(USA) NTSB issues recommendations to the FAA and the SSA regarding transponder use in gliders

On Apr 1, 11:57 am, "Tim Mara" wrote:
the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where they
were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing

tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website atwww.wingsandwheels.com

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message

.. .

If you want to hurt the sport of soaring, wait till we have a mid-air with
an airliner and 150 people are killed.

Mike Schumann

wrote in message
...
On Mar 31, 8:10 pm, "BT" wrote:
If you read the NPRM for ADS-B, you'll remember that you cannot even get
above 10K MSL without ADS-B regardless of the aircraft, glider, balloon,
lawn chair... makes no matter.

So Transponders now, and ADS-B later.

BT

"Greg Arnold" wrote in message

...

I see they want to require transponders in all gliders, with the
transponders always on.

Assuming transponders become mandatory in gliders, what concerns me
most is that we may find that folks may not be willing to install
transponders in their ships. This might be especially true in older
gliders that may have a value of anywhere from $5K to perhaps $ 15 or
20K. I can see folks selling their gliders (perhaps to overseas
buyers) and giving up on the sport. We are having enough trouble
growing the sport and I'm afraid this could really hurt soaring in the
US.

Some clubs, operating on the edge, might fold as they may have to
install transponders in every 1-26 and 2-33. They may be unwilling to
comply, and as a result, disband. I am a realist and I do understand
the concerns of the NTSB, but this potential new requirement, though
not unexpected, could really have an adverse effect on soaring
operations in the US.........

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

No the problem is when you really look at it there is much more
traffic up there than we appreciate, and that is not just Reno but
many other places. See and avoid does not work, see and estimate the
traffic density does not really work either. People can underestimate
the density and overestimate their safety and continue to believe they
are doing a good job seeing and avoiding - pilots should try out a
PCAS and it may surprise them how how much stuff they missed before.
There are many places where you just can't go XC without significant
exposure to GA, commercial and military traffic but many glider pilots
are underestimating that traffic, live in a pilotage/VFR world, don't
have a feel for traffic flow with approach/departure procedures, and
without a transponder just do not fit into a radar managed traffic
control system.

Darryl

On Apr 1, 9:33 am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:48 am, wrote:



Good report. I think transponders will be necessary, and a good
thing. Remember, it just makes them required above 10,000' or in the
Class B 30 mile veil, not everywhere - just like everybody else! I
would guess that most (not all, unfortunately) training flights would
be outside the airspace where xponders would be needed.

The cost issue? We pay almost 2K$ for parachutes, glider computers
are over 2K$, etc. It just follows the trend of the sport - it isn't
cheap flying anymore (unless you stay below 10k ft). If you want to
run with the big dogs, etc..

Batteries? I would think the new technology (Nimh, etc) would allow
an Xponder to be powered all day. A non-issue, IMHO.

I just got my PCAS, so I can see the other VFR traffic (that isn't
talking to ATC but has to have a transponder), and a transponder is
next (when I figure out where to stick it in my panel).

Or, as MasterCard would put it:

Transponder and installation: $3000

Fancy battery to power said transponder: $100

Watching the Southwest 737 jinking out of your way as you core a 12
knot thermal just outside Phoenix's Class B airspace: Priceless!

Kirk
66

I also don't see the problem with this. We knew it was coming, like
what else could the NTSB possibly do? They politically just can't not
take action, leave things how they are and hope that airliner
collision does not happen. I thought the letters were well written and
appropriate and I support the FAA removing the transponder exemption.

So a local N. Califonia/Nevada rant: I've seen/heard transponders work
at Reno with traffic being diverted and I've had a close call with a
GA aircraft that also convinced me that for where I fly the
combination of a transponder first and a PCAS second are useful tools.
And in our area it is not just Reno, I also fly south of the San
Francisco Bay Area and we have heavy traffic going overhead into San
Jose who are oblivious to gliders being in the area, an issue on wave
days when we get up to their altitudes. Many of the popular XC routes
also cross several VORs and there is lots of GA traffic in the area at
all altitudes flying radials into those VORs (the ones with student
pilots in them with a IFR visor on worry me most). PCAS and Tansponder
helps with these.

The Sacramento Delta area near Travis AFB is another problem area,
where gliders fly close to or occasionally cross the Sacramento delta.
Travis AFB is the busiest military airlift operation in the USA, it
does operate on weekends at times (unlike the sectional implies) and
heavy/fast military aircraft operate outside of the marked danger zone
and there are lots of transiting GA traffic *and* Travis approach who
provide ATC services for civilian traffic in the area (a much larger
area than the Travis alert area on the sectional) are completely blind
to all non-transponder equipped aircraft to their south east because
of radar reflections from electric power windmills on the ground. I
have found Travis approach to be very easy to work with and happy to
have gliders with transponders on flight following, and they seem to
get we are gliders (they will also take position reports from non-
transponder equipped gliders). The requirement above 10,000 feet or
the 30nm veil won't require gliders in this area to have transponders
but hopefully most folk in the area are already aware of the issues.

