On 8/26/22 09:43, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 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.
>

Came across a safety briefing from SOSA. Nice looking slides.
Virtually all of it is how to do visual scans. Two slides on Flarm,
calling it the best collision avoidance system available. Not even a
mention of transponders that I saw. Wow. Talk about an accident
waiting to happen.

https://www.sosaglidingclub.com/uploads/1/6/5/2/16520160/lookout_and_collision_avoidance_rev_3-2020.pdf

Seems to me like this whole conversation is built on two assumptions:

1) So long as everyone is operating within the FARs for VFR flight there's no problem

2) See and Avoid works satisfactorily, or would work satisfactorily if pilots would simply look out the window properly

IMO, neither of these assumptions is true. The OP pointed out that we are one midair with a commercial jet away from having soaring as we know it changed forever (who knows by how much). Every study I've read (and I've read a few) indicates that even the best visual scan will identify a target on a collision course before it's too late about 50% of the time. The reason for this is that human central vision, the vision that can pick the fine detail of an airplane at any reasonable distance - is a cone of about 2% in arc - that's your thumb at arms length. Think about how many thumbs it takes to cover a 360% sphere. Your peripheral vision (everything else) doesn't pick up detail, but is sensitive to lateral motion. The problem is that aircraft on a collision course don't have any lateral motion until they get close enough that you can pick up the motion of the target getting bigger and the wingtips spreading apart in your visual field. That's typically less than 4 second from impact. How much of the 360 degree sphere around you can you scan every four seconds? Pilots who fly a lot of VFR are subject to selection bias - they see a lot of traffic that's not a collision threat (i.e. it has a lot of lateral motion) and think that they are seeing and avoiding, but it's an illusion - you mostly don't see the ones you should be worried about.

Get a Mode-S transponder if you fly near any busy airport traffic areas - particularly if there are jets in the mix - they come up on you super fast. IF we don't, we will be required to eventually - or a lot more.

Andy Blackburn
9B
(Flarm, Mode-S and ADS-B Out with a squat switch)

On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 3:01:53 PM UTC-4, anderson....@gmail.com wrote:
> Seems to me like this whole conversation is built on two assumptions:
>
> 1) So long as everyone is operating within the FARs for VFR flight there's no problem
>
> 2) See and Avoid works satisfactorily, or would work satisfactorily if pilots would simply look out the window properly
>
> IMO, neither of these assumptions is true. The OP pointed out that we are one midair with a commercial jet away from having soaring as we know it changed forever (who knows by how much). Every study I've read (and I've read a few) indicates that even the best visual scan will identify a target on a collision course before it's too late about 50% of the time. The reason for this is that human central vision, the vision that can pick the fine detail of an airplane at any reasonable distance - is a cone of about 2% in arc - that's your thumb at arms length. Think about how many thumbs it takes to cover a 360% sphere. Your peripheral vision (everything else) doesn't pick up detail, but is sensitive to lateral motion. The problem is that aircraft on a collision course don't have any lateral motion until they get close enough that you can pick up the motion of the target getting bigger and the wingtips spreading apart in your visual field. That's typically less than 4 second from impact. How much of the 360 degree sphere around you can you scan every four seconds? Pilots who fly a lot of VFR are subject to selection bias - they see a lot of traffic that's not a collision threat (i.e. it has a lot of lateral motion) and think that they are seeing and avoiding, but it's an illusion - you mostly don't see the ones you should be worried about.
>
> Get a Mode-S transponder if you fly near any busy airport traffic areas - particularly if there are jets in the mix - they come up on you super fast.. IF we don't, we will be required to eventually - or a lot more.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B
> (Flarm, Mode-S and ADS-B Out with a squat switch)

Andy, you make some valid points, as do many others, the glass screen and ADSB have created many of the problems that we see today Now as you probably already know , I am an old guy that has been doing this since the mid 1970"s, we did not have all the fancy gadgets that we have today and airspace was completely different. Back in those days there was a much greater reliance on having your eyes out of the cockpit in gliders as well as powered aircraft. Scanning the sky is something that should be done with much greater emphasis on the up close alert area, yet in most cases one will never see the one that takes you out. I know this very well, the one that came 25 feet from me at 250 knots came from behind me and actually crossed just over my wing.
R mentioned earlier that there have been times when he had to alert his crew to be alert for VFR traffic, he is 100% correct. We have had 5 NMAC reports filed in recent months, this has gone up the food chain faster than COVID hit NYC. It would have been nice for all these experts to sit in on the investigation and the later Zoom meetings that resulted in a LOA to assist in distancing traffic on IFR approach corridors going into and out of our area.
I would venture to say that I bet the IFR approach info did not show possible glider traffic in that area, ours did not either, but certainly does now! If you take a look at the FAR's the instillation of ADSB must be permanent, yet there is portable technology available that could possibly resolve many of the glider aircraft NMAC's that are reported. So, it works in Europe, and Australia, but not here. Actually I think some eyes have been opened and a solution might just be down the road.
If you like I would be glad to share our LOA, it is a step in the right direction, yet more needs to be done. Old Bob, The Purist

On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:17:18 AM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
> 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.

