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
  #41  
Old September 28th 17, 04:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 6:49:18 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Exactly and the only practical approach to take. What inside s transponder makes it so expensive? Most of the time in gliding it's that the market is so small, free market principals have no effect.

Dennis
DC


Transponders have a fairly impressive amount of electronics, firmware and RF engineering in them. It used to be (1970s-1990s) seen to be obscenely expensive to deliver Mode S capabilities (much more expensive than Mode C). That maybe helped push decisions to develop dual-link ADS-B in the USA which ultimately complicated things... and I suspect slowed overall ADS-B Out adoption and helped increased costs.

One significant thing that happened with transponders in the 1990s is modern FPGAs allowed vendors to shrink lots of hardware complexity and reduce costs. A Mode S transponder is a complex piece of kit, its emulating old Mode A and C transponders, delivers impressive 25' altitude resolution, is able to transmit aircraft data, able to receive legacy TIS-A traffic data, and do ADS-B Out data as well. That you can buy one for as little a $2k is pretty amazing.

FPGA helped greatly reduce costs but so much of the costs are regulatory and compliance related. Look at the long list of RTCA and TSO specs that a transponder like a TT-22 meets. It's interesting to ask manufacturers what it would cost to ship an empty box--it's a serious fraction of the price of one of these transponders.

There is no way that a transponder could ever be built just for the gliding community. The development costs would never be recovered. Luckily Trig and other manufactures happen to make a general purpose transponder in a small form factor and low power consumption that is useful for us.

---

And for folks that don't know me or why I'm so interested (or pig headed) about transponders, ADS-B, FLARM etc. I've got a background in microwave engineering and research and technology. And was already interested in this stuff, and got much more interested in it after one day flying out of Minden in a Duo Discus on our way back to the airport when the Hawker 800 and ASG29 mid-air occurred. We knew after a short while that Hawker was down OK but they had not yet located the glider pilot. We assumed the worse and thought he was dead, and remember tieing down the Duo next to his crew who were waiting for news. Since that time I have also lost a friend in a glider-towplane mid-air collision. This stuff gets real very quick.

Some of the responses to events like the Hawker mid-air was am increasing focus on the possibility of mythical cheap UAT technology that seemed to me very unlikely to eventuate, and did not, and even if it had would have been totally incompatible with TCAS so should have been a nonstarter. Unfortunately for some years the discussion of mythical UAT products helped encourage some pilots to wait for future ware, and discouraged some adoption of transponders where they were really needed. That UAT fixation also worked in ways to not encourage FLARM availability in the USA. I spent a fair amount of time trying to correct ideas about how this UAT futureware will fix problems and magically cost so little, etc.

Close encounters with airliners and fast jets and gliders happen much more than people think. Monday is another. A few years after the Hawker midair we had a close encounter between an airliner and a (transponder less) glider in the same frigging Carson Valley area. Maybe just to show their seriousness about that issue the FAA turned up to interview the pilot with FBI special agents in tow. There have been multiple close encounters with fast jets including the jet of the owner of the Examiner publishing company, that got the glider community bad press in his publications for a few years. There have been other non-airline or fast jet mid-air collisions with gliders over the last decade or two, a glider on tow in Colorado with a Cirrus, a towplane and glider in California, and multiple glider on glider mid-air collisions in contests. Hopefully PowerFLARM is the right tool for those later cases and PowerFLARM adoption seems to have helped.

Ultimately the development of TABS was a nice direction, fully compatible with TCAS, some of that was inspired by the early low cost UAT ideas, some encouraged by FLARM, some by other low-power Mode S initiatives, it combines Mode S and 1090ES out with lower cost GPS technology. But the FAA frustratingly left it dangling with no adoption path for certified gliders. And a sword dangling over our heads that if any (experimental gliders) adopts TABS and then gliders lose the ADS-B out exemption affected pilots may have to throw out say the TN72 GPS and replace it with a TN70. A really crazy idea, if this is ever going to be usable and affordable the FAA has to help kick start TABS adoption and help the way for pilots willing to pay to install it now and start to get costs down for everybody. For disclosure I provided some small help to vendors providing input on the development of the TSO-C199/TABS standard. But again TABS and ADS-B Out is getting far ahead here, the real issue in the context of this thread is transponder adoption in busy traffic areas.

And some of my personal close encounters....

