A0pm, Peter Scholz wrote: Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote: Hi Gang =A0 =A0I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 glide= rs be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports. Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen. Dave On Oct 11, 9:54 am, Karen =A0wrote: Lessons to be learned? http://avherald.com/h?article=3D4320f1c2 Join the discussion. I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident report. 1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D) and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65 and =A0surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or 1700AGL/FL100) 2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial (heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsr=FCck ridge) and many XC flights go along there. 3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. =A0Also the situatuion of approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed. 4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this. Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion contact with FIS will normally suffice. 5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E! 6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected" airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh those glider pilots behave totally legal. 7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be passed on the the approaching traffic. In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the =A0rule "see and be seen" is to obey. -- Peter Scholz ASW24 JE Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to adopt transponders. Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider? And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places. The two just do not mix well. Darryl |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 11, 2:19*pm, Peter Scholz
wrote: Am 11.10.2010 22:55, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, Peter wrote: Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote: Hi Gang * * I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports. Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen. Dave On Oct 11, 9:54 am, * *wrote: Lessons to be learned? http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2 Join the discussion. I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident report. 1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D) and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65 and *surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or 1700AGL/FL100) 2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial (heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsrück ridge) and many XC flights go along there. 3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. *Also the situatuion of approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed. 4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this. Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion contact with FIS will normally suffice. 5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E! 6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected" airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh those glider pilots behave totally legal. 7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be passed on the the approaching traffic. In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the *rule "see and be seen" is to obey. -- Peter Scholz ASW24 JE Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to adopt transponders. Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider? And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places. The two just do not mix well. Darryl Darryl, in Germany, for many years because of the pure separation of commercial traffic and gliders by the different airspace they use, there was no need for transponders in gliders. In the last years, this has changed a bit, as more and more airports are beeing used by commercial carriers that serve the German market on top of the traditional "state airline" Lufthansa, and more and more restricted airspaces appear on the maps. You see more transponders in gliders now, and there are talks about making them mandatory. In fact, the Netherlands have tried to do this, but have after a few weeks asked the glider pilots to switch them off again near some major airports, because ATC just had a black cloud on there radar screens... But ambitioned XC pilots have more possibilities with transponders, because it is possible to get clearances for airspace that otherwise would not be usable by a glider, so if you have the money and the ambition, you'll get a transponder sooner or later. I think it will take some more years to make it common for XC flights,, but we try to avoid to make it mandatory, as it would make the traditional glider instruction in clubs a lot more expensive, many clubs wouldnT survive this. It's not only € 2000 for the transpionder itself, you have to get it installed and certified for each glider. This would exceed the value of many gliders used in training nowadays. -- Peter Scholz ASW24 JE I meant also to add that I am a bit worried when I see the Schiphol TMA brought up as a reason not to utilize transponders or encourage their adoption in gliders. Did local ATC express concerns that if gliders locally all adopted Mode S transponders that there would be similar problems? The problem at Schiphol was just overload of information on the controllers displays and really should have been caught by the Dutch regulators before requiring mandatory transponder carriage. There are multiple things that could be done to address this in the display system. Some were done but they need to do more. At times there seems to be some confusion that the problem was an inherent limitation in (Mode S) transponders - it was not. The sad thing is that all those Mode S transponders work great with the TCAS/ACAS systems carried in many aircraft even if the controllers displays are overloaded. BTW for those interested the current AIP supplement for the Schiphol TMA is at http://www.ivw.nl/Images/EH-eSUP-09-...247-244610.pdf or see http://www.eurocontrol.int/msa/publi...Procedure.html for some extra commentary. Darryl |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 11, 2:34*pm, Peter Purdie wrote:
