On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 2:19:51 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:

> > > Why do gliders have right of way over para-gliders?

> The general principal is that the lower maneuverability aircraft has the right of way, and paragliders are CLEARLY the lower maneuverability aircraft.

Paragliders have an engine operating at all times.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 23:19:49 -0700 (PDT), 2G wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:38:50 PM UTC-7, kuzi...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:09:05 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 21:02:43 UTC-6, kuzi...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 7:32:23 PM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>> > > > On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:
>> > > > > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> On 8/23/22 21:19, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>> The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did
>> > > > >>> everything right.
>> > > > >> With the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated
>> > > > >> to see and avoid traffic. Are you suggesting he saw the 767
>> > > > >> and decided not to take evasive action because he (the glider)
>> > > > >> had right of way? Or maybe he didn't see the 767?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Glider was flying in the approach path of an international
>> > > > >> airport, with apparently no collision avoidance technology, no
>> > > > >> communication with ATC,
>> > > > >> and failure to avoid the 767, which is much easier to see than
>> > > > >> a glider.
>> > > > >> I would struggle to say he "did nothing wrong".
>> > > > > The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in
>> > > > > uncontrolled airspace.
>> > > > Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
>> > > > experts in Canadian regulations, but let's assume it's the same
>> > > > there.
>> > > >
>> > > > Simple question for Mr Longley and Szikora:
>> > > >
>> > > > If you're flying a glider in uncontrolled airspace, and you see a
>> > > > 767 headed toward you, do you
>> > > >
>> > > > A) take evasive action to avoid a collision or B) stay where you
>> > > > are and assume the 767 is going to divert?
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm reminded of the Minden accident, where a glider was flying
>> > > > with an inop transponder, and collided with a biz jet at about
>> > > > 14K feet. Did the FAA say "oh, the glider had every right to do
>> > > > that, so let's crack down on bizjet drivers that aren't looking
>> > > > outside?" Or did they try to ram an ADS-B Out mandate on all
>> > > > gliders? Being in the right is a hollow victory if you kill
>> > > > yourself, or crash an airliner, or cause major changes to the
>> > > > sport we all love.
>> > > Don’t be a simpleton. Obviously it’s everyone’s duty to see and
>> > > avoid.
>> > >
>> > > I fly around para-gliders a lot at Ephrata. A glider has the right
>> > > of way. But I go out of my way to stay clear of them. When you see
>> > > one there’s probably a couple you don’t see.
>> > Why do gliders have right of way over para-gliders?
>> Beats me but it’s in the FAR’s. I checked out of curiosity. Possibly
>> because they’re not certified IDK.
>
> The general principal is that the lower maneuverability aircraft has the
> right of way, and paragliders are CLEARLY the lower maneuverability
> aircraft.
>
> Tom

More to the point: they can't see anything above them: thats obvious
because you cant see the pilot if you're more than slightly above one, and
I suspect they can see very little behind them since their body and
emergency chute blocks their rearward view.

OTOH, over here some of them carry FLARM, which helps everybody.

--

Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

"Paragliders have an engine operating at all times."

No, they don't. Paragliders are foot or tow launched. You are confusing paragliders with PARAMOTORS.

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 4:28:43 AM UTC-7, Mark Mocho wrote:
> "Paragliders have an engine operating at all times."
> No, they don't. Paragliders are foot or tow launched. You are confusing paragliders with PARAMOTORS.
FAR part 103-
103.13 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.

(a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft.

(b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft.

(c) Powered ultralights shall yield the right-of-way to unpowered ultralights.

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:32:23 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
> On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> >> On 8/23/22 21:19, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did everything right.
> >> With the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to see and
> >> avoid traffic. Are you suggesting he saw the 767 and decided not to
> >> take evasive action because he (the glider) had right of way? Or maybe
> >> he didn't see the 767?
> >>
> >> Glider was flying in the approach path of an international airport, with
> >> apparently no collision avoidance technology, no communication with ATC,
> >> and failure to avoid the 767, which is much easier to see than a glider.
> >> I would struggle to say he "did nothing wrong".
> > The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
> Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
> experts in Canadian regulations, but let's assume it's the same there.
>
> Simple question for Mr Longley and Szikora:
>
> If you're flying a glider in uncontrolled airspace, and you see a 767
> headed toward you, do you
>
> A) take evasive action to avoid a collision
> or
> B) stay where you are and assume the 767 is going to divert?
>
> I'm reminded of the Minden accident, where a glider was flying with an
> inop transponder, and collided with a biz jet at about 14K feet. Did
> the FAA say "oh, the glider had every right to do that, so let's crack
> down on bizjet drivers that aren't looking outside?" Or did they try to
> ram an ADS-B Out mandate on all gliders? Being in the right is a hollow
> victory if you kill yourself, or crash an airliner, or cause major
> changes to the sport we all love.
You are making a lot of assumptions things you know nothing about. You have no idea what the glider pilot did or did not do, nor do you know anything about what the glider pilot saw or did not see. Almost all gliders in Canada now have FLARM and we use it. In fact, we get a discount on our insurance rates for having it installed. The glider club in question files a daily NOTAM to warn of glider operations when flying and has a good relationship with local ATC. SOSA is also one of Canada’s largest and oldest gliding clubs so there should have been no surprises here. To suggest that something incorrect was done is wild speculation. Whether gliders should not have a transponder exemption is an entirely different discussion.

On 8/25/2022 7:16 AM, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:32:23 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
>> On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/22 21:19, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did everything right.
>>>> With the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to see and
>>>> avoid traffic. Are you suggesting he saw the 767 and decided not to
>>>> take evasive action because he (the glider) had right of way? Or maybe
>>>> he didn't see the 767?
>>>>
>>>> Glider was flying in the approach path of an international airport, with
>>>> apparently no collision avoidance technology, no communication with ATC,
>>>> and failure to avoid the 767, which is much easier to see than a glider.
>>>> I would struggle to say he "did nothing wrong".
>>> The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
>> Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
>> experts in Canadian regulations, but let's assume it's the same there.
>>
>> Simple question for Mr Longley and Szikora:
>>
>> If you're flying a glider in uncontrolled airspace, and you see a 767
>> headed toward you, do you
>>
>> A) take evasive action to avoid a collision
>> or
>> B) stay where you are and assume the 767 is going to divert?
>>
>> I'm reminded of the Minden accident, where a glider was flying with an
>> inop transponder, and collided with a biz jet at about 14K feet. Did
>> the FAA say "oh, the glider had every right to do that, so let's crack
>> down on bizjet drivers that aren't looking outside?" Or did they try to
>> ram an ADS-B Out mandate on all gliders? Being in the right is a hollow
>> victory if you kill yourself, or crash an airliner, or cause major
>> changes to the sport we all love.
> You are making a lot of assumptions things you know nothing about. You have no idea what the glider pilot did or did not do, nor do you know anything about what the glider pilot saw or did not see. Almost all gliders in Canada now have FLARM and we use it. In fact, we get a discount on our insurance rates for having it installed. The glider club in question files a daily NOTAM to warn of glider operations when flying and has a good relationship with local ATC. SOSA is also one of Canada’s largest and oldest gliding clubs so there should have been no surprises here. To suggest that something incorrect was done is wild speculation. Whether gliders should not have a transponder exemption is an entirely different discussion.

