do you wear a parachute?

[Crimson03]

Let's see if I get the jist of this thread. I am supposed to put a 3-4k transponder in my 10k glider, so professional jet pilots can safely read the newspaper at work. If you're not looking out the window what' the hell is the point of flying? Chicks? Money? Prestige?
Pathetic

 

[MJG]

And as both a jet airliner pilot and glider pilot I can say, therein lies the problem. Gliders are relatively cheap as far as aviation costs go. Adding a transponder requirement would force a lot of folks out of the sport I'm afraid. It wouldn't just be the initial cost of buying/installing a xpnder, it would be the upkeep and the required checks that would be involved that would really put the costs up there.

But on the other hand I do think something needs to be in place in areas where gliders are regularly mixing with powered aircraft at the higher altitudes. What's the solution?? I'm not sure.......

 

[Lead Sled]

Hey, I fly a jet and I've got a CFIG. I've owned a glider that had a full gyro panel in it (electrical powered) at one time. Personally, I agree 100% with Avbug - it's see and avoid baby whether you're in a jet or a glider. (One of my pet peaves are pilots of high-performance turboprop and turbojet aircraft who habitually hand fly their aircraft at altitudes and in airspace where VFR aircraft can be an issue. That's why they put autopilots in our airplanes. You need at least 2 and perferably 4 eyeball looking out the window. But hey, that's just me.)

Perhaps the regs are lacking when it comes to transponder operation and glider operations, but we never had a problem getting 3 or 4 hours out of a battery pack and we always had a couple of battery packs charged up and ready to go. Unfortunately, it's going to take a tragedy along the lines of the near-miss that recently occurred before the Feds step in and force a "politically correct" solution on us.

I don't buy the "cost" argument either - transponders and encoders are dirt cheap when compared what guys are paying for today's glass ubber-gliders.

We recently moved our base of operations to CRQ and we've already seen one glider pass under us as we descended out of altitude out near Thermal. I've got no beef with those guys, they have every right to be there. (I'm counting down the days when I will be able to join them.) However, they need to realize that for the most part, they're flying a stealth aircraft in busy airspace. A transponder and encoder and a discrete code would go a long way toward keeping incidents like this from occurring.

LS

 

[avbug]

The issue regarding mode S, TCAS, and pilots who don't look out the window is great if one presupposes that the goal is to protect corporate jet pilots. I've spent enough time looking at TCAS to know it's value, but I've also spent enough time in aircraft that don't have it to know that eyes up are the law. Never mind the snide remarks from various posters who can't seem to intelligently recognize this fact (not opinion)...it's a basic requirement of flight under IFR and VFR.

I've been down in that same area and come up on sailplanes around palm springs that have come out of Hemet, close to the hills, them doing their thing and ridge soaring, and me doing my thing and looking for smoke. Neither with TCAS in that case, me with a transponder, but then who cares? The transponder won't fend off aircraft or prevent the strike, particularly if the other aircraft isn't TCAS equipped, or if the aircraft involved aren't participating.

Some of the most notable mid air collisions in recent history have occured between aircraft that have been using transponders and that have been under positive radar control. One in particular that involved TCAS equipped aircraft.

Frequently I see plots who have become too accustomed to having their shoes polished and their work done for them by automation being quick to condemn the free world that isn't operating at their level of sophisitication. I've seen it in my own cockpit. I flew with an individual years ago who cried to high heaven because the aircraft we had didn't have turn anticipation and needed a little help to level off. Others who cried bloody murder if they had to fly in uncontrolled airspace. Many who forever called "any inbound traffic, please advise!" Folks who want the radio to look for traffic, believe if TCAS doesn't see it, it isn't there (nobody ever saw an aircraft blow by at altitude and didn't see it on TCAS, huh?). More than a few who above 10,000' really thought it was okay to clip an enroute chart to the sun visor and read a magazine.

I'm sure that some of the posters never bother to look outside and perhaps they've jumpseated with plenty of crews who do the same. Guess what? That makes all of you wrong. And dangerous. Doesn't make it right.

 

[glasspilot]

Avbug and others,

I reread my post and I'm a little concerned that I've come off wrong. I never intended to find myself arguing that pilots shouldn't look outside. They / we all should. My intent was to stress that very few high performance aircraft pilots look out, let's say, "as much as we should". Even if you are very diligent about constantly looking out side there are times that cockpit duties require your attention inside. (yes you should split the duties in that case but many times it doesn't happen) The point is I think putting a cheap xponder in all aircraft and especially gliders, with their low profile, would be well worth it. Well all complain about the reactionary style of the FAA. They never seem to make a rule unless someone or a lot of people die first. Well, the xponder issue just makes sense to me.

Again, I apologize if my previous posts came off as flame. Fly safe.

 

[tonycondon]

It really doesnt take much of a fancy glider to get to 10,000 + out in the western basin. In fact, an older, lower wing loaded glider like mine would actually outclimb a new fiberglass $100,000 ship full of water as my sink rate is lower. I carry a handheld radio with me when I fly, hooked up to a plantronics headset, and I keep my eyes outside. Got hardly any instruments to look at anyway. Tell me I have to put a transponder in my glider and Ill sell mine. A "cheap" transponder will cost almost as much as my glider did, plus the added weight of a satisfactory battery for a 5 or 6 hour flight and the actual equipment would mean I would have to lose some weight, I guess that would be a good consequence.

