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
  #21  
Old September 27th 17, 06:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
firsys
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it he http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687

The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.

I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.

The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually.. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.

When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…


In flying out of a small private airport (cyrp) and finding that
some of the aircraft do not see me, I am installing a 10W LED strobe.
In the next week or so , I shall get reports of how useful this is as an alert.

Glad to see the "near miss" (= collision) is being replaced with
close encounter , or near collision!

John Firth
Ads
  #22  
Old September 27th 17, 07:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

Hey Darryl, PMSC exists the the USA and still supports people and pilots constitutional rights on free speech . Don't freakin squeeze my fellow club member. That's as arrogant as it gets. You want a solution? It begins with lowing the cost of Flarm. I can't afford another $1600 toy either. We don't all ow 100plus k gliders.

That's is the solution. GA participation is in decline and some of that is cost. Get the cost down and pilots will buy.

Dennis DC
  #23  
Old September 27th 17, 08:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 450
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

Hey Sean:

You quoted my message and while you appear to be replying to someone... it doesn't seem to be me. Hope you can sort that out!

best,
Evan

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 12:55:45 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
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


  #24  
Old September 27th 17, 08:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,967
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 11:48:09 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Hey Darryl, PMSC exists the the USA and still supports people and pilots constitutional rights on free speech . Don't freakin squeeze my fellow club member. That's as arrogant as it gets. You want a solution? It begins with lowing the cost of Flarm. I can't afford another $1600 toy either. We don't all ow 100plus k gliders.

That's is the solution. GA participation is in decline and some of that is cost. Get the cost down and pilots will buy.

Dennis DC


Are you posting on behalf of Caddo Mills Soaring Club or as a individual?

He had his free speech... and it's a pile of absolutely childish crap, and dangerous overall to this sport. So I'll use my free speech to point that out however the hell I want. And if that does not suit you can go pound dirt..

I don't understand what FLARM has to do with any of this, I would have hoped you would be should be thinking about transponders in this context. I really hope you are not that confused, and I hope that confusion extends to the rest of Caddo Mills Soaring Club? The common issue I seem to be hearing from that direction is some serious chip on your shoulders about cost of doing anything. Well even if there is no hard justification for needing transponder and ADS-B Out carriage in the area of your club you might have that rammed down your throat if gliders lose the transponder and ADS-B Out carriage exemption. And that will well be helped along by childish public posts by your members displaying a worrying safety attitude. What do FAA and NTSB staff reading this forum think when they see someone mouthing off about "spilt drinks" when we just had an apparent near miss between an airliner and a glider.




  #25  
Old September 27th 17, 08:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,967
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 11:48:09 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Hey Darryl, PMSC exists the the USA and still supports people and pilots constitutional rights on free speech . Don't freakin squeeze my fellow club member. That's as arrogant as it gets. You want a solution? It begins with lowing the cost of Flarm. I can't afford another $1600 toy either. We don't all ow 100plus k gliders.

That's is the solution. GA participation is in decline and some of that is cost. Get the cost down and pilots will buy.

Dennis DC


Are you posting as a representative of Post Mills Soaring Club (PMSC)? The club agrees with the posts trivializing this as "spilt drinks"?

Gregg has his free speech right and posted a bunch of childish dangers crap and I used my free speech right and replied. If you don't like that you can go pound sand.

FLARM? FLARM is not the issue here, its transponder carriage near busy airspace. I am concerned that you are still confused by that, and concerned that confusion may also extend to the rest of the Post Mill Soaring Club (again are you posting on behalf of the club?).

What do you think representatives of the FAA and NTSB reading this public forum think when they see asinine comments about 'spilt drinks" when discussing what seems like a serious NMAC incident involving an airliner?

Costs are going to get real quickly for your club if the transponder and ADS-B out exemptions are removed. Something I used to hope is not needed, but right now, just in this r.a.s. thread alone, the combination of childish attitudes and confusion between FLARM and transponder worries me that the glider community in the USA may not be responsible enough to be trusted with voluntary Transponder (and in future ADS-B Out) use.




  #26  
Old September 27th 17, 09:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

I am post for myself and and backing a club member from from an arrogabt asshole like you. There a many ways you can have a discussion, but you tried to squeeze him. Where I come from we protect our friends. The day that you tmy face and we will see what gets pounded. Have a discussion, present your case and understand both sides.

The issue is not resistance it's cost. No one wants to be part of causing a accident. Get the cost down

Dennis
DC
  #27  
Old September 27th 17, 09:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,967
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 1:07:09 PM UTC-7, wrote:
I am post for myself and and backing a club member from from an arrogabt asshole like you. There a many ways you can have a discussion, but you tried to squeeze him. Where I come from we protect our friends. The day that you tmy face and we will see what gets pounded. Have a discussion, present your case and understand both sides.

The issue is not resistance it's cost. No one wants to be part of causing a accident. Get the cost down

Dennis
DC


So how do you personally feel about trivializing an NMAC with an airliner as "spilt drinks".

The issue _seems_ very much resistance to cost, you keep mentioning it. If Post Mills Soaring Club (PSMC) can develop low cost soaring, that's great. If you can fly safely in areas where transponders don't make sense that is great as well. I hope folks that understand the safety issues are invoked in making those transponder/no-transponder decisions.

Pilots who post such extreme alarming safety related statements on a public forum invite examination of their own safety related behavior, and if they fly with a club, of the operation of that club. I had no idea about PSMC until these post got me giving it a quick look. Straight off the bat I see it is located close between two VORs, and there will be IFR traffic overhead going into Burlington, and the club conduct wave flights, etc.. What percentage of the Post Mills glider Club fleet is transponder equipped? Of the gliders which conduct higher flights in Wave? Does PMSC have local cooperation/procedures with ATC etc? I have no idea, please let us know--that might completely change the impression of your club so far given by one of your members.


  #28  
Old September 27th 17, 11:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 188
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

PMSC operates in accordance with all applicable CFRs. Personally if anyone asks the gov't to increase the burden of law on myself and my friends then I will ask the gov't to increase the burden on them. Fair is fair and all in the name of safety. If mandating ADSB for gliders is worth it, because safety for airliners, then so must banning gliding for the safety of airliners. Think of the children flying in airliners, we can't trust collision avoidance to the pittance of battery power in a glider. Pittance of power, no redundancy, and to top it off often owner designed and maintained electrical systems. *shudder* If banning gliding saves one child then it is worth it. Bend the knee in the name of safety often enough and eventually you will not be able to get off the ground.
  #29  
Old September 27th 17, 11:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,967
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 3:31:46 PM UTC-7, wrote:
PMSC operates in accordance with all applicable CFRs. Personally if anyone asks the gov't to increase the burden of law on myself and my friends then I will ask the gov't to increase the burden on them. Fair is fair and all in the name of safety. If mandating ADSB for gliders is worth it, because safety for airliners, then so must banning gliding for the safety of airliners. Think of the children flying in airliners, we can't trust collision avoidance to the pittance of battery power in a glider. Pittance of power, no redundancy, and to top it off often owner designed and maintained electrical systems. *shudder* If banning gliding saves one child then it is worth it. Bend the knee in the name of safety often enough and eventually you will not be able to get off the ground.


You are an utter idiot.
  #30  
Old September 28th 17, 12:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
I just listened to this news on a major news network and pseudo confirmed it he http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1374687

The newsperson actually said, "Why didn't this glider have a transponder, why wasn't this glider talking to someone, how is this possible…" live on the air.

I continue to believe that the sailplane community needs to fully adopt ADSB and transponders whenever outside of 3 miles of the airport (for basic training). Getting an exemption was a big mistake. Sailplane flying cross country, near major airspace, or at high altitudes should absolutely have ADSB and/or 250 watt transponders.

The awful scenario we are all worried about IS going to happen eventually.. Its simply a matter of: A) was the gliding community pro safety or B) was the gliding community defiant and trying to wiggle out of safety and make special exceptions for itself.

When IT happens, the result will be unfortunate if we are still on the B path, as we are now…


Pere,

That is an excellent analogy and I could not agree more. Unfortunately, the political weight of any discussion these days will have the clout of the safety of passengers as having foremost weight in the discussion of what ensues after a collision with an airliner carrying passengers. The days of open cockpit daredevil biplanes flown in the yesteryears of aviation history are long gone in terms of requirements for safety. It is incumbent on glider pilots to show concern in real action, that is, outfitting gliders soaring cross country to outfit their gliders with electronic means of warnings and alerts. Does that mean even a 2-33 flying patterns at a local airport for training purposes need install a transponder? No, but others who go cross country should. The least costly way I know of alerting others is purchasing a transponder, about the same price as a radio. I always turn my on when flying. It may be my right to fly without it, but that wont mitigate the disaster of hundreds of lives lost if there was a collision.
 




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 12:00 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.