If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote:
On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November wrote: On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith wrote: Darryl Ramm wrote: --- Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the USA. Allegheny 853 MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed Pacific Southwest 182 Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172 San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS carriage requirements in the USA) MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured NetJets N879QS Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29 Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky) Darryl Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number since the 1980s. http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/...pp_module.show... Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the terms "glider" and "US air carrier". The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial passengers are exposed to. Ian Grant IN There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure. However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and have a greater propensity to report such incidents. This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths! http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re...6/a06o0206.pdf Airspace separation is the best bet. Ian Grant |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 17, 9:43*am, Mark Dickson wrote:
Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar. * I fly at Lasham (UK) which is relatively close to the ATC Radar station at Farnborough. It is set to filter out anything moving at low speeds such as clouds, flocks of birds and gliders thermalling. They can usually get weak returns from gliders flying straight, but this is not guaranteed. Derek C |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On 10/17/2010 4:43 AM, Mark Dickson wrote:
Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar. At 23:39 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote: Mark Dickson wrote: No, it's Ryanair. They always look for direct routings, even if it takes them outside controlled airspace. They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who doesn't even know that class E airspace is controlled? Contrary to popular myth, gliders show as a primary return on radar displays Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered out by the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the controller's display. Even if non-equipped gliders show up, there is no altitude info. In the US, standard procedure is that IFR traffic is not routed around VFR airplanes, even if they are transponder equipped. If you are lucky, the IFR traffic will get a traffic advisory. Keep your fingers crossed that the IFR traffic has TCAS and that the pilots follow the RA instructions. -- Mike Schumann |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 17, 5:14*am, Mike Schumann
wrote: On 10/17/2010 4:43 AM, Mark Dickson wrote: Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar. At 23:39 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote: Mark Dickson wrote: No, it's Ryanair. *They always look for direct routings, even if it takes them outside controlled airspace. They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who doesn't even know that class E airspace is controlled? Contrary to popular myth, gliders show as a primary return on radar displays Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered out by the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the controller's display. Even if non-equipped gliders show up, there is no altitude info. *In the US, standard procedure is that IFR traffic is not routed around VFR airplanes, even if they are transponder equipped. *If you are lucky, the IFR traffic will get a traffic advisory. *Keep your fingers crossed that the IFR traffic has TCAS and that the pilots follow the RA instructions. -- Mike Schumann At least in Tucson, I believe that ATC does route IFR traffic away from transponder-equipped gliders. We have a unique squawk code and, at least from my observations, controllers keep airliners well away from gliders so equipped. When my transponder was down for repair, I got to see a lot of aircraft really close up! Of course, the unintended consequence is that airliners diverted from around me are often sent through nearby thermals where some of my non- transponder equipped colleagues are soaring. Mike |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 17, 4:32*am, India November wrote:
[snip] - Show quoted text - It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure. However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and have a greater propensity to report such incidents. This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re.../a06o0206/a06o... Airspace separation is the best bet. Ian Grant Ian I don't disagree with either of the first two points. And in locations like near Reno that even if pilots are not hyper-vigilant about close encounters with gliders that ATC and the rest of the FAA will be if they are aware of it at all (e.g. from the radio). However there is just no logical reason for claiming that those two points extrapolate to somehow "knock[s] on the head the assertion that gliders are seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics". You have no information about how many near misses might be occurring between non-transponder equipped gliders not being detected by TCAS alerts and/or visual identification by airline crews. We just don't know. Just