In the unlikely event you've not all seen it already, here's one way the outcome could have turned out:
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html I will say that while I appreciate its an issue that more than a few glider pilots seem passionately opposed to for their own reasons, the notion of regularly operating transponders in gliders is one that I personally believe would be of active assistance here (I certainly do so). I think that doing so could directly improve safety in this regard [noting that the link above indicates the glider concerned had one, but it wasn't powered up - like all electronics, its far less effective when its switched off] I'm not directly arguing for mandating transponders in gliders (and not specifically seeking to re-start that particular debate). Rather, I'm just indicating there are significant merits in choosing to operate a transponder in a glider, because having ATC and TCAS equipped powered aircraft able to see *you* is definitely a source of additional alerted avoidance of mid air collisions - whether or not you have something in your glider that works in the other direction. I've found that air traffic control is frequently helpful to VFR and IFR aircraft, in that they will call you up proactively and advise of the presence of transponder-equipped unidentified traffic in your vicinity on a pretty routine basis. They're as interested in avoiding mid air contacts as the rest of us are. In addition, aircraft like the powered plane I'm fortunate enough to fly also paints any aircraft with a working transponder on my moving map... with position, relative altitude, and aural and visual alerting of nearby traffic. This is becoming very much more common over time, and increasingly affordable as a retrofit as well (cf. Zaon units, and the always-nearly-available Power FLARM units). As for all of the other ways we might become aware of another aircraft in our vicinity (Mark I eyeball, use of VHF radio, FLARM, hang glider pilot screaming obscenities after a powered aircraft or glider passes too close, etc)... having one more way to avoid a collision has to be a good thing, IMHO. Anyway - we all do the best we can. And if we keep looking out for (and looking after) each other, hopefully we can continue to minimise the chances of such collisions overall. Last thought I have here is that I reckon it'd be great if CASA (via the GFA?) was asked about the notion of allocating a generic transponder code for transponder-equipped gliders to use instead of 1200. That would help ATC to be sure that what they are seeing is a glider, and hence would help them to inform other traffic more usefully about the likely tracking characteristics of a glider they may wish to alert other traffic about. Regards, Simon On 20/04/2012, at 1:37 PM, Tim Shirley wrote: Hi all, It's not quite right to suggest that it is only glider pilots who need training. A recent radio exchange at Benalla went something like this: "Cessna XXX 10 miles SE Benalla maintaining 4500 ft overflying for Mangalore" "Cessna XXX glider YYY, be aware there are approximately 6 gliders operating in the vicinity of the airfield up to 6000ft" "YYY this is XXX, please give locations of all gliders" "XXX, gliders may be operating at any location within 10 miles of the airfield and altitude up to cloudbase. Please keep a good lookout." "YYY, there should be a NOTAM out for that" "XXX, this is YYY, the ERSA entry for Benalla states that glider operations may be carried out during daylight hours on any day" As I have commented before on this forum, the operational characteristics of gliders makes information provided by radio far less useful in a predictive sense than the same information given by a powered aircraft because gliders don't fly precise tracks or maintain constant altitudes. This is no one's fault, and it won't be fixed simply by more frequent, more detailed or more "correct" transmissions. I have a simple rule for the radio. I listen as much as possible and I talk as little as I can get away with while still complying with all reasonable rules. Cheers Tim tra dire e fare c'รจ mezzo il mare On 20/04/2012 10:17, Mark Newton wrote: On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:31:21AM +1000, Christopher Mc Donnell wrote: > http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2012/04/20/teenage-pilots-quick-response-avoids-collision/ The actual ATSB report referenced by the article is here: http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3548648/ab-2012-019.pdf#page=47 I'm sure there's a lot of room for interpretation here (i.e., concerning whether a CAR166C broadcast is strictly required if the glider pilot doesn't believe "it is necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision with another aircraft.") The differing guidance between the competition rules, GFA rules and CASA rules about which frequency should be used and when broadcasts should be made is also up for discussion. But one thing worth hilighting is that I think CASA and GFA have diverged in their focus on radio of late. My experience of GFA's training concerning radio is that it emphasised minimizing radio chatter in favor of focussing on flying the aeroplane and looking out. Meanwhile CASA's training of GA pilots has emphasised more promiscuous use of the radio, leading to glider pilots making snarky comments about GA pilots spending all their time talking instead of looking where they're going. I think glider pilot radio training has probably varied quite a bit from club to club too -- which is, itself, a problem. Over the last couple of years, CASA has shifted from "see and avoid" to "radio assisted see and avoid" to "see and avoid alerted by mandatory radio calls." The CTAF rules published last year are the latest step in that evolution. I don't think a lot of glider pilots have kept up with those changes. Moreover, glider pilots trained more than a few years ago who haven't updated their skills are now probably using radio very differently to other airspace users, even if it is consistent with the way they were trained. (have you read the latest version of the GFA radio operators handbook? It's probably different from the one you were trained against. I'd include a link, but GFA's website seems to be down at the moment...) - mark _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
