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
  #71  
Old October 3rd 17, 06:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Magnetar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

Interesting read of all comments/replies.

I flew in France near Paris where we have inbound/outbound traffic from three major airports:
_Paris Charles de Gaulle (LFPG) - 50km away
_Paris Orly (LFPO) - 40km away
_Pars Le Bourget (LFPB) - 40km away

We were operating under a Class A airspace with strict restrictions in terms of altitude. Basically, we could not fly above 760m MSL (2500ft) above the airport, then 1060m MSL (3500ft) 10km away and so on... So we sat down with the DGAC (french FAA) and local ATC and managed to discuss operational processes with which we could extend our max altitude on days we were flying..

Basically, each pilot was supposed to have 5 sectional charts of the region depending on the wind conditions in LFPG/LFPO and whether the derogation was active or not. Our club would call LFPO each morning to activate our "zones" and LFPO would then make sure airliners (like an A380) would stay in Class A airspace. Should the wind condition changed, LFPO would call the club and let us know that the zones would then change in 10-15min. The club would then inform us of the change via the radio.

All pilots had to sign an mutual understanding agreement where we acknowledged those rules and would be held responsible if we would break them. Our chief pilot would then check flights if any suspicion of airspace breach was raised.

Although it was still limiting our ability to fly away quickly, this mutual understanding between ATC and us created a safe place where we would fly safely. Because we had FLARM installed in all airplanes, it provided another security to ATC as he could track us and make sure we would abide by those rules.

The key is always to establish a relationship with ATC where clear navigation rules can be agreed upon for safe flying. Utah Soaring seems to take that even to the next level by providing ATC guidelines and checks/reviews for its pilots. An example to follow for the rest of the community!

On a side note, I flew DL149 yesterday to KEWR: we started our approach 45min before touchdown and spent 1/2h at/below 6,000ft while we could have flown higher, faster, cleaner to intercept the approach on runway 04R. What a waste of time, fuel and money! It is a busy airspace but still there is a GIGANTIC room for improvement/efficiency gains/flight optimization here

Replay on Flightradar24 speaks for itself.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f.../dl149#f12e3ce

Fly safe!
Ads
  #72  
Old October 4th 17, 05:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Ramy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 352
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

It is great that clubs and individuals form relationship with ATC and voluntarily follow procedures, use transponders etc. but the system is only as strong as its weakest link. As long as folks allow themselves to fly without transponders at busy areas, a bad accident may happen.
We didn't hear until now if this midair was avoided thanks to see and avoid or the glider had a transponder which triggered a TCAS alert which saved the day. Will be good to know, and we should know by now.

Ramy
  #73  
Old October 4th 17, 02:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Wit Wisniewski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

I question the safety culture at the FAA and the airline operators. They do not appear to be minimizing the risk of collision. Do they need to send transport aircraft so much into airspace with VFR traffic that they know exists, is hard to see, and has unknown and unpredictable location? The faster traffic doesn't even have the right of way.

The inverted wedding cakes enable Class A traffic to steeply descend into the Class B or C with minimal transition of airspace containing unknown hazards. Instead, lots of approaches are made fast and shallow.

I expect the FAA and the operators to know that see-and-avoid can't be relied upon when the closing speed is high due to limitations of human eyesight.. High closing speeds hamper detection for both the fast and slow aircraft.

Wouldn't we have a safer environment if the FAA secured more practical technology for the 'little guy'?

I appreciate discussion of GA safety culture, but it is the fast traffic that causes a serious hazard to us and themselves. Gliders and little single engine aircraft don't collide "with" fast traffic, as the reports say. The fast traffic collides INTO the slow traffic. Shouldn't the burden of ensuring safety through technology and procedure be on them?

