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.
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.
On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 4:43:48 p.m. UTC-6, kinsell wrote:
https://mentourpilot.com/incident-boeing-767-swerves-to-avoid-glider/
a report. Fake News?I've often thought it would take just one serious collision with a commercial airliner to shut down the sport of soaring permanently.There is no report on the Canadian 'Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System' (CADORS) that I can find. It would be very strange if this was not reported there. I saw this reported in a Canadian aviation forum and they couldn't actually produce
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.There is no report on the Canadian 'Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System' (CADORS) that I can find. It would be very strange if this was not reported there. I saw this reported in a Canadian aviation forum and they couldn't actually produce
That makes 3 of us. Seriously, I spent a career observing my fellow crew members pretty much ignore looking for VFR/GA traffic. Operating under 10,000’ means you are departing or arriving in turn requiring the pilot flying to constantly monitor theinstrument panel out of habit from fear of screwing up. The pilot not flying watches the pilot flying fearing the pilot flying will screw up. All of this has evolved because flight crews encounters with GA traffic is very rare, creating a lack of
I believe and accept that no one is looking out. Even GAs with all their fancy glass cockpits. That includes 66% of glider pilots. With the advent of ADSB, Flarm, TCAS….our modern pilots are being conditioned to look in, not out. Stare at a screen,not the wonder of it all.
Cheers!
R
That makes 3 of us. Seriously, I spent a career observing my fellow crew members pretty much ignore looking for VFR/GA traffic. Operating under 10,000’ means you are departing or arriving in turn requiring the pilot flying to constantly monitor theinstrument panel out of habit from fear of screwing up. The pilot not flying watches the pilot flying fearing the pilot flying will screw up. All of this has evolved because flight crews encounters with GA traffic is very rare, creating a lack of
I believe and accept that no one is looking out. Even GAs with all their fancy glass cockpits. That includes 66% of glider pilots. With the advent of ADSB, Flarm, TCAS….our modern pilots are being conditioned to look in, not out. Stare at a screen,not the wonder of it all.
Cheers!
R
Don't forget that out west gliders are flying right up to the bottom ofinstrument panel out of habit from fear of screwing up. The pilot not flying watches the pilot flying fearing the pilot flying will screw up. All of this has evolved because flight crews encounters with GA traffic is very rare, creating a lack of
the PCA. Oops, Class A airspace.
I guess the reference to Part 61 is about "See and avoid" when in VMC on
an IFR flight plan.
My glider has full (Certificated) ADS-B In and Out.
Dan
5J
On 8/23/22 05:18, R wrote:
That makes 3 of us. Seriously, I spent a career observing my fellow crew members pretty much ignore looking for VFR/GA traffic. Operating under 10,000’ means you are departing or arriving in turn requiring the pilot flying to constantly monitor the
not the wonder of it all.I believe and accept that no one is looking out. Even GAs with all their fancy glass cockpits. That includes 66% of glider pilots. With the advent of ADSB, Flarm, TCAS….our modern pilots are being conditioned to look in, not out. Stare at a screen,
Cheers!
R
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:the instrument panel out of habit from fear of screwing up. The pilot not flying watches the pilot flying fearing the pilot flying will screw up. All of this has evolved because flight crews encounters with GA traffic is very rare, creating a lack of
Don't forget that out west gliders are flying right up to the bottom of the PCA. Oops, Class A airspace.
I guess the reference to Part 61 is about "See and avoid" when in VMC on an IFR flight plan.
My glider has full (Certificated) ADS-B In and Out.
Dan
5J
On 8/23/22 05:18, R wrote:
That makes 3 of us. Seriously, I spent a career observing my fellow crew members pretty much ignore looking for VFR/GA traffic. Operating under 10,000’ means you are departing or arriving in turn requiring the pilot flying to constantly monitor
screen, not the wonder of it all.I believe and accept that no one is looking out. Even GAs with all their fancy glass cockpits. That includes 66% of glider pilots. With the advent of ADSB, Flarm, TCAS….our modern pilots are being conditioned to look in, not out. Stare at a
Cheers!
R
The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did everything right.
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:19:57 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:the instrument panel out of habit from fear of screwing up. The pilot not flying watches the pilot flying fearing the pilot flying will screw up. All of this has evolved because flight crews encounters with GA traffic is very rare, creating a lack of
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Don't forget that out west gliders are flying right up to the bottom of
the PCA. Oops, Class A airspace.
I guess the reference to Part 61 is about "See and avoid" when in VMC on >>> an IFR flight plan.