Does the club know which pilot caused the incident? Have they issued a statement about it?
Did the glider have FLARM? Has the Canadian FAA visited the club or requested any
information from them? At the moment, it seems like there is remarkably little information
on the who, what, where, and when.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

On 8/25/22 08:58, Eric Greenwell wrote:

>
> Does the club know which pilot caused the incident? Have they issued a
> statement about it? Did the glider have FLARM? Has the Canadian FAA
> visited the club or requested any information from them? At the moment,
> it seems like there is remarkably little information on the who, what,
> where, and when.
>

The where and when seem to be well covered. Many websites have picked
up the story now, some of them mention a bulletin from the Canadian TSB,
a few even quoting from it. It would be nice to see the actual bulletin.

https://montagnedistribution.com/cargojet-767-freighter-dodged-glider-on-approach-to-hamilton-news/

But really it doesn't matter, the potential for an accident is quite
real, regardless of what happened at Hamilton. You would think common
sense would help mitigate the risk, but obviously some people are
remarkably short on common sense.

On 8/25/22 08:16, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:32:23 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
>> On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/22 21:19, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did everything right.
>>>> With the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to see and
>>>> avoid traffic. Are you suggesting he saw the 767 and decided not to
>>>> take evasive action because he (the glider) had right of way? Or maybe
>>>> he didn't see the 767?
>>>>
>>>> Glider was flying in the approach path of an international airport, with
>>>> apparently no collision avoidance technology, no communication with ATC,
>>>> and failure to avoid the 767, which is much easier to see than a glider.
>>>> I would struggle to say he "did nothing wrong".
>>> The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
>> Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
>> experts in Canadian regulations, but let's assume it's the same there.
>>
>> Simple question for Mr Longley and Szikora:
>>
>> If you're flying a glider in uncontrolled airspace, and you see a 767
>> headed toward you, do you
>>
>> A) take evasive action to avoid a collision
>> or
>> B) stay where you are and assume the 767 is going to divert?
>>
>> I'm reminded of the Minden accident, where a glider was flying with an
>> inop transponder, and collided with a biz jet at about 14K feet. Did
>> the FAA say "oh, the glider had every right to do that, so let's crack
>> down on bizjet drivers that aren't looking outside?" Or did they try to
>> ram an ADS-B Out mandate on all gliders? Being in the right is a hollow
>> victory if you kill yourself, or crash an airliner, or cause major
>> changes to the sport we all love.
> You are making a lot of assumptions things you know nothing about. You have no idea what the glider pilot did or did not do, nor do you know anything about what the glider pilot saw or did not see. Almost all gliders in Canada now have FLARM and we use it. In fact, we get a discount on our insurance rates for having it installed. The glider club in question files a daily NOTAM to warn of glider operations when flying and has a good relationship with local ATC. SOSA is also one of Canada’s largest and oldest gliding clubs so there should have been no surprises here. To suggest that something incorrect was done is wild speculation. Whether gliders should not have a transponder exemption is an entirely different discussion.

I don't know whether or not he had a FLARM, nor does it matter. I don't
know whether or not he saw the 767 coming, nor does it matter. He had
an obligation to see and AVOID traffic, which clearly he didn't do.
That by itself says he was flying incorrectly. That's a fact, not "wild
speculation" as you put it. Sorry if you're not smart enough to
understand that.

Kinsel…seems you’re looking for perfection in a imperfect imperfect world. Obligation applies to feeding ones kids.
You can’t see what you can’t see. I’m smart enough to understand that your viewpoint is flawed. One day, when you have more than 11 hours of flight time, you’ll have a close call. Only then will you see how you failed in your obligation.
Midairs and near misses are complicated events iced with a stark layer of mathematical reality. We do our best, but it will always happen.
I can only hope you’re smart enough to comprehend this. If not , I’m sorry.
Cheers,
R

If you're thermaling and see a tiny dot on the horizon, it could be a
767 maneuvering to avoid after you complete the next trip around the
circle. Ask me how I know...

Dan
5J

On 8/24/22 20:32, kinsell wrote:
> On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>>> On 8/23/22 21:19, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did everything
>>>> right.
>>> With the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to see and
>>> avoid traffic. Are you suggesting he saw the 767 and decided not to
>>> take evasive action because he (the glider) had right of way? Or maybe
>>> he didn't see the 767?
>>>
>>> Glider was flying in the approach path of an international airport, with
>>> apparently no collision avoidance technology, no communication with ATC,
>>> and failure to avoid the 767, which is much easier to see than a glider.
>>> I would struggle to say he "did nothing wrong".
>> The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in
>> uncontrolled airspace.
>
> Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S.  Most of us aren't
> experts in Canadian regulations, but let's assume it's the same there.
>
> Simple question for Mr Longley and Szikora:
>
> If you're flying a glider in uncontrolled airspace, and you see a 767
> headed toward you, do you
>
> A) take evasive action to avoid a collision
>           or
> B) stay where you are and assume the 767 is going to divert?
>
> I'm reminded of the Minden accident, where a glider was flying with an
> inop transponder, and collided with a biz jet at about 14K feet.  Did
> the FAA say "oh, the glider had every right to do that, so let's crack
> down on bizjet drivers that aren't looking outside?"  Or did they try to
> ram an ADS-B Out mandate on all gliders?  Being in the right is a hollow
> victory if you kill yourself, or crash an airliner, or cause major
> changes to the sport we all love.
>
>

Perfection? Hardly. I'm just hoping for people smart enough not to put
themselves in front of a 767 and hope some government regulation is
going to save them. Apparently you don't make the grade, huh "R"?