Large areas of airspace are Class A-D reserved for IFR traffic under full ATC control, to ensure Caommercial Air Trafic passenger safety. Then you get low-cost carriers saving money by flying into small airports without such airspace, and taking fuel-saving short cuts through non-protected airspace. The cost of installing transponders in EASAland is substantially greater than the equipment cost due to excessive modification/certification fees. I guess 'kd6veb' just screwed one in his Sparrowhawk and wired it up. *I could do that to my glider, risk invalidating the insurance and attracting legal action from the airworthiness police. I would appreciate a logical reason why I should spend a high proportion of the cost of my glider to protect the profits of a commercial orgnisation. You install one to protect yourself, protect the plane full of innocent passengers, and protect the future of soaring in your location. As I've said I think it is entirely reasonable to approach carriers like Ryanair with suggestions for them offsetting your transponder costs (or take the tricky step of taking that battle public... does the flying public have a right to know this?). Glider organizations really need to think through whether to take on this issue or not, if not when there is eventually a fatal mid-air collision they just won't have a publicly defensible position. In areas of high density airline and fast jets and glider traffic, doing nothing looks to me like a very poor choice. I know from outside the USA it looks like the whole place is run by a bunch of cowboys, but I hate to ruin it for you... there is no "just screwing in" of transponder in the USA. A certified glider requires at least an IA/A&P sign-off or maybe a 337 field approval, an experimental one may be done by the pilot. But in either case requires a RF signal and pressure altimeter check after install and ongoing biannual RF signal tests. Approved transponder test stations are very unlikely to just sign off an inspection if they have any concerns about the transponder install. But.. yes things here are much better than the silly regulations EASA loads on glider owners in Europe. Darryl At 20:55 11 October 2010, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 11, 12:22=A0pm, Peter Scholz wrote: Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote: Hi Gang =A0 =A0I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 glide= rs be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports. Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen. Dave On Oct 11, 9:54 am, Karen =A0wrote: Lessons to be learned? http://avherald.com/h?article=3D4320f1c2 Join the discussion. I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident report. 1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D) and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65 and =A0surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or 1700AGL/FL100) 2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial (heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsr=FCck ridge) and many XC flights go along there. 3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. =A0Also the situatuion of approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed. 4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this. Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion contact with FIS will normally suffice. 5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E! 6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected" airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh those glider pilots behave totally legal. 7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be passed on the the approaching traffic. In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the =A0rule "see and be seen" is to obey. -- Peter Scholz ASW24 JE Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to adopt transponders. Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider? And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places. The two just do not mix well. Darryl |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
As both an avid glider pilot and also airline pilot, I have never seen
one jet/glider from the point of view of the other, and I do look, if I know the other is about. Transponders are essential if you want to have any chance of seeing the other at high speed. TCAS is my main alerter, especially in the US, where I am amazed that that VFR aircraft have such freedoms in busy airspace, may they continue for ever. A case in point, last night while on a night departure out of SFO on climb to 3000ft, there was a Cessna at 3500ft directly in the departure path doing what he had every right to be doing. According to TCAS, we passed directly underneath him , thank you TCAS, ATC and on behalf of the 315 sitting behind us. Airlines, and especially Ryanair, will not finance any such fitment of transponders in gliders, our salvation as glider pilots lies in the low cost development of ADS-B. In the meantime, I'm off to organise my bi-annual transponder and altimeter checks. As I've said I think it is entirely reasonable to approach carriers like Ryanair with suggestions for them offsetting your transponder costs (or take the tricky step of taking that battle public... does the flying public have a right to know this?). Glider organizations really