not knowing is just not knowing. NMAC and other accident/incident databases are great for some things. It is educating to just browse through but for making claims either way with very low indecent numbers and a very large overall expected under-reporting rate I just do not think that NMAC is en effective tool in this area. I also don't understand exactly what you mean by "Airspace separation is the best bet". I could well agree with you, I just don't know what you mean. Looking at the USA situation that I understand -- If it means the full hard separation of all IFR traffic via Class B and Class C -- then I just do not see that politically ever going to happen in the USA. Maybe in Europe where it is more like that now (at least for the airliners, except for cases like we've talked about here). And do you mean the allowing gliders within that airspace with transponders (and ADS-B data-out in future?) only or excluding gliders from that airspace entirely? Darryl |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 17, 1:43*am, Mark Dickson wrote:
Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar. * At 23:39 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote: Mark Dickson wrote: No, it's Ryanair. *They always look for direct routings, even if it takes them outside controlled airspace. They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who doesn't even know that class E airspace is controlled? Contrary to popular myth, gliders show as a primary return on radar displays Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered out by the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the controller's display. John is right, and we need to be careful with claims like this because misunderstanding around statements like this can lead people to dismiss the role of transponders in providing a valuable tool for traffic awareness/separation, especially near those airliners and fast jets. The answer is both yes (from a technically possible viewpoint) but in practice it is almost certainly no. A modern primary radar system will usually have no problem detecting a glider under benign circumstances, including a fiberglass glider (not carbon) -- there is enough metal in the glider to show up. However in practice to have the radar set to detect the glider the controllers will be seeing all kinds of ground and other clutter (birds, traffic on roads/freeways, wind turbines, ....). In practice in most places the Doppler discriminators aka "MTI" (Motion Target Indicator) will be set to reduce all this clutter and give the radar operator a usable display. In that practical situation they won't see slow speed gliders thermalling, those targets would have be removed by the MTI. It is not possible to say more without knowing the particular situation. The clutter and other issues, type of radar and target ranges and elevation etc. If it important you can followup with your local ATC radar facility and ask them. But I expect the answer in practice is they will not be able to usefully observe a glider from a primary radar return. And even if they could observe the glider the radar likely only provides location, with no elevation data. e.g. for all civil approach/ terminal radar in the USA. And even if a radar system (like the ARSR-4 used in the USA for civil en-route and CONUS surveillance) does provide some crude primary radar elevation data it is not always clear this is passed to particular ATC operators at all, and if it is it is unlikely to be useful for usual ATC separation services. Darryl |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On 10/17/2010 12:31 PM, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Oct 17, 5:14 am, Mike wrote: On 10/17/2010 4:43 AM, Mark Dickson wrote: Sorry, but thermalling gliders will almost always show on radar. At 23:39 16 October 2010, John Smith wrote: Mark Dickson wrote: No, it's Ryanair. They always look for direct routings, even if it takes them outside controlled airspace. They can ask as much as they want, it's the controller authority to allow it or not. But how can I explain this to somebody who doesn't even know that class E airspace is controlled? Contrary to popular myth, gliders show as a primary return on radar displays Contrary to popular myth, stationary primary targets are filtered out by the radar software, hence thermalling gliders don't show on the controller's display. Even if non-equipped gliders show up, there is no altitude info. In the US, standard procedure is that IFR traffic is not routed around VFR airplanes, even if they are transponder equipped. If you are lucky, the IFR traffic will get a traffic advisory. Keep your fingers crossed that the IFR traffic has TCAS and that the pilots follow the RA instructions. -- Mike Schumann At least in Tucson, I believe that ATC does route IFR traffic away from transponder-equipped gliders. We have a unique squawk code and, at least from my observations, controllers keep airliners well away from gliders so equipped. When my transponder was down for repair, I got to see a lot of aircraft really close up! Of course, the unintended consequence is that airliners diverted from around me are often sent through nearby thermals where some of my non- transponder equipped colleagues are soaring. Mike It's great that your local controllers are doing this. It needs to happen everywhere. See this study by MIT's Lincoln labs from 2005: http://www.ll.mit.edu/publications/j...2_04Kuchar.pdf See pages 287-288. There were an average of 9 TCAS RAs per DAY within 60 miles of the Lincoln Labs sensor in Boston. This is a direct result of ATC not vectoring traffic around transponder equipped GA aircraft, and effectively using TCAS as the primary VFR / IFR collision avoidance system. -- Mike Schumann |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 17, 12:32*pm, India November wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote: On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November wrote: On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith wrote: Darryl Ramm wrote: --- Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes.. I start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the USA. Allegheny 853 MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed Pacific Southwest 182 Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172 San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS carriage requirements in the USA) MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured NetJets N879QS Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29 Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky) Darryl Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number since the 1980s. http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/...pp_module.show.... Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the terms "glider" and "US air carrier". The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial passengers are exposed to. Ian Grant IN There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure. However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and have a greater propensity to report such incidents. This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re.../a06o0206/a06o... Airspace separation is the best bet. Ian Grant- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That is why I am against fitting transponders to gliders. They are expensive and do not protect us from 99.9% of the mid-air collisions (glider/glider or glider/light aircraft) that we are ever likely to have. The number of glider/Commercial Transport mid-air collisions is 2 to the best of my knowledge, neither of which caused any fatalities (Reno and Airbus in Class G airspace over France). Derek C |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 18, 1:38*pm, Derek C wrote:
On Oct 17, 12:32*pm, India November wrote: On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote: On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November wrote: On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith wrote: Darryl Ramm wrote: --- Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the USA. Allegheny 853 MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed Pacific Southwest 182 Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172 San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS carriage requirements in the USA) MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured NetJets N879QS Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29 Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky) Darryl Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number since the 1980s. http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/...pp_module.show... Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the terms "glider" and "US air carrier". The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial passengers are exposed to. Ian Grant IN There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure. However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and have a greater propensity to report such incidents. This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re.../a06o0206/a06o... Airspace separation is the best bet. Ian Grant- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That is why I am against fitting transponders to gliders. They are expensive and do not protect us from 99.9% of the mid-air collisions (glider/glider or glider/light aircraft) that we are ever likely to have. The number of glider/Commercial Transport mid-air collisions is 2 to the best of my knowledge, neither of which caused any fatalities (Reno and Airbus in Class G airspace over France). Derek C- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You should add "miracally". The only reason why we don't have much more midairs with commercial traffic is that luckily most glider pilots flying in congested areas have common sense and fly with transponders. I estimate around 80% of gliders flying XC in the Reno area use transponders even though it is not mandatory. Otherwise I am pretty sure we would have a catastrophic midair in this area by now. Ramy |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt
On Oct 18, 1:38*pm, Derek C wrote:
On Oct 17, 12:32*pm, India November wrote: On Oct 16, 11:47*am, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote: On Oct 12, 12:00*pm, India November wrote: On Oct 12, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Oct 12, 2:08*am, John Smith wrote: Darryl Ramm wrote: --- Moving topic somewhat but I want to make the point that we've lost several airliners full of passengers in fatal-midair collisions with light-aircraft and the response to that was largely transponders and TCAS/ACAS. And gliders operating near high density airline and fast jet traffic without transponders are effectively bypassing that evolution. I worry that human nature and perception of risks can allow apparent reduction of risks in situation because we don't perceive those rare but critical accidents happening frequently enough to register as practical risks even if they have catastrophic outcomes. I start my talks on collision avoidance with the following (USA centric information). There are similar fatal mid-air collisions outside the USA. Allegheny 853 MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Fairield, Indiana 1969 -- 83 killed Pacific Southwest 182 Boeing 727 vs. Cessna 172 San Diego, California 1978 -- 144 killed Aeroméxico 498 (the mid-air that lead to Mode C transponder and TCAS carriage requirements in the USA) MD DC-9 vs. Piper Cherokee Cerritos, California 1986 -- 82 killed, 8 injured NetJets N879QS Hawker 800XP vs. Schleicher ASG-29 Reno, Nevada 2006 -- 3 minor injuries (we were very lucky) Darryl Yes terrible accidents such as those cited motivated the regulators and industry to require the carriage of transponders. The FAA Near Midair Collision Avoidance database suggests that annual reports of reported near midair collisions in the US have decreased in number since the 1980s. http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/...pp_module.show... Still, only 45 of 6624 records (0.6% of the total) in the NMAC database contain the term "glider". Only nine records contain the terms "glider" and "US air carrier". The other 6579 reports (99.4%) do not involve gliders. Many of these other reported near midair collisions presumably happened between transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In conclusion, experience shows that the possibility of a mid-air collision between a glider and an air carrier is real enough (and warrants prudent action) but let's put it into perspective. Gliders form a very small part of the total collision risk that commercial passengers are exposed to. Ian Grant IN There are a lot more GA flights/yr than glider flights/yr. *It would be interesting to see these statistics stated as a % of all glider flights and % of all GA flights (I know this is not possible for gliders as there is no record of the number of flights). I bet the ratio would be a lot closer, if not reversed...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's possible that near midair collisions between gliders and air transport aircraft are under-represented in the NMAC database because gliders are hard to see, so the airliner crews and ATC may be unaware of some incidents that the glider pilots know about. For sure. However, there is no reason to suppose that any aircrew who knows of a near midair collision with a glider is less likely to report it than a similar incident with another category of aircraft. Indeed my sense is that ATC and airliner crews are darn near paranoid about gliders and have a greater propensity to report such incidents. This observation knocks on the head the assertion that gliders are seriously underrepresented in the NMAC statistics, and supports the conclusion according to these statistics that most near mid-air collisions involve transponder-equipped powered aircraft. In the following tragic example near Toronto the radar data from transponder returns were used to plot the fatal flight paths!http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re.../a06o0206/a06o... Airspace separation is the best bet. Ian Grant- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That is why I am against fitting transponders to gliders. They are expensive and do not protect us from 99.9% of the mid-air collisions (glider/glider or glider/light aircraft) that we are ever likely to have. The number of glider/Commercial Transport mid-air collisions is 2 to the best of my knowledge, neither of which caused any fatalities (Reno and Airbus in Class G airspace over France). Derek C This statement again suffers from the assumption that there is one environment that applies to everybody. We have many situations worldwide where I would hope nobody think a glider needs any mandatory collision avoidance technology through situations where there is significant risk of a glider-glider mid-air (e.g. contests, busy clubs), and in other locations maybe GA traffic offers the most significant risk. To situations where gliders are in close proximity to airliners and fast jets and where the product of risk x consequence should be a serious concern. The collision at Reno was with a Hawker 800. There have been "close" incidents with airliners there as well. Large numbers of the glider pilots who fly near Reno undertsand in detail the traffic patterns, conclicts and risks and equip wih transponders. We don't need to wait for a fatality from an airliner collision to prove it is a justified saftey measure. Risks from other parts of a glider pilots flying activities need to be considered separately from that risk x consequence of a collision with an airliner. Whether you might have a statistically higher probability of having a mid-air with another glider should not drive the risk decision about whether to utilize a transponder in these key areas where we have a serious problem with close proximity of airliner and fast jet traffic. I hope what is going on here is a reaction to concerns about blanket transponder mandates. They don't make sense (unless folks in high risk areas don't volitarilly adopt them or can't be locally forced to if the voluntary stuff just does not happen). Darryl |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Swallow - Me 262 A-1a of KG 51 at Frankfurt 27 Mar 45.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | December 29th 07 03:33 AM |
Airports and Air Strips frankfurt.jpg (2/2) | J.F. | Aviation Photos | 0 | October 20th 07 02:07 AM |
Glider-Airliner Near Miss | jcarlyle | Soaring | 0 | June 12th 07 04:52 PM |
Why Screeners Miss Guns and Knives (and why pilots miss planes and airports) | cjcampbell | Piloting | 2 | January 3rd 06 04:24 AM |
ATC of Near-Miss over BOS | Marco Leon | Piloting | 40 | August 31st 05 01:53 PM |