Actually I don't care about the glider pilot, that's just Darwinism at
its finest. But risking the lives of innocent people, yeah I've got a
problem with that.

On 8/25/22 17:12, R wrote:
> Kinsel…seems you’re looking for perfection in a imperfect imperfect world. Obligation applies to feeding ones kids.
> You can’t see what you can’t see. I’m smart enough to understand that your viewpoint is flawed. One day, when you have more than 11 hours of flight time, you’ll have a close call. Only then will you see how you failed in your obligation.
> Midairs and near misses are complicated events iced with a stark layer of mathematical reality. We do our best, but it will always happen.
> I can only hope you’re smart enough to comprehend this. If not , I’m sorry.
> Cheers,
> R

I guess I’ll just have to be sorry.

R

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 7:16:34 AM UTC-7, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:32:23 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
> > On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> > >> On 8/23/22 21:19, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did everything right.
> > >> With the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to see and
> > >> avoid traffic. Are you suggesting he saw the 767 and decided not to
> > >> take evasive action because he (the glider) had right of way? Or maybe
> > >> he didn't see the 767?
> > >>
> > >> Glider was flying in the approach path of an international airport, with
> > >> apparently no collision avoidance technology, no communication with ATC,
> > >> and failure to avoid the 767, which is much easier to see than a glider.
> > >> I would struggle to say he "did nothing wrong".
> > > The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
> > Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
> > experts in Canadian regulations, but let's assume it's the same there.
> >
> > Simple question for Mr Longley and Szikora:
> >
> > If you're flying a glider in uncontrolled airspace, and you see a 767
> > headed toward you, do you
> >
> > A) take evasive action to avoid a collision
> > or
> > B) stay where you are and assume the 767 is going to divert?
> >
> > I'm reminded of the Minden accident, where a glider was flying with an
> > inop transponder, and collided with a biz jet at about 14K feet. Did
> > the FAA say "oh, the glider had every right to do that, so let's crack
> > down on bizjet drivers that aren't looking outside?" Or did they try to
> > ram an ADS-B Out mandate on all gliders? Being in the right is a hollow
> > victory if you kill yourself, or crash an airliner, or cause major
> > changes to the sport we all love.
> You are making a lot of assumptions things you know nothing about. You have no idea what the glider pilot did or did not do, nor do you know anything about what the glider pilot saw or did not see. Almost all gliders in Canada now have FLARM and we use it. In fact, we get a discount on our insurance rates for having it installed. The glider club in question files a daily NOTAM to warn of glider operations when flying and has a good relationship with local ATC. SOSA is also one of Canada’s largest and oldest gliding clubs so there should have been no surprises here. To suggest that something incorrect was done is wild speculation. Whether gliders should not have a transponder exemption is an entirely different discussion.

You talk about what the club does in general, but nothing about the incident in question. Besides the questions that Eric asked, are you a member of that club? Is SOSA trying to identify who flew the glider? Has the pilot made a statement about the incident? If so, I would like to see it.

Filing a NOTAM is pathetically short of eliminating these kind of incidents.. The glider pilot should have been talking to ATC BEFORE the incident; I doubt that he/she was or he/she wouldn't have been that close to the 767.

These kind of incidents have a habit of triggering a regulation shit storm and should be nipped in the bud proactively.

Tom

On 8/25/2022 3:08 PM, kinsell wrote:
> On 8/25/22 08:16, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:32:23 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
>>> On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>>>>> On 8/23/22 21:19, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did everything right.
>>>>> With the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to see and
>>>>> avoid traffic. Are you suggesting he saw the 767 and decided not to
>>>>> take evasive action because he (the glider) had right of way? Or maybe
>>>>> he didn't see the 767?
>>>>>
>>>>> Glider was flying in the approach path of an international airport, with
>>>>> apparently no collision avoidance technology, no communication with ATC,
>>>>> and failure to avoid the 767, which is much easier to see than a glider.
>>>>> I would struggle to say he "did nothing wrong".
>>>> The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
>>> Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
>>> experts in Canadian regulations, but let's assume it's the same there.
>>>
>>> Simple question for Mr Longley and Szikora:
>>>
>>> If you're flying a glider in uncontrolled airspace, and you see a 767
>>> headed toward you, do you
>>>
>>> A) take evasive action to avoid a collision
>>> or
>>> B) stay where you are and assume the 767 is going to divert?
>>>
>>> I'm reminded of the Minden accident, where a glider was flying with an
>>> inop transponder, and collided with a biz jet at about 14K feet. Did
>>> the FAA say "oh, the glider had every right to do that, so let's crack
>>> down on bizjet drivers that aren't looking outside?" Or did they try to
>>> ram an ADS-B Out mandate on all gliders? Being in the right is a hollow
>>> victory if you kill yourself, or crash an airliner, or cause major
>>> changes to the sport we all love.

>> You are making a lot of assumptions things you know nothing about. You have no idea what
>> the glider pilot did or did not do, nor do you know anything about what the glider pilot
>> saw or did not see. Almost all gliders in Canada now have FLARM and we use it. In fact,
>> we get a discount on our insurance rates for having it installed. The glider club in
>> question files a daily NOTAM to warn of glider operations when flying and has a good
>> relationship with local ATC. SOSA is also one of Canada’s largest and oldest gliding
>> clubs so there should have been no surprises here. To suggest that something incorrect
>> was done is wild speculation. Whether gliders should not have a transponder exemption is
>> an entirely different discussion.
>
>
> I don't know whether or not he had a FLARM, nor does it matter.  I don't know whether or
> not he saw the 767 coming, nor does it matter.  He had an obligation to see and AVOID
> traffic, which clearly he didn't do. That by itself says he was flying incorrectly.
> That's a fact, not "wild speculation" as you put it.  Sorry if you're not smart enough to
> understand that.

See and Avoid is an easy concept, but can be difficult to implement, and no one ever
expected it to work all the time, for several reasons. If we could do it well, there would
be no need for FLARM. Without knowing the particulars, I won't judge how correctly the
pilot was flying.