 

[MJG]

The point is I think putting a cheap xponder in all aircraft and especially gliders, with their low profile, would be well worth it. Well all complain about the reactionary style of the FAA. They never seem to make a rule unless someone or a lot of people die first. Well, the xponder issue just makes sense to me.

But that's just the thing. Nothing the FAA mandates ends up being cheap. So my club with it's four gliders would have to increase our yearly dues by who knows how much just to pay for such an additional requirement. We already struggle to attract and retain members as our dues are already $500/year just for club membership, this doesn't include any tow fees.

Maybe I'm just out of the loop. Are there any "cheap" transponders, that are FAA approved, require little or no maintenance, require low power supply, are of a low weight and easy to install and operate? If so maybe they would be the answer.

Each of us has differing views on what is expensive or not. To one of us an additional $1000.oo transponder is not going to break the bank, but to someone else, like tony says above, that may be a significant cost to the point of forcing that person to sell their glider and get out of the sport all together.

 

[Lead Sled]

...Nothing the FAA mandates ends up being cheap. So my club with it's four gliders would have to increase our yearly dues by who knows how much just to pay for such an additional requirement. We already struggle to attract and retain members as our dues are already $500/year just for club membership, this doesn't include any tow fees...

Each of us has differing views on what is expensive or not. To one of us an additional $1000.00 transponder is not going to break the bank, but to someone else, like tony says above, that may be a significant cost to the point of forcing that person to sell their glider and get out of the sport all together.

I don't mean to sound patronizing, but I wonder how much the sailplane pilot involved in last week's incident would be willing to pay for a transponder and battery pack now?

Granted, not every glider would need them - just the ones being operated in areas where there is a chance of tangling with high speed traffic.

LS

 

[glasspilot]

Maybe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Make big 'ol glider boxes that anyone can be in and keep IFR traffic out (like MOA's are now) and if you want to go on your cross country or fly outside the box you need a transponder.

Does that seem too restrictive or a workable compromise?

 

[Way2Broke]

Hey Avbug;

1st: I'm not your "mate".

2nd: I'm telling you what is. I know everyone would like to believe professional pilots are constantly looking outside. But believe me that is NOT the case. In all my years of flying I've never met a pilot that as spent a great deal of time looking out the window unless the TCAS is going off or ATC says there's traffic. I've been an FO and a CA. I've commuted for over 7 years. In all of that time none of my "pilots in the other seat" or even the "major airline pilots" of the airplane I was jumpseating on have done it either. Below a few thousand feed...yes, we look outside a great deal more. Above a few thousand feet...it's pretty much instrumentation. Right or wrong it's a fact. I've been in flight in the jumpseat at night and seen the CA turn on the dome light so he could read the newspaper and eat his diner. I don't mean to drone on but it is just a fact of life; it is the extremely rare jet pilot that looks outside on his own for traffic when flying. TCAS has done a wonderful job of preventing midairs but it has also made pilots more reliant on electronic equipment to avoid those same midair collisions

I really do respect glider pilots and that is sort of the reason I even made it to this thread, but I'm also telling you the truth from an airline/cargo/corporate point of view. Airplanes without transponders operating where other airline/cargo/corporate aircraft operate is a recipe for problems.

I can't think of a reason a transponder couldn't be installed in any airplane. With today's electronics capabilities they could make a hand held or a very cheap panel mount that would fix the problem. I truly think America has enough airspace for everyone to get what they want out of aviation.

Fly safe.

Pilots depending on TCAS to see and avoid instead of keeping their eyes outside is a recipe for disaster. I recommend you look outside more and quit relying on your "glass". This is a concept taught to private pilots pre-solo. I would hope that you can still handle pre-solo type expectations.

I can think of a reason that a x-ponder would not be installed in a plane, and that is that not all aircraft have electrical systems. As a previous poster pointed out, glider pilots are cheap, they don't even buy a engine. Now your going to ask them to get field approval for a electrical system, and transponder installation. In some cases that could cost more than the craft itself.

The one thing I agree with you on is that not enough pilots look outside, and this is true no matter what type of equipment you are flying.

Edit: I read the entire thread. All of us have came off "wrong" on a internet message board before. The inability to use tone of voice, etc. etc. is the one downfall of the net. Sorry if I came off strong too.

 

[Gorilla]

Let's see if I get the jist of this thread. I am supposed to put a 3-4k transponder in my 10k glider, so professional jet pilots can safely read the newspaper at work. If you're not looking out the window what' the hell is the point of flying? Chicks? Money? Prestige?
Pathetic

No you haven't got it. If I was flying a glider again, I wouldn't use a transponder so the jet puke can read his USA Today, I'd use it as a layer of protection for ME. I don't know who's out there. It's great to pretend they're all on pins and needles with a killer visual lookout, and they won't cream me while I'm thermalling, but the reality is that they are likely half asleep.