Wit
  #74  
Old October 4th 17, 03:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 932
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

One would think the Airline Pilots Association would be all over the safety issue of early let downs into general aviation altitudes 40 miles out from the airport.
  #75  
Old October 4th 17, 03:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,002
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

It’s utter fantasy to think that it is possible, or even practical, for major Bravo airspace ATC to keep all of their large commercial traffic only inside or above Bravo airspace. The Bravo airspace would need to be much larger. Watch FlightAware for just 5 minutes someday. Commercial traffic is not staying above or inside the Bravo or Charlie (not even close) and hasn’t been happening for 30 years, I suspect. We need to focus on reality and behaving as grown-ups, not fantasies or tales of the “little guys plight.” When these commercial airports get stacked up, which is increasingly often, the risk of collision with dark traffic (no transponder, no ADS-B) is unacceptably high. But the same high risk occurs even at small regional airports in not busy periods for a variety of reasons. I see airliners going into/out of Lansing, Grand Rapids and Flint (Michigan) when flying out of very rural Ionia all the time. I find this extremely concerning (perhaps more of a safety risk that Bravo airspace). If nothing changes, eventually (today, next year...) the glider/airliner accident will happen. The damage from that disaster will be far more costly for the sport of gliding then the cost of the complaints from childish “I’ll hold my breathe before buying a transponder” types who refuse to admit the safety risk. A safety risk primarily caused by the fact that the vast majority of US sailplanes are carrying zero safety equipment (ADS-B or Transponder) despite flying cross country, near major airspace or at high altitude. I vote for improving safety for everyone involved (gliders, private traffic, commercial traffic, ATC, FAA, airline passengers) and for being a sport led by honest, responsible grown-ups.
  #76  
Old October 4th 17, 03:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bob Whelan[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicagoyesterday?

On 10/4/2017 7:29 AM, Wit Wisniewski wrote:
I question the safety culture at the FAA and the airline operators. They do
not appear to be minimizing the risk of collision. Do they need to send
transport aircraft so much into airspace with VFR traffic that they know
exists, is hard to see, and has unknown and unpredictable location? The
faster traffic doesn't even have the right of way.

The inverted wedding cakes enable Class A traffic to steeply descend into
the Class B or C with minimal transition of airspace containing unknown
hazards. Instead, lots of approaches are made fast and shallow.

I expect the FAA and the operators to know that see-and-avoid can't be
relied upon when the closing speed is high due to limitations of human
eyesight. High closing speeds hamper detection for both the fast and slow
aircraft.

Wouldn't we have a safer environment if the FAA secured more practical
technology for the 'little guy'?

I appreciate discussion of GA safety culture, but it is the fast traffic
that causes a serious hazard to us and themselves. Gliders and little
single engine aircraft don't collide "with" fast traffic, as the reports
say. The fast traffic collides INTO the slow traffic. Shouldn't the burden
of ensuring safety through technology and procedure be on them?


Absolutely! But since the (1955?) airliner collision over the Grand Canyon
brought us "controlled airspace," the steady progression has been to throw
huge amounts of money into technology (e.g. radars, transponders, control
infrastructure, etc.) in conjunction with ever-increasing-in-scope/complexity
airspace grabs/segmentation until (IHMO) ever since "the inverted wedding cake
airspace grab" it seems as though the FAA has - in effect (though not
lip-service PR) - thrown up its hands in the "What more can we *possibly* do?"
mode, while continuing to shovel gobs of (public and private) money (e.g. [the
never-implemented] microwave landing system, ADSB) "at aviation safety."

When their actions (and inactions) post wedding-cake-grab are examined with a
cold, rational, eye, my working conclusion is unavoidably "the little guy"
(i.e. non-corporate GA) has only reluctantly been "included" via some
(reluctant) "waiving actions" in conjunction with generally unpublicized,
rarely-discussed, FAA actions seemingly having the unavoidable
likely-over-time result of killing non-corporate GA by a thousand
cuts...*including* putting the onus of failure to detect and avoid on *GA*
come the day we all dread, the day "the Beloit incident" becomes the "Glider
rams airliner! Hundreds Killed!!!" The FAA's own contributions will be ignored
in "the rush to improved public safety."