Flying last weekend many of the gliders had transponders and Zaon MRX
(seems Santa has been kind to some pilots) and it is great to hear the
enhanced awareness on the radio as people check off who else is close
to them. Yes they all are just tools and your mileage may vary, and
again the biggest thing is not destroying the sport overnight by
taking out an airliner.

Darryl

While heading off topic, I just checked the latest San Francisco
sectional chart and the warning about radar visibility only for
transponder equipped aircraft south east of Travis AFB is now on the
sectional. Travis AFB has been working with the FAA for a while to get
this warning on the sectional, good on them for doing so.

Darryl

I agree completely.....PCAS would be a good and very affordable option for
glider pilots...
allowing (or forcing the FAA's hand)into making transponders mandatory in
gliders is going to be a real bump in the road for many (most) glider owners
and clubs...many who don't need to fly down the approach corridor of
international airports to get their kicks..
The other problem with transponders in gliders is the false sense of
security it implies....to many it is "assumed" that this is like a shield
keeping everyone else aware of their presents as they go happily flying
along with their heads down looking at the wiz-bang flight computer...this
leads to more near misses and occasional hits than electronics can
avoid....I know of no Cherokee 140's or Cezna 172's flying with TCAS on
board....and I also know of a lot more glider pilots who will insist they
only turn on the transponder when they are flying down the glideslope of
major airports..
Transponders are not the fix all for the problem, but mandatory transponders
in k6's, 2-33's and 126's will certainly have an impact on the sport as we
"knew" it.
tim

"Darryl Ramm" wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 11:57 am, "Tim Mara" wrote:
the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where
they
were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing
No the problem is when you really look at it there is much more
traffic up there than we appreciate, and that is not just Reno but
many other places. See and avoid does not work, see and estimate the
traffic density does not really work either. People can underestimate
the density and overestimate their safety and continue to believe they
are doing a good job seeing and avoiding - pilots should try out a
PCAS and it may surprise them how how much stuff they missed before.
There are many places where you just can't go XC without significant
exposure to GA, commercial and military traffic but many glider pilots
are underestimating that traffic, live in a pilotage/VFR world, don't
have a feel for traffic flow with approach/departure procedures, and
without a transponder just do not fit into a radar managed traffic
control system.

Darryl

On Apr 1, 3:23 pm, "Tim Mara" wrote:
I agree completely.....PCAS would be a good and very affordable option for
glider pilots...
allowing (or forcing the FAA's hand)into making transponders mandatory in
gliders is going to be a real bump in the road for many (most) glider owners
and clubs...many who don't need to fly down the approach corridor of
international airports to get their kicks..
The other problem with transponders in gliders is the false sense of
security it implies....to many it is "assumed" that this is like a shield
keeping everyone else aware of their presents as they go happily flying
along with their heads down looking at the wiz-bang flight computer...this
leads to more near misses and occasional hits than electronics can
avoid....I know of no Cherokee 140's or Cezna 172's flying with TCAS on
board....and I also know of a lot more glider pilots who will insist they
only turn on the transponder when they are flying down the glideslope of
major airports..
Transponders are not the fix all for the problem, but mandatory transponders
in k6's, 2-33's and 126's will certainly have an impact on the sport as we
"knew" it.
tim

"Darryl Ramm" wrote in message

...

On Apr 1, 11:57 am, "Tim Mara" wrote:
the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where
they
were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing
No the problem is when you really look at it there is much more
traffic up there than we appreciate, and that is not just Reno but
many other places. See and avoid does not work, see and estimate the
traffic density does not really work either. People can underestimate
the density and overestimate their safety and continue to believe they
are doing a good job seeing and avoiding - pilots should try out a
PCAS and it may surprise them how how much stuff they missed before.
There are many places where you just can't go XC without significant
exposure to GA, commercial and military traffic but many glider pilots
are underestimating that traffic, live in a pilotage/VFR world, don't
have a feel for traffic flow with approach/departure procedures, and
without a transponder just do not fit into a radar managed traffic
control system.

Darryl

Tim

I do fly in high traffic density areas (with transponder and PCAS and
talking to ATC when appropriate) and know many other pilots that also
at least have a transponder in their ship and none that I know have
this naive view of transponders and safety bubbles. If anything the
fact that they have a transponder in their glider, tends to be
correlated with an awareness of traffic, ATC, etc. and I suspect if
anything these folks are more likely to have their heads outside the
cockpit. And since many of those same pilots also fly with PCAS I can
guarantee they understand the need to be looking outside.

