I recently operated motorglider for AEFs at a large regional airport with RPT and the flying doctor. The aircraft was fitted with a device that was both a flarm and an ADSB (I think). And yes it had a transponder connected.
It worked. I spoke to the flying doctor on the ground after we both landed and we both had traffic alerts. Details here. http://www.garrecht.com/index.php/en/ads-b/trx-2000 Cath Sent from my iPhone On 20/04/2012, at 9:07 PM, Simon Hackett <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [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