Call it (many other phrases are easily imagined) "unconscionable," lying,
"disconnected safety awareness," complacency, wishful-thinking, etc., but the
FAA's *actions* when it comes to "doing their best" to: a) maintain
airline/non-corporate GA separation; b) live up to their public words
justifying "the inverted wedding cake airspace grab" (which was effectively,
the next-to-most-recent "major step" on the airspace front, re-naming not
being counted); c) publicize their "generally unknown to non-IFR-segements of
non-corporate GA" operating steps (e.g. STARs, SIDs, below 10,000' arrivals
into the *sides* of inverted wedding cakes, etc.), are arguably seemingly
intended to "help" result in an eventual public outcry that will simply insist
on making non-corporate GA go away entirely and forever.

I wouldn't call their actions a "conspiracy" or anything, because that implies
considerably more intelligence, active planning, and individual culpability
than I'm guessing actually has existed through the years, but the reality is
today's "public discussion" effectively puts "all the onus" on non-corporate
GA for "continued airline anti-collision safety," when in fact the FAA
continues to be a(n apparently) willing, active, contributor by
apparently-negligent support of - distressingly routine, in my
rocky-mountain-west-centric observational experience - arrival status-quos
involving early descents of commercial passenger airliners into "see and avoid
airspace." Much of that - at least in the Denver area - is *above* the 10k'
250-knot speed-limited altitude.

Technology is a powerful tool, but like any tool, those used without
"associated intelligence" generally have easily predictable dangerous
side-effects. Put me in the category that's of the opinion that "today's
airspace operating realities" are an example of "technology used unwisely."

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

  #77  
Old October 4th 17, 06:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 285
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

You know what would be safer than ball roasters? Teaching glider pilots how to call ATC. Bunch of snowflakes that think installing a beeper so the world can avoid them is the way to go, so shortsighted. Transponder returns flying sailplane profiles without ATC radio contact are either going to make a big stink(everyone with incockpit traffic says they can't believe how much is out there, wait until the airlines can see how many gliders are out there) or the atypical transponder returns will be ignored. Never forget how good the human brain is at ignoring things that don't make immediate sense. Wonder if the software filters lowspeed transponder returns same as lowspeed radar returns?
I have a better safety idea, let's just cut our nuts off before frying them and ask the FAA to limit all glider activity to 10,000' Safety first. If the FAA won't do it maybe the newly crowned private airspace overlords will. As the Minden collision proves, glider pilots can't be trusted to run transponders. No one in the community honestly believes a glider pilot is going to land early because he doesn't have enough battery power to run his transponder to the end of the flight.
  #78  
Old October 4th 17, 10:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 902
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

OK, my take....

Having spoken to ATC guys up,and down the east coast of the US (I supported equipment for airports and ATC) as well as a number of "heavy iron drivers".... the pilots and their company want them high and fast as long as possible, why? Fuel economy.

ATC wants them below 10k' so they are below the 250kt limit. This is to handle busy airspace and help with workload.

I feel the current US bills on ATC are airline centric.

Pilots want to be higher.
Commercial airlines want to be higher due to costs.
Most GA (gliders included) want heavy iron higher to stay away.

If ATC followed the US "wedding cake", most issues go away......most.

Yes, you still have private jets (small number) and corporate or "undetermined" in the mix, but rather small numbers.

Hoping these pilots make a comment, but I believe they will agree. "Stay high for fuel, slam dunk to a landing". Good on costs, less "crap" to avoid.
At minimum, stay above Cu cloudbase, unless wave is happening, a bit less to avoid, especially on a weekend/long weekend.

My unedumacated $0.02
  #79  
Old October 5th 17, 12:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 5:21:37 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:

ATC wants them below 10k' so they are below the 250kt limit. This is to handle busy airspace and help with workload.


Interested to know if this can be confirmed.

-T8
  #80  
Old October 5th 17, 12:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 884
Default Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 2:05:08 PM UTC+3, Tango Eight wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 5:21:37 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:

ATC wants them below 10k' so they are below the 250kt limit. This is to handle busy airspace and help with workload.


Interested to know if this can be confirmed.


It doesn't make sense to me.

Workload might be proportional to the number of aircraft per hour (which doesn't change), or to the number of aircraft in the air in your sector (in which case get them on the ground ASAP is better than having them pootling around under 250 knots).

The controller's displays all show where the plane is now and will be in 2 minutes (or whatever) anyway, so speed should be irrelevant.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.