I know of many light aircraft flying with PCAS (Zaon) and a few (new
expensive ones) with the Avidyne/Ryan system that is between PCAS and
TCAS.

Darryl

my club is inside the 30nm veil.. as are two other locations around PHX
BT

wrote in message
...
Good report. I think transponders will be necessary, and a good
thing. Remember, it just makes them required above 10,000' or in the
Class B 30 mile veil, not everywhere - just like everybody else! I
would guess that most (not all, unfortunately) training flights would
be outside the airspace where xponders would be needed.

The cost issue? We pay almost 2K$ for parachutes, glider computers
are over 2K$, etc. It just follows the trend of the sport - it isn't
cheap flying anymore (unless you stay below 10k ft). If you want to
run with the big dogs, etc..

Batteries? I would think the new technology (Nimh, etc) would allow
an Xponder to be powered all day. A non-issue, IMHO.

I just got my PCAS, so I can see the other VFR traffic (that isn't
talking to ATC but has to have a transponder), and a transponder is
next (when I figure out where to stick it in my panel).

Or, as MasterCard would put it:

Transponder and installation: $3000

Fancy battery to power said transponder: $100

Watching the Southwest 737 jinking out of your way as you core a 12
knot thermal just outside Phoenix's Class B airspace: Priceless!

Kirk
66

the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where they
were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing

Well, it certainly is not quite the same thing, but I can appreciate
Tim's point, from a certain perspective, if what he fully intends to
convey is that those who *do* chose to fly "there" (i.e., wherever a
transponder really would be a "good idea") should indeed be allowed to
do so, but then they really "should" chose to equip themselves
appropriately for their own benefit as well as the benefit of others.

Extending his analogy, those who do chose to stay in the water when
others are chumming for sharks nearby should be allowed to do so, but
then they really "should" take the opportunity, whenever feasible, to
chose to equip themselves appropriately (e.g., place themselves inside
a shark cage, etc.) when participating in such activity in order to
mitigate the risk to themselves as well as the risk to others (where
"others" is obviously more of a concern in the case of transponders in
gliders).

Perhaps the FAA will choose to only issue "stronger guidelines"
recommending transponder use under certain operating conditions and in
certain environments. Or, if they chose to make regulatory changes,
perhaps they might issue less of a blanket regulation, as recommended
by the NTSB, and something more conditional and specific to certain
operating environments. It seems reasonable that such conditions
could be defined which would mitigate the majority of the risk without
negatively impacting the majority of glider operations. Even better,
if the SSA were to perform well at issuing such guidelines and making
such recommendations to the community, then perhaps the powers that be
will consider the risk appropriately managed and not take burdensome
and inappropriate action (at least for now, at least not until, if
ever, low-cost and effective risk mitigating solutions are actually
available).

Taking into account (a) the recent widespread adoption of PCAS, and
(b) local operating agreements that do exist and continue to be
created nationwide between local soaring operations and local ATC,
there seems to be hope for a non-regulatory solution -- perhaps these
efforts just need to be more cohesive, better standardized, and better
"marketed?"

Here is hoping that rationality prevails at the FAA and that the sport/
industry/etc. (the SSA?) takes strong leadership action on the issue
and demonstrates to the FAA and others that the sport/industry/etc.
can indeed appropriately self-regulate.


On Apr 1, 4:08 pm, Bob wrote:

So Tim,
You are saying that the Hawker shouldn't have been there right?

Bob

On Apr 1, 2:57 pm, "Tim Mara" wrote:

the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where they
were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing

tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

Darryl Ramm wrote:

On Apr 1, 3:23 pm, "Tim Mara" wrote:
I agree completely.....PCAS would be a good and very affordable option for
glider pilots...
allowing (or forcing the FAA's hand) into making transponders mandatory in
gliders is going to be a real bump in the road for many (most) glider owners
and clubs...many who don't need to fly down the approach corridor of
international airports to get their kicks..
The other problem with transponders in gliders is the false sense of
security it implies....to many it is "assumed" that this is like a shield
keeping everyone else aware of their presents as they go happily flying
along with their heads down looking at the wiz-bang flight computer...this
leads to more near misses and occasional hits than electronics can
avoid....I know of no Cherokee 140's or Cezna 172's flying with TCAS on
board....and I also know of a lot more glider pilots who will insist they
only turn on the transponder when they are flying down the glideslope of
major airports..
Transponders are not the fix all for the problem, but mandatory transponders
in k6's, 2-33's and 126's will certainly have an impact on the sport as we
"knew" it.


[....]