Has any information come out, besides the original article? I haven't seen any. It does
matter if the glider had FLARM, as it suggests there may be vulnerability in FLARM, or our
use of it.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

On 8/25/22 08:16, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:32:23 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
>> On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/22 21:19, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did everything right.
>>>> With the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to see and
>>>> avoid traffic. Are you suggesting he saw the 767 and decided not to
>>>> take evasive action because he (the glider) had right of way? Or maybe
>>>> he didn't see the 767?
>>>>
>>>> Glider was flying in the approach path of an international airport, with
>>>> apparently no collision avoidance technology, no communication with ATC,
>>>> and failure to avoid the 767, which is much easier to see than a glider.
>>>> I would struggle to say he "did nothing wrong".
>>> The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
>> Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
>> experts in Canadian regulations, but let's assume it's the same there.
>>
>> Simple question for Mr Longley and Szikora:
>>
>> If you're flying a glider in uncontrolled airspace, and you see a 767
>> headed toward you, do you
>>
>> A) take evasive action to avoid a collision
>> or
>> B) stay where you are and assume the 767 is going to divert?
>>
>> I'm reminded of the Minden accident, where a glider was flying with an
>> inop transponder, and collided with a biz jet at about 14K feet. Did
>> the FAA say "oh, the glider had every right to do that, so let's crack
>> down on bizjet drivers that aren't looking outside?" Or did they try to
>> ram an ADS-B Out mandate on all gliders? Being in the right is a hollow
>> victory if you kill yourself, or crash an airliner, or cause major
>> changes to the sport we all love.
> You are making a lot of assumptions things you know nothing about. You have no idea what the glider pilot did or did not do, nor do you know anything about what the glider pilot saw or did not see. Almost all gliders in Canada now have FLARM and we use it. In fact, we get a discount on our insurance rates for having it installed. The glider club in question files a daily NOTAM to warn of glider operations when flying and has a good relationship with local ATC. SOSA is also one of Canada’s largest and oldest gliding clubs so there should have been no surprises here. To suggest that something incorrect was done is wild speculation. Whether gliders should not have a transponder exemption is an entirely different discussion.

Here's an interesting comment I found on the avherald.com article:

In my flying days, YHM was a frequent stop on the schedule. On far too
many occasions as we were being vectored for the approach to RWY 12, we
would spot a glider orbiting through the ILS. Regardless of whether the
airspace is Class D or not, you'd think that the folks at SOSA in
Rockton would be hyper aware of the danger and try to avoid that area
like a plague. I wrote up a safety report on one of the really close
ones and our safety guy tried advancing the concern with TC and Nav
Canada. Neither seemed particularly interested in poking the bear with
the glider community by trying to mandate the use of transponders. He
then tried connecting with them directly and ran into a brick wall. He
said it felt like regardless of the wider implications, there was no
changing their minds.

Apparently some of the power folks don't share your view that everything
is sunshine and roses at Hamilton. Maybe they don't like getting
surprised running into gliders in the landing pattern?

I do agree that there are some details on this incident that need to be
filled in. Since you don't know the answers to those either, I wonder
how you can categorically state that the "glider pilot did nothing
wrong"?? If you don't know what she did, how do you know she did
nothing wrong?

On 8/25/2022 1:24 PM, kinsell wrote:
> On 8/25/22 08:58, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>>
>> Does the club know which pilot caused the incident? Have they issued a statement about
>> it? Did the glider have FLARM? Has the Canadian FAA visited the club or requested any
>> information from them? At the moment, it seems like there is remarkably little
>> information on the who, what, where, and when.
>>
>
> The where and when seem to be well covered.  Many websites have picked up the story now,
> some of them mention a bulletin from the Canadian TSB, a few even quoting from it.  It
> would be nice to see the actual bulletin.
>
> https://montagnedistribution.com/cargojet-767-freighter-dodged-glider-on-approach-to-hamilton-news/
>
>
> But really it doesn't matter, the potential for an accident is quite real, regardless of
> what happened at Hamilton.  You would think common sense would help mitigate the risk, but
> obviously some people are remarkably short on common sense.

By "where and when", I meant the time (within a few seconds) of the encounter, which
would also locate it on the cargo jet flight trace. There were several mentions of "at
3200'", "at 3000'", and "at the edge of Class D" but a swerve doesn't show up on the
FlightAware website at those points. Maybe the website trace is not full resolution, and
you have to buy the trace with all the points.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

On 8/25/22 21:19, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 8/25/2022 3:08 PM, kinsell wrote:
>> On 8/25/22 08:16, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:32:23 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
>>>> On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/23/22 21:19, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did
>>>>>>> everything right.
>>>>>> With the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to
>>>>>> see and
>>>>>> avoid traffic. Are you suggesting he saw the 767 and decided not to
>>>>>> take evasive action because he (the glider) had right of way? Or
>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>> he didn't see the 767?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Glider was flying in the approach path of an international
>>>>>> airport, with
>>>>>> apparently no collision avoidance technology, no communication
>>>>>> with ATC,
>>>>>> and failure to avoid the 767, which is much easier to see than a
>>>>>> glider.
>>>>>> I would struggle to say he "did nothing wrong".
>>>>> The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in
>>>>> uncontrolled airspace.
>>>> Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
>>>> experts in Canadian regulations, but let's assume it's the same there.
>>>>
>>>> Simple question for Mr Longley and Szikora:
>>>>
>>>> If you're flying a glider in uncontrolled airspace, and you see a 767
>>>> headed toward you, do you
>>>>
>>>> A) take evasive action to avoid a collision
>>>> or
>>>> B) stay where you are and assume the 767 is going to divert?
>>>>
>>>> I'm reminded of the Minden accident, where a glider was flying with an
>>>> inop transponder, and collided with a biz jet at about 14K feet. Did
>>>> the FAA say "oh, the glider had every right to do that, so let's crack
>>>> down on bizjet drivers that aren't looking outside?" Or did they try to
>>>> ram an ADS-B Out mandate on all gliders? Being in the right is a hollow
>>>> victory if you kill yourself, or crash an airliner, or cause major
>>>> changes to the sport we all love.
>
>>> You are making a lot of assumptions things you know nothing about.
>>> You have no idea what the glider pilot did or did not do, nor do you
>>> know anything about what the glider pilot saw or did not see. Almost
>>> all gliders in Canada now have FLARM and we use it. In fact, we get a
>>> discount on our insurance rates for having it installed. The glider
>>> club in question files a daily NOTAM to warn of glider operations
>>> when flying and has a good relationship with local ATC. SOSA is also
>>> one of Canada’s largest and oldest gliding clubs so there should have
>>> been no surprises here. To suggest that something incorrect was done
>>> is wild speculation. Whether gliders should not have a transponder
>>> exemption is an entirely different discussion.
>>
>>
>> I don't know whether or not he had a FLARM, nor does it matter.  I
>> don't know whether or not he saw the 767 coming, nor does it matter.
>> He had an obligation to see and AVOID traffic, which clearly he didn't
>> do. That by itself says he was flying incorrectly. That's a fact, not
>> "wild speculation" as you put it.  Sorry if you're not smart enough to
>> understand that.
>
> See and Avoid is an easy concept, but can be difficult to implement, and
> no one ever expected it to work all the time, for several reasons. If we
> could do it well, there would be no need for FLARM. Without knowing the
> particulars, I won't judge how correctly the pilot was flying.
>
> Has any information come out, besides the original article? I haven't
> seen any. It does matter if the glider had FLARM, as it suggests there
> may be vulnerability in FLARM, or our use of it.
>