My glider has full (Certificated) ADS-B In and Out.
Dan
5J
On 8/23/22 05:18, R wrote:
That makes 3 of us. Seriously, I spent a career observing my fellow crew members pretty much ignore looking for VFR/GA traffic. Operating under 10,000’ means you are departing or arriving in turn requiring the pilot flying to constantly monitor
not the wonder of it all.
I believe and accept that no one is looking out. Even GAs with all their fancy glass cockpits. That includes 66% of glider pilots. With the advent of ADSB, Flarm, TCAS….our modern pilots are being conditioned to look in, not out. Stare at a screen,
is amazing that they saw and avoided the glider in time. Operating in a high traffic area like Hamilton or Vero Beach w/o a transponder is inviting trouble. Having an ADS-B traffic display gives you that much more awareness of what is happening aroundThe glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did everything right.Cheers!
R
The incident occurred at 9:43am, almost 2 hours before the XC pilots launched from Rockton SOSA, all of whom headed north (Hamilton is south). This must have been a training flight. At the time of the incident the 767 had a ground speed of 212mph - it
Tom
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:19:57 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:is amazing that they saw and avoided the glider in time. Operating in a high traffic area like Hamilton or Vero Beach w/o a transponder is inviting trouble. Having an ADS-B traffic display gives you that much more awareness of what is happening around
The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did everything right.
The incident occurred at 9:43am, almost 2 hours before the XC pilots launched from Rockton SOSA, all of whom headed north (Hamilton is south). This must have been a training flight. At the time of the incident the 767 had a ground speed of 212mph - it
Tom
The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did everything right.
On 8/23/22 23:29, 2G wrote:onder of it all.
....Cheers!
The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did everything right. >>The incident occurred at 9:43am, almost 2 hours before the XC pilots launched from
Rockton SOSA, all of whom headed north (Hamilton is south). This must have been a
training flight. At the time of the incident the 767 had a ground speed of 212mph - it
is amazing that they saw and avoided the glider in time. Operating in a high traffic
area like Hamilton or Vero Beach w/o a transponder is inviting trouble. Having an ADS-B
traffic display gives you that much more awareness of what is happening around you. It
is surprising how much traffic there is out there that you never see visually.
Tom
Local time was 12:43 EDT.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CJT302/history/20220812/1310Z/CYVR/CYHM
I don't see a big swerve in the flight path, more like a little overshoot in the turn to
pick up the localizer.
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] 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".
On 8/23/2022 11:35 PM, kinsell wrote:
On 8/23/22 23:29, 2G wrote:onder of it all.
....Cheers!
The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did everything
right.
The incident occurred at 9:43am, almost 2 hours before the XC pilots
launched from Rockton SOSA, all of whom headed north (Hamilton is
south). This must have been a training flight. At the time of the
incident the 767 had a ground speed of 212mph - it is amazing that
they saw and avoided the glider in time. Operating in a high traffic
area like Hamilton or Vero Beach w/o a transponder is inviting
trouble. Having an ADS-B traffic display gives you that much more
awareness of what is happening around you. It is surprising how much
traffic there is out there that you never see visually.
Tom
Local time was 12:43 EDT.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CJT302/history/20220812/1310Z/CYVR/CYHM >>
I don't see a big swerve in the flight path, more like a little
overshoot in the turn to pick up the localizer.
There's a discrepancy between Tom's 9:43 am EDT and the flight track,
which shows the cargo jet arriving at Hamilton at 12:43 pm EDT (9:43
PDT). I do not see a swerve, either, but just a smooth right turn onto
the runway extended center line. If the incident did occur around 12:43
EDT, that would be the same period when many gliders were launching from Rockton CPT3 airport.
The local glider club several years ago decided to install transponders in its club gliders, but there's a couple dozen or so private gliders. It's a big club.
I remember being just a couple thousand feet up just a couple miles away over the fairground looking down on a British charter 757 on base to the RWY 12 ILS.
Then there was a Dash 8 splitting a thermal between two of us just south of the control zone to the north. I had stopped monitoring the tower when the other glider joined in.
I could go on with other examples.
One operator agreed to put out a radio call on the club frequency which helped.
With the big guys now on ADSB, PowerFLARM is really good at picking up their position. I'm happy to get out of the way, when I can't get in touch over the radio.
On 8/22/2022 6:10 PM, George Haeh wrote:
The local glider club several years ago decided to install transponders in its club gliders, but there's a couple dozen or so private gliders. It's a big club.