Thermalling a few miles from the Panoche VOR, with transponder. As I come around a C152 comes right through my thermal circle at my altitude, came head on out of nowhere, and blended well into the cloudy background. Flying inbound to the VOR. Student may have had a hood on. That convinced me to buy a Xaon PCAS. Which over the years helped provide several useful warning like...

Thermalling in the Mendocino mountains, transponder and PCAS. Several gliders hanging around for a friendly contest start. I get a PCAS alert at close altitude, looking like crazy and see him, coming over a hundred feet or so above me is a DC-7 fire bomber. I assume he did not see me at all and just let him go over.

And then there is are times where it all just works, like with Travis approach, transitioning their very busy airspace on flight following, controllers being fantastic and routing traffic and asking me if I have all the C5s on final visual. Uh yes I do (and they all have TCAS II). Or talking to Reno approach (now NOCAL) and being transponder equipped in the Carson valley and hearing and seeing B737 routed safely around you. That is a great feeling.
  #43  
Old September 28th 17, 06:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 9:50:41 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
wrote on 9/26/2017 5:20 PM:
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)


$1800 for the GPS seems unrealistic, given I can make the Dynon Skyview with trig
transponder in my Phoenix 2020 compliant for only $500 for the GPS.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

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


Eric

I think the cost estimates here are reasonable if the glider is certified, if experimental its going to be less. And the category is not made clear.

If the glider is certified, the only GPS he can practically use to meet 2020 carriage requirements with a TT22 transponder is the Trig TN70 which is ~$2,000 with wiring harness, plus the cost of antenna, plus installation. Plus a TT-22 which is $2000-$2,200 plus installation.

If you are looking at the Dynon SV-GPS-2020 GPS Receiver/Antenna it is a "meet performance requirement of TSO-C145" device, not actually TSO-C145 and cannot be used in a certified aircraft. Your Phoenix is light-sports and does not need to use TSO'ed avionics, so you are fine. On the evolutionary ladder it offers benefits between the TN72 (TSO-C199, but not "meets TSO-C145") and TN70 (full actual TSO-C145). I am not sure but that Dynon SV-GPS-2020 GPS Receiver/Antenna may not work with standard trig TT22 transponders. If it did then I'd be more tempted to use that than the TN72 TABS GPS because the Dynon SV-GPS-2020 would provide 2020 ADS-B Out compliance if gliders ever lost the ADS-B Out exception. Whereas with todays lack of any regulations about TABS the TN72 would not.... (that is just messed up, as I've already mentioned in this thread).

The Trig TN72 is currently priced at ~$350+$300 antenna, a bit above the Dynon GPS 9with integral antenna) at $590.

it may be the low aggressive price (for a meets TSO-C145 devices) on the Dynon SV-GPS-2020 may in part be because Dynon wanted to provide users of the previous generation similar GPS receivers a low-cost upgrade path since the FAA changes with ADS-B compatibility in 2016 affected those older GPS receiver based systems (they would no longer trigger ADS-B ground services). Either way it's a great price and I hope we can hear how it goes for you if you install in your Phoenix.



  #44  
Old September 28th 17, 03:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

Here is a thought, curious what others think.

How about a 2 tier certification for these systems?
First, and least expensive, is "day only VFR". This would be made up of COTS GPS units and "performs like" transmitters.
Second, and more expensive, Day/night and IFR certified.

The first type is likely what is currently allowed in US experimental. You don't really need the precision since it just gives a heads up and the visibility is good enough to allow you to find the potential conflict aircraft. These units may also have a max height restriction......comments on this?

The second type NEEDS the precision since visibility may be next to "0" so you need the precision.

Yes, it means the FAA will need to make changes. Then again, we now have a sport recreation pilot certificate that has similar restrictions.

If the FAA agrees (possibly with nudging from AOPA, SSA and others), it may make adoption that much more likely.

Thoughts?
  #45  
Old September 28th 17, 04:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 4:40:10 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
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.


Hi Darryl,

Neither of those two guys speak for the club (and neither, for that matter, do I). Both seem to be afflicted with keyboard induced ODD. Neither, in person, seems inclined to trivialize a near accident with hundreds of potential fatalities.