There's been virtually no new information. I did notice a new Aug 12
entry for Hamilton on that CADORS system today, sounded like an
unauthorized entry into the class D airspace. It took somebody two
weeks to figure that out?

I wonder if somebody is planting false reports there, the original entry
was bogus, it got the aircraft registration wrong, as well as incorrect
info on which runway was used.

Concerning Flarm, what could possibly go wrong? Some installations have
small, dim displays that are hard to read, some are polarized. Software
is frequently misconfigured, antenna installations are amateurish.
People sometimes set it up more as a toy than as a serious collision
avoidance system.

Of course in the U.S., most Flarms receive only the 1090 signals, not
the UAT. Turns out a Cessna can kill you just as dead as a 767. And
there's plenty of Cessna's running around below 10K without transmitting
either frequency.

-Dave

I wrote to the safety board using a form on their website and got a response this morning (pretty quick turnaround).

I'm pasting from the PDF too, the top half of which is a table. So it wrapped funny. If you can get your email address to me and want the original PDF, let me know.

response —

Thank you for your interest in the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

The occurrence you are interested in was classified as a Class 5 occurrence as you can see in the attached Occurrence Summary, taken from our database.

As per the Occurrence Classification Policy (Appendix C), Class 5 occurrences are not subject to comprehensive investigations followed by an investigation report. However, data on Class 5 occurrences are recorded in suitable scope for possible future safety analysis, statistical reporting, or archival purposes.

Regards,

Marc-Antoine Brassard

Communications
Bureau de la sécurité des transports du Canada / Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Communications@bst-tsb.gc.ca / Tél.: 1-800-387-3557 / ATS: 819-934-2690

PDF of summary attached —

Transportation Safety Board of Canada
External Public Report
MODE: AIR
Report Date: 2022/08/26

This information is preliminary and subject to change. The information given for some occurrence may not have been verified by the TSB.
Therefore, caution should be used when using this information.

------------------------ Occurrence 1 ------------------------
Occurrence No.: A22O0120 Occurrence Type: INCIDENT REPORTABLE
Class: CLASS 5 Reportable Type: RISK OF COLLISION (x)
Date: 2022-08-12 Time: 16:39:00 UTC
Region of
Responsibility:
ONTARIO
Location: 10.00 Nautical miles WNW From CYHM - HAMILTON
Country: CANADA Province: ONTARIO
Ground Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
Serious: 0 Unknown: 0
---------- Aircraft 1 ----------
Registration: C-FCAE Operator: CARGOJET AIRWAYS LTD.
Manufacturer: BOEING Operator Type: COMMERCIAL
Model: 767-300 CARS Sub Part: 705 - AIRLINER
Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
Serious: 0 None: 0
Unknown: 0

Occurrence Summary:
C-FCAE, a Boeing 767-300 aircraft operated by Cargojet Airways Ltd, was conducting flight
CJT302 from Vancouver International Airport (CYVR), BC to John C. Munro Hamilton International
Airport (CYHM), ON. While on Instrument landing system (ILS) approach for runway 12, CJT302
took evasive action to the right to avoid an unknown VFR glider directly in front of them. The glider
was not transponder equipped, therefore not visible on radar or the aircraft's Traffic and collision
avoidance system (TCAS). The glider also made a turn in the north west direction. CJT302 passed
the glider on its port side close enough to see the glider pilot and was able to shortly return to their
approach profile and land on runway 12 without further incident.

On 8/25/2022 9:13 PM, kinsell wrote:
....
>
> There's been virtually no new information.  I did notice a new Aug 12 entry for Hamilton
> on that CADORS system today, sounded like an unauthorized entry into the class D
> airspace.  It took somebody two weeks to figure that out?
>
> I wonder if somebody is planting false reports there, the original entry was bogus, it got
> the aircraft registration wrong, as well as incorrect info on which runway was used.
>
> Concerning Flarm, what could possibly go wrong?  Some installations have small, dim
> displays that are hard to read, some are polarized.  Software is frequently misconfigured,
> antenna installations are amateurish. People sometimes set it up more as a toy than as a
> serious collision avoidance system.
>
> Of course in the U.S., most Flarms receive only the 1090 signals, not the UAT.  Turns out
> a Cessna can kill you just as dead as a 767.  And there's plenty of Cessna's running
> around below 10K without transmitting either frequency.

Since I installed my Mode C transponder about 12 years ago, I haven't had a large aircraft
near me: no airliners, no military, no jets. I have had several close flybys of Cessnas,
however.