If you are counting upon others' actions and equipment to keep you safe, then I'd suggest you rethink how you fly. Like riding a motorcycle, you have to expect the other guy to do something stupid, and protect yourself accordingly.

 

[Lead Sled]

No you haven't got it. If I was flying a glider again, I wouldn't use a transponder so the jet puke can read his USA Today, I'd use it as a layer of protection for ME. I don't know who's out there. It's great to pretend they're all on pins and needles with a killer visual lookout, and they won't cream me while I'm thermalling, but the reality is that they are likely half asleep.

If you are counting upon others' actions and equipment to keep you safe, then I'd suggest you rethink how you fly. Like riding a motorcycle, you have to expect the other guy to do something stupid, and protect yourself accordingly.

Well said.

LS

 

[avbug]

If you are counting upon others' actions and equipment to keep you safe, then I'd suggest you rethink how you fly.

Ya mean, like installing a transponder in the hopes that the other guy reading his USA Today will see and avoid you using his gadgetry? If you are counting on other's actions, you say...like hoping that your transponder keeps you safe based on someone else's actions and equipment...you'd suggest one rethink how to fly. Just want to make sure I got that...you suggest someone rethinks how to fly if they count on others actions and equipment to keep them safe, and your suggestion is to install a transponder in order to rely upon someone else's actions and equipment to keep them safe. Got it. Doesn't make a lick of sense, but got it.

...but the reality is that they are likely half asleep.

That's a sad reality. A criminal one, but a sad criminal one, at that. Perhaps those whoare half-asleep should either go all the way and stay on the ground...or rethink how they fly, dontcha think??

Eyes-open is, after all the LAW.

 

[Gorilla]

AVbug, your standard level of condescension is noted.

Scenario - You've got a 757 taking radar vectors, or perhaps deviating for WX. There's a composite sailplane out there near his path. Which situation is safer, having the sailplane squawk, or not?

No one is saying you'll become immune to a midair when transponder-equipped. It's a tool to increase awareness and safety for all participants.

 

[avbug]

I'm not argueing that inclusion of a transponder wouldn't enhance safety. Not at all. However, a LOT of aircraft out there don't have electrical systems, and a lot more don't have TCAS.

What about the rest of the aircraft that don't have electrical systems, or the non-transponder equipped aircraft. Put transponders in all of them? Or just sailplanes? The Reno area, being one of the premier gliding sites in the world, is an area that requires high vigilence. ATIS at Reno warns about it, and aircraft learn of it many miles out. ATC radar may or may not be able to see other traffic in the area, and is limited at lower altitudes due to terrain. ATC may not see that sailplane, and ATC may not see that other aircraft that's experiencing an equipment failure, not equipped at all, or is simply squawking low or off.

But what I'm hearing are pilots bleating that it's far too hard to be required to look outside. Pick the excuse of choice. We're moving too fast. Our view is too limited. We have too high a workload. Our eyes aren't as good. We're asleep half the time. We have TCAS/ATC/the captain/the f/o to do that for us. Ad nauseum. Therefore, why should we be exposed to such hazardous things....let us read our USA today and let the aircraft that doesn't even have an electrical system find a way to power up and shine so that our equipment may find him for us. Any inbound traffic please advise.

I recall an expression that was drummed into our little skulls as Cadets, and still rings true today. No excuse, sir! No excuse.

Condescension, you say. I say the law, there in black and white, clear as day and the schnozz upon your face, irrevocable in nature and equally applicable to the student pilot as to the ATP. See and avoid. But we're sleeping, you say. See and avoid is the law, I say; read it for your self. That's condescending, you say. We have our USA today to read. It's the law, I say, read it for yourself. Not my opinion, but the law. In black and white. But nobody looks outside, you say. You're being condscending, don't expect what isn't reality. Reality is that see and avoid is the law, I say; read it for yourself. You are not exempt, neither am I. If the truth is condescension, then so be it.

In our single engine air tankers, we found that repainting the fleet red and white enhanced visibility greatly, and it became regulatory, right down to the shade of paint and the width of the stripes. And reports are univerally favorable. Perhaps we should require everybody to go to high visibility paint schemes. Perhaps the gliders should power up 250 watt recognition lights on the wings, too. And strobes. Perhaps we should paint that Falcon 50 or Hawker 800XP or G-V white and red, forget the corporate colors or ninety thousand dollar paint job. Perhaps educate corporate and airline and general aviation (in general) regarding glider flying practices and educate glider pilots regarding airways arrival corridors, departure proceedures and STARs. Perhaps sailplanes should all have radios (most do) and should be talking and on a flight plan, and airspace blocks and separations assigned.

Or perhaps the first step is for those with all the gadgets and who scream the loudest to stop sleeping on the job, put down their USA today, wake up to the reality that see and avoid still applies to them, and pry their eyes off the fish finder long enough to do a proper scan outside for traffic.

So long as the gliders will be strapping on transponders, how about if all the corporate and airline traffic straps on parachutes?

Safety.