The equivalent of our TSB is your NTSB; the equivalent of your FAA is our Transport Canada (TC), and our airspace is controlled by NavCanada on behalf of TC.

On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 6:28:13 PM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:17:18 AM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
> > 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.
> The equivalent of our TSB is your NTSB; the equivalent of your FAA is our Transport Canada (TC), and our airspace is controlled by NavCanada on behalf of TC.

That "report" said less than the newspaper article, which looked like the extent of their research. They didn't say that they even identified the glider in question, or interviewed the pilot. So we have no idea if the glider pilot saw the 767 (probably not). SOSA needs to do a REAL investigation and come up with a strategy to stop these incidents before a fatal accident occurs. Also, level 5 sounds like their lowest level of severity.

On 8/26/2022 12:50 PM, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> If you take a look at the FAR's the instillation of ADSB must be permanent, yet there is portable technology available that could possibly resolve many of the glider aircraft NMAC's that are reported. So, it works in Europe, and Australia, but not here. Actually I think some eyes have been opened and a solution might just be down the road.
> If you like I would be glad to share our LOA, it is a step in the right direction, yet more needs to be done. Old Bob, The Purist

" more needs to be done". At the risk of being Captain Obvious, why not a Mode C
Transponder? That would make you visible to the airliners and other TCAS users, and used
Mode C units are cheap. Or plan for the future, and install a Trig Mode S: lower battery
drain, so you may not need to install bigger batteries, and you can add ADS-B when desired.

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

On 8/26/22 08:57, George Haeh wrote:
> 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.

So are you going to tell us the glider pilot did nothing wrong because
she had the right of way by regulation?

On 8/26/22 23:00, 2G wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 6:28:13 PM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote:
>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:17:18 AM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
>>> 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.
>> The equivalent of our TSB is your NTSB; the equivalent of your FAA is our Transport Canada (TC), and our airspace is controlled by NavCanada on behalf of TC.
>
> That "report" said less than the newspaper article, which looked like the extent of their research. They didn't say that they even identified the glider in question, or interviewed the pilot. So we have no idea if the glider pilot saw the 767 (probably not). SOSA needs to do a REAL investigation and come up with a strategy to stop these incidents before a fatal accident occurs. Also, level 5 sounds like their lowest level of severity.

I reposted comments from a commercial pilot from Avherald.com. He
described TC and Nav Canada as being indifferent to repeated incidents
like this at Hamilton. He also said trying to communicate with SOSA was
like hitting a brick wall, they couldn't understand the wider implications.

Isn't it frightening how accurate those comments apparently are?

One way we can help prevent incidences like this is to not tow them. The reg's won't help on this one. After all you can still fly without any electrical devices in a glider, legally and can not be denied in virtually any airspace if you need to land.

BG

Air Canada heavy came with feet of plowing into four passenger jets on a
taxi way, after being told SIX frickin times to go around. The other
jets turned on their flashing lights to try to warn them off.

And these are the guys that you're depending on to reliably see a little
glider in their ILS approach?? "But, but, we put out a NOTAM!"

https://globalnews.ca/news/4541037/air-canada-near-miss-san-francisco-worst-aviation-accident/

On 8/22/22 16:43, kinsell wrote:
> https://mentourpilot.com/incident-boeing-767-swerves-to-avoid-glider/
>
>
> I've often thought it would take just one serious collision with a
> commercial airliner to shut down the sport of soaring permanently.

The audio in that article was from a different incident with an Air
Canada jet landing at San Francisco.

On 8/28/22 00:19, kinsell wrote:
> Air Canada heavy came with feet of plowing into four passenger jets on a
> taxi way, after being told SIX frickin times to go around.  The other
> jets turned on their flashing lights to try to warn them off.
>
> And these are the guys that you're depending on to reliably see a little
> glider in their ILS approach??  "But, but, we put out a NOTAM!"
>
> https://globalnews.ca/news/4541037/air-canada-near-miss-san-francisco-worst-aviation-accident/
>
>

On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 2:54:14 PM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> The audio in that article was from a different incident with an Air
> Canada jet landing at San Francisco.
> On 8/28/22 00:19, kinsell wrote:
> > Air Canada heavy came with feet of plowing into four passenger jets on a
> > taxi way, after being told SIX frickin times to go around. The other
> > jets turned on their flashing lights to try to warn them off.
> >
> > And these are the guys that you're depending on to reliably see a little
> > glider in their ILS approach?? "But, but, we put out a NOTAM!"
> >
> > https://globalnews.ca/news/4541037/air-canada-near-miss-san-francisco-worst-aviation-accident/
> >
> >

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 3:43:48 PM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> https://mentourpilot.com/incident-boeing-767-swerves-to-avoid-glider/
>
>
> I've often thought it would take just one serious collision with a
> commercial airliner to shut down the sport of soaring permanently.

This encounter was “close enough.” [for the 767 crew] to see the glider pilot”

Time to put all the glider pilots that flew that day in a line up, I'm sure that crew can ID the guilty one. then check his vax card.