Like others, my ADS-B on my Phoenix shows me more aircraft than I ever see, even when I
know their exact height and distance relative to me. Usually I can spot them after I see
them on the ADS-B display, but not always, especially ones behind or below, or coming
directly at me.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

On 8/25/22 22:13, kinsell wrote:
> On 8/25/22 21:19, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> On 8/25/2022 3:08 PM, kinsell wrote:
>>> On 8/25/22 08:16, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:32:23 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
>>>>> On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/23/22 21:19, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did
>>>>>>>> everything right.
>>>>>>> With the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to
>>>>>>> see and
>>>>>>> avoid traffic. Are you suggesting he saw the 767 and decided not to
>>>>>>> take evasive action because he (the glider) had right of way? Or
>>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>>> he didn't see the 767?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Glider was flying in the approach path of an international
>>>>>>> airport, with
>>>>>>> apparently no collision avoidance technology, no communication
>>>>>>> with ATC,
>>>>>>> and failure to avoid the 767, which is much easier to see than a
>>>>>>> glider.
>>>>>>> I would struggle to say he "did nothing wrong".
>>>>>> The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in
>>>>>> uncontrolled airspace.
>>>>> Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
>>>>> experts in Canadian regulations, but let's assume it's the same there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simple question for Mr Longley and Szikora:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're flying a glider in uncontrolled airspace, and you see a 767
>>>>> headed toward you, do you
>>>>>
>>>>> A) take evasive action to avoid a collision
>>>>> or
>>>>> B) stay where you are and assume the 767 is going to divert?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm reminded of the Minden accident, where a glider was flying with an
>>>>> inop transponder, and collided with a biz jet at about 14K feet. Did
>>>>> the FAA say "oh, the glider had every right to do that, so let's crack
>>>>> down on bizjet drivers that aren't looking outside?" Or did they
>>>>> try to
>>>>> ram an ADS-B Out mandate on all gliders? Being in the right is a
>>>>> hollow
>>>>> victory if you kill yourself, or crash an airliner, or cause major
>>>>> changes to the sport we all love.
>>
>>>> You are making a lot of assumptions things you know nothing about.
>>>> You have no idea what the glider pilot did or did not do, nor do you
>>>> know anything about what the glider pilot saw or did not see. Almost
>>>> all gliders in Canada now have FLARM and we use it. In fact, we get
>>>> a discount on our insurance rates for having it installed. The
>>>> glider club in question files a daily NOTAM to warn of glider
>>>> operations when flying and has a good relationship with local ATC.
>>>> SOSA is also one of Canada’s largest and oldest gliding clubs so
>>>> there should have been no surprises here. To suggest that something
>>>> incorrect was done is wild speculation. Whether gliders should not
>>>> have a transponder exemption is an entirely different discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know whether or not he had a FLARM, nor does it matter.  I
>>> don't know whether or not he saw the 767 coming, nor does it matter.
>>> He had an obligation to see and AVOID traffic, which clearly he
>>> didn't do. That by itself says he was flying incorrectly. That's a
>>> fact, not "wild speculation" as you put it.  Sorry if you're not
>>> smart enough to understand that.
>>
>> See and Avoid is an easy concept, but can be difficult to implement,
>> and no one ever expected it to work all the time, for several reasons.
>> If we could do it well, there would be no need for FLARM. Without
>> knowing the particulars, I won't judge how correctly the pilot was
>> flying.
>>
>> Has any information come out, besides the original article? I haven't
>> seen any. It does matter if the glider had FLARM, as it suggests there
>> may be vulnerability in FLARM, or our use of it.
>>
>
> There's been virtually no new information.  I did notice a new Aug 12
> entry for Hamilton on that CADORS system today, sounded like an
> unauthorized entry into the class D airspace.  It took somebody two
> weeks to figure that out?
>
> I wonder if somebody is planting false reports there, the original entry
> was bogus, it got the aircraft registration wrong, as well as incorrect
> info on which runway was used.
>
> Concerning Flarm, what could possibly go wrong?  Some installations have
> small, dim displays that are hard to read, some are polarized.  Software
> is frequently misconfigured, antenna installations are amateurish.
> People sometimes set it up more as a toy than as a serious collision
> avoidance system.
>
> Of course in the U.S., most Flarms receive only the 1090 signals, not
> the UAT.  Turns out a Cessna can kill you just as dead as a 767.  And
> there's plenty of Cessna's running around below 10K without transmitting
> either frequency.
>
>
> -Dave
>

Of course the biggest problem with Flarm is it's totally inadequate in
this situation. If somebody is stupid enough to be hanging out in an
ILS approach at a busy international airport, they damn well ought to
have a transponder at the absolute minimum.

On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 7:34:33 AM UTC-6, kinsell wrote:
> On 8/25/22 22:13, kinsell wrote:
> > On 8/25/22 21:19, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> On 8/25/2022 3:08 PM, kinsell wrote:
> >>> On 8/25/22 08:16, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:32:23 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 8/23/22 21:19, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did
> >>>>>>>> everything right.
> >>>>>>> With the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to
> >>>>>>> see and
> >>>>>>> avoid traffic. Are you suggesting he saw the 767 and decided not to
> >>>>>>> take evasive action because he (the glider) had right of way? Or
> >>>>>>> maybe
> >>>>>>> he didn't see the 767?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Glider was flying in the approach path of an international
> >>>>>>> airport, with
> >>>>>>> apparently no collision avoidance technology, no communication
> >>>>>>> with ATC,
> >>>>>>> and failure to avoid the 767, which is much easier to see than a
> >>>>>>> glider.
> >>>>>>> I would struggle to say he "did nothing wrong".
> >>>>>> The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in
> >>>>>> uncontrolled airspace.
> >>>>> Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
> >>>>> experts in Canadian regulations, but let's assume it's the same there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Simple question for Mr Longley and Szikora:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you're flying a glider in uncontrolled airspace, and you see a 767
> >>>>> headed toward you, do you
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A) take evasive action to avoid a collision
> >>>>> or
> >>>>> B) stay where you are and assume the 767 is going to divert?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm reminded of the Minden accident, where a glider was flying with an
> >>>>> inop transponder, and collided with a biz jet at about 14K feet. Did
> >>>>> the FAA say "oh, the glider had every right to do that, so let's crack
> >>>>> down on bizjet drivers that aren't looking outside?" Or did they
> >>>>> try to
> >>>>> ram an ADS-B Out mandate on all gliders? Being in the right is a
> >>>>> hollow
> >>>>> victory if you kill yourself, or crash an airliner, or cause major
> >>>>> changes to the sport we all love.
> >>
> >>>> You are making a lot of assumptions things you know nothing about.
> >>>> You have no idea what the glider pilot did or did not do, nor do you
> >>>> know anything about what the glider pilot saw or did not see. Almost
> >>>> all gliders in Canada now have FLARM and we use it. In fact, we get
> >>>> a discount on our insurance rates for having it installed. The
> >>>> glider club in question files a daily NOTAM to warn of glider
> >>>> operations when flying and has a good relationship with local ATC.
> >>>> SOSA is also one of Canada’s largest and oldest gliding clubs so
> >>>> there should have been no surprises here. To suggest that something
> >>>> incorrect was done is wild speculation. Whether gliders should not
> >>>> have a transponder exemption is an entirely different discussion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't know whether or not he had a FLARM, nor does it matter. I
> >>> don't know whether or not he saw the 767 coming, nor does it matter.
> >>> He had an obligation to see and AVOID traffic, which clearly he
> >>> didn't do. That by itself says he was flying incorrectly. That's a
> >>> fact, not "wild speculation" as you put it. Sorry if you're not
> >>> smart enough to understand that.
> >>
> >> See and Avoid is an easy concept, but can be difficult to implement,
> >> and no one ever expected it to work all the time, for several reasons.
> >> If we could do it well, there would be no need for FLARM. Without
> >> knowing the particulars, I won't judge how correctly the pilot was
> >> flying.
> >>
> >> Has any information come out, besides the original article? I haven't
> >> seen any. It does matter if the glider had FLARM, as it suggests there
> >> may be vulnerability in FLARM, or our use of it.
> >>
> >
> > There's been virtually no new information. I did notice a new Aug 12
> > entry for Hamilton on that CADORS system today, sounded like an
> > unauthorized entry into the class D airspace. It took somebody two
> > weeks to figure that out?
> >
> > I wonder if somebody is planting false reports there, the original entry
> > was bogus, it got the aircraft registration wrong, as well as incorrect
> > info on which runway was used.
> >
> > Concerning Flarm, what could possibly go wrong? Some installations have
> > small, dim displays that are hard to read, some are polarized. Software
> > is frequently misconfigured, antenna installations are amateurish.
> > People sometimes set it up more as a toy than as a serious collision
> > avoidance system.
> >
> > Of course in the U.S., most Flarms receive only the 1090 signals, not
> > the UAT. Turns out a Cessna can kill you just as dead as a 767. And
> > there's plenty of Cessna's running around below 10K without transmitting
> > either frequency.
> >
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> Of course the biggest problem with Flarm is it's totally inadequate in
> this situation. If somebody is stupid enough to be hanging out in an
> ILS approach at a busy international airport, they damn well ought to
> have a transponder at the absolute minimum.