I remember being just a couple thousand feet up just a couple miles away over the fairground looking down on a British charter 757 on base to the RWY 12 ILS.
Then there was a Dash 8 splitting a thermal between two of us just south of the control zone to the north. I had stopped monitoring the tower when the other glider joined in.
I could go on with other examples.
One operator agreed to put out a radio call on the club frequency which helped.
With the big guys now on ADSB, PowerFLARM is really good at picking up their position. I'm happy to get out of the way, when I can't get in touch over the radio.Can someone tell me the Canadian requirements for transponders and ADS-B in their gliders?
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
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".
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
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 andavoid 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".
On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:Don’t be a simpleton. Obviously it’s everyone’s duty to see and avoid.
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
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".
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.
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 7:32:23 PM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:Why do gliders have right of way over para-gliders?
On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
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".
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. DidDon’t be a simpleton. Obviously it’s everyone’s duty to see and avoid.
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.
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.
On Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 21:02:43 UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:Beats me but it’s in the FAR’s. I checked out of curiosity. Possibly because they’re not certified IDK.
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:Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
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".
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. DidDon’t be a simpleton. Obviously it’s everyone’s duty to see and avoid.
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.
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?
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, [email protected] 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: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.
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
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".
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 toDon’t be a simpleton. Obviously it’s everyone’s duty to see and avoid.
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.
Beats me but it’s in the FAR’s. I checked out of curiosity. Possibly because they’re not certified IDK.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?
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.
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:38:50 PM UTC-7, [email protected]
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, [email protected]Beats me but it’s in the FAR’s. I checked out of curiosity. Possibly
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 7:32:23 PM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:Why do gliders have right of way over para-gliders?
On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:Don’t be a simpleton. Obviously it’s everyone’s duty to see and
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsellAbsolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
wrote:
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in
The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot didWith the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated
everything right.
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".
uncontrolled airspace.
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.
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.
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
"Paragliders have an engine operating at all times."FAR part 103-
No, they don't. Paragliders are foot or tow launched. You are confusing paragliders with PARAMOTORS.
On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote: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
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
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".
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.
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:32:23 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote: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
On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote: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
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
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 totake 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".
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.
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.
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:32:23 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote: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
On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote: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
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
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 totake 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".
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.
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, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in
The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot did everythingWith 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
right.
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".
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.
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
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:32:23 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote: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
On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote: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
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
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 totake 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".
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.
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:32:23 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote: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
On 8/24/22 18:44, Charles Longley wrote:
On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
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".
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. DidYou 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
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.
On 8/25/22 08:16, [email protected] 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:Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in uncontrolled airspace.
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".
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.
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 8/25/2022 3:08 PM, kinsell wrote:
On 8/25/22 08:16, [email protected] 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:Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
On 8/23/22 21:19, [email protected] wrote:The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in
The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot didWith the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to
everything right.
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".
uncontrolled airspace.
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.
On 8/25/22 21:19, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 8/25/2022 3:08 PM, kinsell wrote:
On 8/25/22 08:16, [email protected] 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, [email protected] wrote:Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in
The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot didWith the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to >>>>>>> see and
everything right.
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".
uncontrolled airspace.
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
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.
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, [email protected] 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, [email protected] wrote:Absolutely, that is the regulation in the U.S. Most of us aren't
The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in
The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot didWith the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to >>>>>>> see and
everything right.
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".
uncontrolled airspace.
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, [email protected] 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, [email protected] wrote: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.
The glider actually has the right of way assuming they were in >>>>>> uncontrolled airspace.
The glider pilot did nothing wrong. The cargo pilot didWith the glider flying under VFR rules, he would be obligated to >>>>>>> see and
everything right.
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".
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.
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’.-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 anKudo's to the flight crew of the 767!
ILS approach at a busy international airport, they damn well ought to
have a transponder at the absolute minimum.
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 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.
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
response —safety analysis, statistical reporting, or archival purposes.
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
Regards,
Marc-Antoine Brassard
Communications
Bureau de la sécurité des transports du Canada / Transportation Safety Board of Canada
[email protected] / 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.
Seems to me like this whole conversation is built on two assumptions: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
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
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)
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 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.
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
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.
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 6:28:13 PM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote: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 Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:17:18 AM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
Thanks for getting that report. Sounds like your TSB operates like ourThe 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.
FAA. Don't take things seriously until people die, then get out the
sledgehammer to kill the fly.
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
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.
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/
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/
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 716 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 49:02:07 |
| Calls: | 12,115 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,530 |