need to think through whether to take on this issue or not, if not when there is eventually a fatal mid-air collision they just won't have a publicly defensible position. In areas of high density airline and fast jets and glider traffic, doing nothing looks to me like a very poor choice. I know from outside the USA it looks like the whole place is run by a bunch of cowboys, but I hate to ruin it for you... there is no "just screwing in" of transponder in the USA. A certified glider requires at least an IA/A&P sign-off or maybe a 337 field approval, an experimental one may be done by the pilot. But in either case requires a RF signal and pressure altimeter check after install and ongoing biannual RF signal tests. Approved transponder test stations are very unlikely to just sign off an inspection if they have any concerns about the transponder install. But.. yes things here are much better than the silly regulations EASA loads on glider owners in Europe. Darryl |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
Hi Gang
My putting a transponder into a US ultralight glider (uncertified flying machine with only an empty weight restriction of 155 pounds) might have been a first. So how did I go about it? I called everyone I knew at the FAA and told them what I proposed doing and why (to avoid a possible mid air collision with an airliner in the Reno Nevada area). They all told me, although no one would put it down in writing, that it seemed a good idea and no one could find anything in the FAA regs that specifically prohibited putting a transponder in an ultralight. However in using a transponder in a US registered aircraft requires that the transponder be certified initially and then every 2 years by an approved FAA mechanic/electrician. I said I would get that approval and I did. Finally I invited a FAA inspector to come to Minden and check out the installation and paperwork for the certification. The comment by the inspector was "I wish more people would be serious about safety as you apparently are". I learnt a lot in these discussions about the subculture of the FAA and how they approach problems. There is an underlying premise that if it isn't specifically forbidden in the regs and rules then it is permitted as long as people and property are not put in jeopardy. Dave |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 11, 4:10*pm, Russell Thorne wrote:
As both an avid glider pilot and also airline pilot, I have never seen one *jet/glider from the point of view of the other, and I do look, if I know the other is about. *Transponders are essential if you want to have any chance of seeing the other at high speed. TCAS is my main alerter, especially in the US, where I am amazed that that VFR aircraft have such freedoms in busy airspace, may they continue for ever. A case in point, last night while on a night departure out of SFO on climb to 3000ft, there was a Cessna at 3500ft directly in the departure path doing what he had every right to be doing. According to TCAS, we passed directly underneath him , thank you TCAS, ATC and on behalf of *the 315 sitting behind us. Airlines, and especially Ryanair, will not finance any such fitment of transponders in gliders, our salvation as glider pilots lies in the low cost development of ADS-B. In the meantime, I'm off to organise my bi-annual transponder and altimeter checks. *As I've said I think it is entirely reasonable to approach carriers like Ryanair with suggestions for them offsetting your transponder costs (or take the tricky step of taking that battle public... does the flying public have a right to know this?). Glider organizations really need to think through whether to take on this issue or not, if not when there is eventually a fatal mid-air collision they just won't have a publicly defensible position. In areas of high density airline and fast jets and glider traffic, doing nothing looks to me like a very poor choice. I know from outside the USA it looks like the whole place is run by a bunch of cowboys, but I hate to ruin it for you... there is no "just screwing in" of transponder in the USA. A certified glider requires at least an IA/A&P sign-off or maybe a 337 field approval, an experimental one may be done by the pilot. But in either case requires a RF signal and pressure altimeter check after install and ongoing biannual RF signal tests. Approved transponder test stations are very unlikely to just sign off an inspection if they have any concerns about the transponder install. But.. yes things here are much better than the silly regulations EASA loads on glider owners in Europe. Darryl Russell thanks for adding your airline-pilot voice to this. But you had me right up until the end point... I worry that waiting for ADS-B is likely not the answer, and at worse a dangerous distraction. ADS-B offers many interesting potential capabilities and benefits but seeing ADS-B offered as an alternative to transponders as a collision avoidance mechanism near airliners leaves me pretty concerned. And I'm awfully curious if your airliner is equipped today with TCAS II with integrated ADS-B data-in/CDTI? ADS-B data-out in gliders will not provide an airliner with an RA from its TCAS II system - something many pilots are not aware of. TCAS needs a transponder to interrogate to issue an RA. The whole topic does not get talked about much because it is implicitly assumed that threat aircraft have transponders or transponders *and* ADS-B data- out. If your airline has fitted a modern TCAS II that includes ADS-B data-in and CDTI then you will get traffic display of ADS-B data-out equipped aircraft but no RA. And you may even have have TCAS II with ADS-B data-in for TCAS "enhanced surveillance" but still no CDTI/ADS-B data-in display of traffic at all. There is no regulatory requirement for airlines or other aircraft to equip with CDTI, and no regulation likely to happen anytime soon, since standards are a bit liquid at the moment. Sure there are new TCAS II systems available that provide CDTI capability, and I expect some newer transport category aircraft to come so equipped but trying to understand when a significant fraction of airliners or fast jets will be so equipped has proven pretty frustrating. If you have an ADS- B specialist in your airline who could talk about ADS-B data-in/CDTI adoption plans I would love to talk to them. As for low-cost, we'll have to wait and see but it may well work out that the cheapest way to deploy ADS-B data-out is via a Mode S/1090ES transponder, in which case you get full TCAS compatibility via the transponder part. Costs may have more to do with market dynamics (like European Mode S adoption requirements) and worldwide addressable market vs. engineering a specific UAT product for a part of the USA low-end GA market. Modern low-cost electronics, FPGAs, high speed CMOS RF components etc. have also helped to significantly lower Mode S transponder costs beyond what was probably expected when the FAA and others started thinking about UAT technology vs. (then very) expensive Mode S transponders. Darryl |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
Darryl,
I found your fourth paragraph very confusing: ADS-B data-out in gliders will not provide an airliner with an RA from its TCAS II system - something many pilots are not aware of. TCAS needs a transponder to interrogate to issue an RA. The whole topic does not get talked about much because it is implicitly assumed that threat aircraft have transponders or transponders *and* ADS-B data- out. If your airline has fitted a modern TCAS II that includes ADS-B data-in and CDTI then you will get traffic display of ADS-B data-out equipped aircraft but no RA. And you may even have have TCAS II with ADS-B data-in for TCAS "enhanced surveillance" but still no CDTI/ADS-B data-in display of traffic at all. Are you making an assumption here that the glider in the first sentence is flying in the US and has a UAT setup to yield ADS-B data- out? Because in Europe I'm almost positive that ADS-B out can only achieved with 1090ES, which of course will indeed provide a RA from a TCAS system. -John |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 11, 6:50*pm, jcarlyle wrote:
Darryl, I found your fourth paragraph very confusing: ADS-B data-out in gliders will not provide an airliner with an RA from its TCAS II system - something many *pilots are not aware of. TCAS needs a transponder to interrogate to issue an RA. The whole topic does not get talked about much because it is implicitly assumed that threat aircraft have transponders or transponders *and* ADS-B data- out. If your airline has fitted a modern TCAS II that includes ADS-B data-in and CDTI then you will get traffic display of ADS-B data-out equipped aircraft but no RA. And you may even have have TCAS II with ADS-B data-in for TCAS "enhanced surveillance" but still no CDTI/ADS-B data-in display of traffic at all. Are you making an assumption here that the glider in the first sentence is flying in the US and has a UAT setup to yield ADS-B data- out? Because in Europe I'm almost positive that ADS-B out can only achieved with 1090ES, which of course will indeed provide a RA from a TCAS system. -John John thanks sorry if I confused things. Yes I was taking about the USA, this thread flopped geographies several times, I had assumed that Russell was also talking about the USA where ADS-B over UAT is a link layer option, I'm not sure how else to understand Russell's comment "our salvation as glider pilots lies in the low cost development of ADS-B" [presumably as opposed to transponders which was the topic up tot that point]. I also point out later in my post that Mode S with 1090ES data-out will indeed interoperate fully with TCAS II. But to be really clear... In Europe and most other places ADS-B will be over 1090ES only (thankfully the European based work on VDL never ended up being supported as a link layer for ADS-B). And as John points out since those ADS-B data-out systems are also Mode S transponders they will be fully compatible with TCAS II. And technically its possible to build a 1090ES data-out transmitter that does not implement transponder functions, but nobody is doing that or announced any plans to do so, but once you go to all that effort to do 1090ES data-out it might as well be a full Mode S transponder. Darryl |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
No-one seems to have commented on the report that the gliders in the near miss were possibly near cloudbase. We all know that in sailplanes height is everything and just about every soaring pilot regularly ignores the regulations requiring minimum clearances from cloud. Maybe flying in Britain and South Africa desensitized me to this issue - flying in clouds seemed quite normal in both places and even I had one gyro instrument back in those days. However, I don't see any real difference here in the USA - pilots routinely climb under clouds until visibility gets fuzzy. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised if commercial aircraft get a shock to find gliders where they aren't supposed to be, especially as they descend through cloud. It's also my view that anyone flying a glider in an area of high commercial traffic without a transponder is plain nuts. Mine was out for repair for a few weeks and I got to count an awful lot of rivets on airliners on approach to Tucson International - they pass right over our gliderport. I even got to see passengers faces on one and I don't think they were delighted to see me so close up! I'll take all the electronic countermeasures I can get! Mike |
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 |