Kudo's to the flight crew of the 767!
Most midairs occur near a airport or in the pattern, there have been 2 high profile midair incidents in the pattern in the US recently.
I imagine the view out the front of the 767 is fairly limited, but in spite of being in the busy time of the ILS they kept the Mark 1 eyeball out the front, where they were heading, good job flight crew, and they continued the approach and landed too.
Professionalism goes a long way when aviating.
We can all get a positive take away from this near miss.
Nick
T

On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:51:35 AM UTC-8, nickkennedy...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 7:34:33 AM UTC-6, kinsell wrote:
> > On 8/25/22 22:13, kinsell wrote:
> > > On 8/25/22 21:19, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > >> On 8/25/2022 3:08 PM, kinsell wrote:
> > >>> On 8/25/22 08:16, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:32:23 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
> > >>>>> On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On 8/23/22 21:19, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did
> > >>>>>>>> everything right.
> > >>>>>>> With the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to
> > >>>>>>> see and
> > >>>>>>> avoid traffic. Are you suggesting he saw the 767 and decided not to
> > >>>>>>> take evasive action because he (the glider) had right of way? Or
> > >>>>>>> maybe
> > >>>>>>> he didn't see the 767?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Glider was flying in the approach path of an international
> > >>>>>>> airport, with
> > >>>>>>> apparently no collision avoidance technology, no communication
> > >>>>>>> with ATC,
> > >>>>>>> and failure to avoid the 767, which is much easier to see than a
> > >>>>>>> glider.
> > >>>>>>> I would struggle to say he "did nothing wrong".
> > >>>>>> The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in
> > >>>>>> uncontrolled airspace.
> > >>>>> Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
> > >>>>> experts in Canadian regulations, but let's assume it's the same there.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Simple question for Mr Longley and Szikora:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If you're flying a glider in uncontrolled airspace, and you see a 767
> > >>>>> headed toward you, do you
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> A) take evasive action to avoid a collision
> > >>>>> or
> > >>>>> B) stay where you are and assume the 767 is going to divert?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm reminded of the Minden accident, where a glider was flying with an
> > >>>>> inop transponder, and collided with a biz jet at about 14K feet. Did
> > >>>>> the FAA say "oh, the glider had every right to do that, so let's crack
> > >>>>> down on bizjet drivers that aren't looking outside?" Or did they
> > >>>>> try to
> > >>>>> ram an ADS-B Out mandate on all gliders? Being in the right is a
> > >>>>> hollow
> > >>>>> victory if you kill yourself, or crash an airliner, or cause major
> > >>>>> changes to the sport we all love.
> > >>
> > >>>> You are making a lot of assumptions things you know nothing about.
> > >>>> You have no idea what the glider pilot did or did not do, nor do you
> > >>>> know anything about what the glider pilot saw or did not see. Almost
> > >>>> all gliders in Canada now have FLARM and we use it. In fact, we get
> > >>>> a discount on our insurance rates for having it installed. The
> > >>>> glider club in question files a daily NOTAM to warn of glider
> > >>>> operations when flying and has a good relationship with local ATC.
> > >>>> SOSA is also one of Canada’s largest and oldest gliding clubs so
> > >>>> there should have been no surprises here. To suggest that something
> > >>>> incorrect was done is wild speculation. Whether gliders should not
> > >>>> have a transponder exemption is an entirely different discussion.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't know whether or not he had a FLARM, nor does it matter. I
> > >>> don't know whether or not he saw the 767 coming, nor does it matter..
> > >>> He had an obligation to see and AVOID traffic, which clearly he
> > >>> didn't do. That by itself says he was flying incorrectly. That's a
> > >>> fact, not "wild speculation" as you put it. Sorry if you're not
> > >>> smart enough to understand that.
> > >>
> > >> See and Avoid is an easy concept, but can be difficult to implement,
> > >> and no one ever expected it to work all the time, for several reasons.
> > >> If we could do it well, there would be no need for FLARM. Without
> > >> knowing the particulars, I won't judge how correctly the pilot was
> > >> flying.
> > >>
> > >> Has any information come out, besides the original article? I haven't
> > >> seen any. It does matter if the glider had FLARM, as it suggests there
> > >> may be vulnerability in FLARM, or our use of it.
> > >>
> > >
> > > There's been virtually no new information. I did notice a new Aug 12
> > > entry for Hamilton on that CADORS system today, sounded like an
> > > unauthorized entry into the class D airspace. It took somebody two
> > > weeks to figure that out?
> > >
> > > I wonder if somebody is planting false reports there, the original entry
> > > was bogus, it got the aircraft registration wrong, as well as incorrect
> > > info on which runway was used.
> > >
> > > Concerning Flarm, what could possibly go wrong? Some installations have
> > > small, dim displays that are hard to read, some are polarized. Software
> > > is frequently misconfigured, antenna installations are amateurish.
> > > People sometimes set it up more as a toy than as a serious collision
> > > avoidance system.
> > >
> > > Of course in the U.S., most Flarms receive only the 1090 signals, not
> > > the UAT. Turns out a Cessna can kill you just as dead as a 767. And
> > > there's plenty of Cessna's running around below 10K without transmitting
> > > either frequency.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Dave
> > >
> > Of course the biggest problem with Flarm is it's totally inadequate in
> > this situation. If somebody is stupid enough to be hanging out in an
> > ILS approach at a busy international airport, they damn well ought to
> > have a transponder at the absolute minimum.
> Kudo's to the flight crew of the 767!
> Most midairs occur near a airport or in the pattern, there have been 2 high profile midair incidents in the pattern in the US recently.
> I imagine the view out the front of the 767 is fairly limited, but in spite of being in the busy time of the ILS they kept the Mark 1 eyeball out the front, where they were heading, good job flight crew, and they continued the approach and landed too.
> Professionalism goes a long way when aviating.
> We can all get a positive take away from this near miss.
> Nick
> T
Actually Nick the visibility out the front of a 767 is pretty good. Sometimes there’s a lot of head down programming that needs to be done. I make sure that we don’t both go heads down below 18,000’.