I do fly in high traffic density areas (with transponder and PCAS and
talking to ATC when appropriate) and know many other pilots that also
at least have a transponder in their ship and none that I know have
this naive view of transponders and safety bubbles. If anything the
fact that they have a transponder in their glider, tends to be
correlated with an awareness of traffic, ATC, etc. and I suspect if
anything these folks are more likely to have their heads outside the
cockpit. And since many of those same pilots also fly with PCAS I can
guarantee they understand the need to be looking outside.

I know of many light aircraft flying with PCAS (Zaon) and a few (new
expensive ones) with the Avidyne/Ryan system that is between PCAS and
TCAS.


I think you and Tim are dealing with different ends of the same stick.
The people who NOW have xpndrs and/or PCAS are a different breed than
many who will have xpndrs only when they are forced to have them. Some
of these will take the same blindered approach to traffic avoidance then
that they take now, just with more equipment in the cockpit.


Jack

Tim Mara wrote:

The other problem with transponders in gliders is the false sense of
security it implies....to many it is "assumed" that this is like a shield
keeping everyone else aware of their presents as they go happily flying
along with their heads down looking at the wiz-bang flight computer...this
leads to more near misses and occasional hits than electronics can
avoid....I know of no Cherokee 140's or Cezna 172's flying with TCAS on
board

How many transponder equipped gliders, transponder on, have been hit by
a non-TCAS equipped general aviation aircraft? Is this really a problem?
Can it be addressed by training?

....and I also know of a lot more glider pilots who will insist they
only turn on the transponder when they are flying down the glideslope of
major airports..

Sounds like a good start, doesn't it? I mean, we wouldn't be having this
discussion if the Reno glider had turned the transponder in that
situation. Again, perhaps a training issue.

Transponders are not the fix all for the problem,

In a sense, it would fix "all" the problem, if we think colliding with
airliners is our problem.

but mandatory transponders
in k6's, 2-33's and 126's will certainly have an impact on the sport as we
"knew" it.

Yes, so I'm hoping any requirement for transponders recognizes that most
gliders aren't a hazard to airliners and other "controlled" traffic.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Kirk,

Ironic that you talk about 22k cloudbases over Grand Canyon! That
is about the altitude of the midair on June 30, 1956, that got
Positive Control Airspace(now Class A) lowered from 24,000 to 18,000
feet! I put a transponder in my DG303 years ago. Most of the glass
ships at Warner Springs have transponders. There is no excuse for not
having a transponder if you do cross-country. The same excuses I hear
(not from you) are the ones I heard when I started power flying in
1973. Too expensive, blah blah blah.

It was extremely lucky no one was killed in that Minden midair. The
few times I have soared there(in rental ships) I have had close calls
with 121 carriers on the localizer for Reno or corporate jets going
into Minden. Flying wave the other day at Warner I was on LA Center
the whole flight. It was amazing the amount of carriers that vectored
around me or got TCAS alerts.

There is lots of traffic out there folks. Transponders are a great
safety device. The 0440 vs. 1200 has nothing to do with power output.
Per LOA with Reno the 0440 identifies you as a glider rather than an
airplane. It should be an FAR to have a discrete code for gliders and
hopefully will happen soon.

Happy Soaring, Dean "GO"

Why is anyone getting TCAS alerts? TCAS is suppose to be the last line of
defense against a collision. If glider / jet traffic is regularly resulting
in TCAS alerts, then ATC isn't providing enough separation between
transponder equipped gliders and IFR traffic. This is a big issue that
needs to be brought up with the FAA.

Mike Schumann

wrote in message
...
Kirk,

Ironic that you talk about 22k cloudbases over Grand Canyon! That
is about the altitude of the midair on June 30, 1956, that got
Positive Control Airspace(now Class A) lowered from 24,000 to 18,000
feet! I put a transponder in my DG303 years ago. Most of the glass
ships at Warner Springs have transponders. There is no excuse for not
having a transponder if you do cross-country. The same excuses I hear
(not from you) are the ones I heard when I started power flying in
1973. Too expensive, blah blah blah.

It was extremely lucky no one was killed in that Minden midair. The
few times I have soared there(in rental ships) I have had close calls
with 121 carriers on the localizer for Reno or corporate jets going
into Minden. Flying wave the other day at Warner I was on LA Center
the whole flight. It was amazing the amount of carriers that vectored
around me or got TCAS alerts.

There is lots of traffic out there folks. Transponders are a great
safety device. The 0440 vs. 1200 has nothing to do with power output.
Per LOA with Reno the 0440 identifies you as a glider rather than an
airplane. It should be an FAR to have a discrete code for gliders and
hopefully will happen soon.

Happy Soaring, Dean "GO"



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com