Post Mills is about as podunk as remains in the lower 48. Burlington is a complete non-factor (big rocks East of Burlington might have something to do with this) and fast traffic in/out of Montpelier and Lebanon is modest (I see 'em on PowerFlarm). Transponders would be a complete waste of resources in our club fleet. They would be interrogated only very rarely. Transponders would not be a total waste for our XC guys but I'd personally rather see them spend their money on PowerFlarm first.

Wave soaring with atc implications chiefly occurs at Mt Washington and we have an excellent working relationship with Boston Center that allows us a 10 NM radius window to support our wave camp operations.

As far as potential for conflicts with fast jets, the real risk for us is military. And here, there is no help. They don't use ADS-B, they don't have TCAS. This is a much bigger beef, a much more dangerous trivial attitude, than some smartass on r.a.s.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8
  #46  
Old September 28th 17, 05:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Don Grillo[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

A little background about the Class B at O’Hare and how it works.

I have been flying airliners out of O’Hare for 31 years. I also fly gliders in the Chicagoland area. I live 23 miles due west of runway 10C at O’Hare. The Class B Airspace that extends west over my house ranges from 10000 ft down to 4000 ft. With an elevation of 890 feet, that puts airliners on approach to 10C at 3110 ft AGL over my house, 23 miles from touchdown. In VFR conditions, (like it was last Monday), Chicago ATC will descend aircraft to the lowest altitude possible and ask the pilot if he has the airport in site. If the pilot acknowledges he has the airport in sight, ATC will clear him for a visual approach. If the pilot accepts the visual approach, this relieves the controller from providing separation and traffic advisories. The pilot is on his own and can maneuver his aircraft as he/she wishes to landing.

Mondays weather at KRFD (Rockford, which is south of Beloit and Janesville) was reporting between 8000 and 9500 scattered clouds in mid afternoon. (An excellent soaring day for the Midwest in September).

Now let’s look at the Janesville 8 Arrival into O’Hare. It shows an “Expect clearance to cross” 30 miles northwest of the Janesville VOR at 13000 ft. The next crossing altitude is the Teddy intersection (22 miles southeast of the Janesville VOR) at 7000 ft. That 7000 ft crossing is 42 miles from ORD.

HOWEVER!, this aircraft was not on the Janesville arrival. This a/c was receiving vectors from ATC (in my opinion). Looking at the flightaware track of this flight, it came from the north, over Wisconsin heading south, west of Janesville, then made a slight left turn towards Beloit Wi. The aircraft now at 10000 ft made a left 360 degree turn followed by a right 270 which put it on a heading of 110. The airliner was given a clearance to descend while still west of South Beloit. The trace shows it at 9000 ft west of South Beloit descending at 1000ft/m. At 8000 feet the airliner was approximately 1 mile southwest of the Beloit gliderport. The a/c leveled off 7 miles north of Poplar Grove Airport at 7000 feet, 57 miles from ORD, well outside the Class B airspace. It then flew 22 miles at 7000ft to Woodstock Illinois before turning south and then east into O’Hare.

What we don’t know is why this a/c made the turns near Beloit. If, for example, is was for a traffic advisory, ATC would have just given the a/c one or two course direction turns to get out of the way of the traffic. Were the 360 and 270 turns for spacing into O’Hare? The ATC voice tapes and data trace will reveal why.

Why was this a/c given a clearance to descend to 7000 feet so far from ORD?

In my opinion and with none of us knowing all the facts, there is a good chance we will find their was some controller error in this situation.

Ref: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U.../KORD/tracklog

F2
  #47  
Old September 28th 17, 05:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicagoyesterday?

I just got a reply from Trig regarding my query on a TN70 installation
to go along with my TT22 in my (certificated) Stemme. Their reply said
that I could use a TN72 in a TABS installation. For the extra money, I
think I'll go ahead with the TN70 out of concern that they misunderstood
that the Stemme is certificated or that TABS won't give me the
situational awareness that I want or that the glider exemption will one
day disappear.

On 9/27/2017 7:43 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 6:20:45 PM UTC-7, wrote:
The least costly way I know of alerting others is purchasing a transponder, about the same price as a radio.

It looks to me like this gold plated system's cost is about 4x the cost of a radio, and that makes me grumpy. (Or perhaps it could be ARG (Age Related Grumpy, or both.) ;-)

I'm also grumpy because this is about 10% the cost of the glider. If the airlines, with more political clout, had to pay 10% for ADSB, ADSB would be much different.

But my grumps aside, this thread is actually useful because it made me think that except for battery issues, my reasons for grumpy are no more compelling than the rest of the GA community. These days, the battery issues are not so bad. For a glider with lithium, a 4 hour flight is a no brainer. I can see 6 or 8 without much trouble. 12 may be a head scratcher, but hey, I'm an engineer and if I get to where I need it, I bet I can figure out a way.

In other words, I'm to the state where I think there should not be a glider exemption for gliders flying where airlines are likely to be. I think this even though it will cost me a small fortune to buy a system which is way more complicated that is necessary for the task at hand.

I say this because I don't see any other reliable way to provide separation between my cross country butt and an airline. An interesting question is are there other reasonable, reliable separation rules which might work for non-cross country flights?

Perhaps if within a published distance (5nm?) of a glider symbol on the chart and below cloudbase, other traffic won't depend on electronic means for traffic separation. Such a compromise is bad because it raises the bar for cross country, but at least it might provide a safe glider exemption for how many gliders are actually used. (Some GA might benefit from the same separation plan?)

Trig TT22 is around $2k plus installation.

I'm thinking most radios are around $1,300 to $1,500 plus installation. A good comparison point BTW since radios are an important safety option.

So I don't agree with 4X for a transponder, maybe closer to 1.5X-2X all up, being aware as well that individual installation costs can always vary signifcantly.

If we have to install 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out then sure, that might be in the 4X range. The silliness there is so much of the safety benefit, certainly vs airliners and fast jets, is obtained with just a transponder. I would hope voluntary use of transponders would help to prevent potential incidents and accidents that are likely to remove both the transponder and ADS-B out exemptions.

If it was not for the possibility of ADS-B Out becoming required in gliders I'd be suggesting pilots who fly in/near busy traffic areas and who want to use a transponder look to pick up cheaper used Mode C units. That may still make sense if you find one cheap, but you won't have a ADS-B Out upgrade path if gliders lose their ADS-B Out exemption.


--
Dan, 5J
  #48  
Old September 28th 17, 05:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?


This is essentially what you have with TABS. A simpler GPS for ADS-B approval able to be based on COTS GPS but not to meet the 2020 Mandate. This is all an old discussion that has been gone over here before. You are wasting effort trying to reinvent the wheel. Time would likely be better spend understanding more what today’s technical options really are and working to improve those and regulations around them.

You can’t just have any old COTS GPS connected up to some ADS-B Out systems and have others see them without lots of potential issues. For the system to work both IFR aircraft and ATC needs to “see” VFR aircraft and trust their ADS-B Out GPS is working and accurate (both for not false positive threats or negative notice of real threats). The current situation where the ADS-B ground infrastructure and IFR ADS-B In system ignore SIL=0 (is true COTS GPS) is because of concern about what GPS source issues could dobtontge system.

FLARM for example manages their system by using specific GPS chipsets and lots of knowledge. FLARM is *not* COTS. You cannot just connect any old GPS received to a FLARM, for good reason.

The development of TSO-C199/TABS was specifically to allow COTS type GPS sources to be used in ADS-B Out systems. To reduce costs, by simplifying some requirements and providing simpler approval processes for devices. A whole slew of organizations including TRIG, FLARM, MITRE, the SSA, and the FAA has input into TSO-C199/TABS. It is a five deal and early products like the TN72 exist. But the FAA never delivered things like regulations to allow installation in certified gliders. Issues like seeking a solution for that are where it would be more useful for the glider community to invest effort.

And again for the airliner scenario here, ADS-B is a red-herring. Stick a transponder in the glider, problem solved.
  #49  
Old September 28th 17, 05:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicagoyesterday?

Since I now have a PowerFLARM portable and "see" among other things
ADS-B traffic, I would like to see useful data about that traffic. The
PF portable display is abysmal but I get a really nice B-52 shaped icon
on my ClearNav display showing it's relative position and direction,
while there's a climb/level flight/descent icon, there's nothing about
altitude.* For that, I have to go back to the PF display to see its
relative altitude, but the PF only displays the relative altitude of the
nearest sensed aircraft.* "Fine", you might say, but of what value is
knowing that there's an airliner 2,000' above me and only 0.1 miles
away, when there's a glider at my altitude and 0.15 miles away?* But
then I could reach across the cockpit (side-by-side two seater) and
fumble with the Streak/XCSoar which will give me all the information if
I can push all the buttons to select the aircraft of interest on a small
touch screen while still flying the glider and looking outside.

Maybe a feature request to ClearNav will get a software update to show
relative altitude of ADS-B targets will get a positive result.

On 9/27/2017 9:36 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 6:49:18 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Exactly and the only practical approach to take. What inside s transponder makes it so expensive? Most of the time in gliding it's that the market is so small, free market principals have no effect.

Dennis
DC

Transponders have a fairly impressive amount of electronics, firmware and RF engineering in them. It used to be (1970s-1990s) seen to be obscenely expensive to deliver Mode S capabilities (much more expensive than Mode C). That maybe helped push decisions to develop dual-link ADS-B in the USA which ultimately complicated things... and I suspect slowed overall ADS-B Out adoption and helped increased costs.

One significant thing that happened with transponders in the 1990s is modern FPGAs allowed vendors to shrink lots of hardware complexity and reduce costs. A Mode S transponder is a complex piece of kit, its emulating old Mode A and C transponders, delivers impressive 25' altitude resolution, is able to transmit aircraft data, able to receive legacy TIS-A traffic data, and do ADS-B Out data as well. That you can buy one for as little a $2k is pretty amazing.

FPGA helped greatly reduce costs but so much of the costs are regulatory and compliance related. Look at the long list of RTCA and TSO specs that a transponder like a TT-22 meets. It's interesting to ask manufacturers what it would cost to ship an empty box--it's a serious fraction of the price of one of these transponders.

There is no way that a transponder could ever be built just for the gliding community. The development costs would never be recovered. Luckily Trig and other manufactures happen to make a general purpose transponder in a small form factor and low power consumption that is useful for us.

---

And for folks that don't know me or why I'm so interested (or pig headed) about transponders, ADS-B, FLARM etc. I've got a background in microwave engineering and research and technology. And was already interested in this stuff, and got much more interested in it after one day flying out of Minden in a Duo Discus on our way back to the airport when the Hawker 800 and ASG29 mid-air occurred. We knew after a short while that Hawker was down OK but they had not yet located the glider pilot. We assumed the worse and thought he was dead, and remember tieing down the Duo next to his crew who were waiting for news. Since that time I have also lost a friend in a glider-towplane mid-air collision. This stuff gets real very quick.

Some of the responses to events like the Hawker mid-air was am increasing focus on the possibility of mythical cheap UAT technology that seemed to me very unlikely to eventuate, and did not, and even if it had would have been totally incompatible with TCAS so should have been a nonstarter. Unfortunately for some years the discussion of mythical UAT products helped encourage some pilots to wait for future ware, and discouraged some adoption of transponders where they were really needed. That UAT fixation also worked in ways to not encourage FLARM availability in the USA. I spent a fair amount of time trying to correct ideas about how this UAT futureware will fix problems and magically cost so little, etc.

Close encounters with airliners and fast jets and gliders happen much more than people think. Monday is another. A few years after the Hawker midair we had a close encounter between an airliner and a (transponder less) glider in the same frigging Carson Valley area. Maybe just to show their seriousness about that issue the FAA turned up to interview the pilot with FBI special agents in tow. There have been multiple close encounters with fast jets including the jet of the owner of the Examiner publishing company, that got the glider community bad press in his publications for a few years. There have been other non-airline or fast jet mid-air collisions with gliders over the last decade or two, a glider on tow in Colorado with a Cirrus, a towplane and glider in California, and multiple glider on glider mid-air collisions in contests. Hopefully PowerFLARM is the right tool for those later cases and PowerFLARM adoption seems to have helped.

Ultimately the development of TABS was a nice direction, fully compatible with TCAS, some of that was inspired by the early low cost UAT ideas, some encouraged by FLARM, some by other low-power Mode S initiatives, it combines Mode S and 1090ES out with lower cost GPS technology. But the FAA frustratingly left it dangling with no adoption path for certified gliders. And a sword dangling over our heads that if any (experimental gliders) adopts TABS and then gliders lose the ADS-B out exemption affected pilots may have to throw out say the TN72 GPS and replace it with a TN70. A really crazy idea, if this is ever going to be usable and affordable the FAA has to help kick start TABS adoption and help the way for pilots willing to pay to install it now and start to get costs down for everybody. For disclosure I provided some small help to vendors providing input on the development of the TSO-C199/TABS standard. But again TABS and ADS-B Out is getting far ahead here, the real issue in the context of this thread is transponder adoption in busy traffic areas.

And some of my personal close encounters....

Thermalling a few miles from the Panoche VOR, with transponder. As I come around a C152 comes right through my thermal circle at my altitude, came head on out of nowhere, and blended well into the cloudy background. Flying inbound to the VOR. Student may have had a hood on. That convinced me to buy a Xaon PCAS. Which over the years helped provide several useful warning like...

Thermalling in the Mendocino mountains, transponder and PCAS. Several gliders hanging around for a friendly contest start. I get a PCAS alert at close altitude, looking like crazy and see him, coming over a hundred feet or so above me is a DC-7 fire bomber. I assume he did not see me at all and just let him go over.

And then there is are times where it all just works, like with Travis approach, transitioning their very busy airspace on flight following, controllers being fantastic and routing traffic and asking me if I have all the C5s on final visual. Uh yes I do (and they all have TCAS II). Or talking to Reno approach (now NOCAL) and being transponder equipped in the Carson valley and hearing and seeing B737 routed safely around you. That is a great feeling.


--
Dan, 5J

  #50  
Old September 28th 17, 06:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

Thanks Don: I know one flight into O'Hare on a United flight we descended to 12,000 ft 50 miles out "Looking for a smoother ride". I was nervous as hell we were in the realm of GA aircraft, I would have much preferred to stay in Class A or above 15,000 ft at least for as long as possible.

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 9:20:13 AM UTC-7, Don Grillo wrote:
A little background about the Class B at O’Hare and how it works.

I have been flying airliners out of O’Hare for 31 years. I also fly gliders in the Chicagoland area. I live 23 miles due west of runway 10C at O’Hare. The Class B Airspace that extends west over my house ranges from 10000 ft down to 4000 ft. With an elevation of 890 feet, that puts airliners on approach to 10C at 3110 ft AGL over my house, 23 miles from touchdown. In VFR conditions, (like it was last Monday), Chicago ATC will descend aircraft to the lowest altitude possible and ask the pilot if he has the airport in site. If the pilot acknowledges he has the airport in sight, ATC will clear him for a visual approach. If the pilot accepts the visual approach, this relieves the controller from providing separation and traffic advisories. The pilot is on his own and can maneuver his aircraft as he/she wishes to landing.

Mondays weather at KRFD (Rockford, which is south of Beloit and Janesville) was reporting between 8000 and 9500 scattered clouds in mid afternoon. (An excellent soaring day for the Midwest in September).

Now let’s look at the Janesville 8 Arrival into O’Hare. It shows an “Expect clearance to cross” 30 miles northwest of the Janesville VOR at 13000 ft. The next crossing altitude is the Teddy intersection (22 miles southeast of the Janesville VOR) at 7000 ft. That 7000 ft crossing is 42 miles from ORD.

HOWEVER!, this aircraft was not on the Janesville arrival. This a/c was receiving vectors from ATC (in my opinion). Looking at the flightaware track of this flight, it came from the north, over Wisconsin heading south, west of Janesville, then made a slight left turn towards Beloit Wi. The aircraft now at 10000 ft made a left 360 degree turn followed by a right 270 which put it on a heading of 110. The airliner was given a clearance to descend while still west of South Beloit. The trace shows it at 9000 ft west of South Beloit descending at 1000ft/m. At 8000 feet the airliner was approximately 1 mile southwest of the Beloit gliderport. The a/c leveled off 7 miles north of Poplar Grove Airport at 7000 feet, 57 miles from ORD, well outside the Class B airspace. It then flew 22 miles at 7000ft to Woodstock Illinois before turning south and then east into O’Hare.

What we don’t know is why this a/c made the turns near Beloit. If, for example, is was for a traffic advisory, ATC would have just given the a/c one or two course direction turns to get out of the way of the traffic. Were the 360 and 270 turns for spacing into O’Hare? The ATC voice tapes and data trace will reveal why.

Why was this a/c given a clearance to descend to 7000 feet so far from ORD?

In my opinion and with none of us knowing all the facts, there is a good chance we will find their was some controller error in this situation.

Ref: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U.../KORD/tracklog

F2

 




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 07:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.