The Cargo Jet crew did a good job.

Charlie

From the Designated Airspace Handbook:

3.4.4-10 Class D
3.4.4-11 Hamilton, ON:
3.4.4-12 The airspace to 4500´ (3700´ AAE) within the area bounded by a line beginning at:
N43°03'36.12" W079°53'54.37" to
N43°07'32.63" W080°04'49.23" thence clockwise along the arc of a circle of
7 [nautical] miles radius centred on
N43°10'25.00" W079°56'06.00" (Hamilton, ON - AD) \ to
N43°03'36.12" W079°53'54.37" point of beginning

The incident occurred 3 nm OUTSIDE the Hamilton CZ according to the TSB report.

Thanks for getting that report. Sounds like your TSB operates like our
FAA. Don't take things seriously until people die, then get out the
sledgehammer to kill the fly.

On 8/26/22 07:28, whir@tilde.club wrote:
> I wrote to the safety board using a form on their website and got a response this morning (pretty quick turnaround).
>
> I'm pasting from the P

DF too, the top half of which is a table. So it wrapped funny. If you
can get your email address to me and want the original PDF, let me know.
>
>
>
> response —
>
> Thank you for your interest in the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
>
> The occurrence you are interested in was classified as a Class 5 occurrence as you can see in the attached Occurrence Summary, taken from our database.
>
> As per the Occurrence Classification Policy (Appendix C), Class 5 occurrences are not subject to comprehensive investigations followed by an investigation report. However, data on Class 5 occurrences are recorded in suitable scope for possible future safety analysis, statistical reporting, or archival purposes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marc-Antoine Brassard
>
>
> Communications
> Bureau de la sécurité des transports du Canada / Transportation Safety Board of Canada
> Communications@bst-tsb.gc.ca / Tél.: 1-800-387-3557 / ATS: 819-934-2690
>
>
> PDF of summary attached —
>
> Transportation Safety Board of Canada
> External Public Report
> MODE: AIR
> Report Date: 2022/08/26
>
> This information is preliminary and subject to change. The information given for some occurrence may not have been verified by the TSB.
> Therefore, caution should be used when using this information.
>
> ------------------------ Occurrence 1 ------------------------
> Occurrence No.: A22O0120 Occurrence Type: INCIDENT REPORTABLE
> Class: CLASS 5 Reportable Type: RISK OF COLLISION (x)
> Date: 2022-08-12 Time: 16:39:00 UTC
> Region of
> Responsibility:
> ONTARIO
> Location: 10.00 Nautical miles WNW From CYHM - HAMILTON
> Country: CANADA Province: ONTARIO
> Ground Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
> Serious: 0 Unknown: 0
> ---------- Aircraft 1 ----------
> Registration: C-FCAE Operator: CARGOJET AIRWAYS LTD.
> Manufacturer: BOEING Operator Type: COMMERCIAL
> Model: 767-300 CARS Sub Part: 705 - AIRLINER
> Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
> Serious: 0 None: 0
> Unknown: 0
>
>
> Occurrence Summary:
> C-FCAE, a Boeing 767-300 aircraft operated by Cargojet Airways Ltd, was conducting flight
> CJT302 from Vancouver International Airport (CYVR), BC to John C. Munro Hamilton International
> Airport (CYHM), ON. While on Instrument landing system (ILS) approach for runway 12, CJT302
> took evasive action to the right to avoid an unknown VFR glider directly in front of them. The glider
> was not transponder equipped, therefore not visible on radar or the aircraft's Traffic and collision
> avoidance system (TCAS). The glider also made a turn in the north west direction. CJT302 passed
> the glider on its port side close enough to see the glider pilot and was able to shortly return to their
> approach profile and land on runway 12 without further incident.
>
>
>

On 8/26/2022 6:34 AM, kinsell wrote:
> On 8/25/22 22:13, kinsell wrote:
....
>>
>> Concerning Flarm, what could possibly go wrong?  Some installations have small, dim
>> displays that are hard to read, some are polarized.  Software is frequently
>> misconfigured, antenna installations are amateurish. People sometimes set it up more as
>> a toy than as a serious collision avoidance system.
>>
>> Of course in the U.S., most Flarms receive only the 1090 signals, not the UAT.  Turns
>> out a Cessna can kill you just as dead as a 767.  And there's plenty of Cessna's running
>> around below 10K without transmitting either frequency.
>>
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>
> Of course the biggest problem with Flarm is it's totally inadequate in this situation.  If
> somebody is stupid enough to be hanging out in an ILS approach at a busy international
> airport, they damn well ought to have a transponder at the absolute minimum.

The glider club is surrounded by numerous airports: three Class C, one Class D, eight+
municipal, and dozen or more private airports. I would not want to fly in that busy
airspace without a transponder.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications