do you wear a parachute?

[Lead Sled]

Hells bells guys...
When I was flying gliders along the Wasatch Front we would let ATC know we were there. We had a radio and transponder and it wasn't a big deal. Our "electrical system" was very rudimentary and cheap. but it worked and worked well. After all, what is the amp draw of a modern transciever and transponder? Not much. Having a transponder equipped glider isn't going to eliminate all of the risks, but it will add another level of protection to your operation.

LS

 

[Gorilla]

Hells bells guys...
When I was flying gliders along the Wasatch Front we would let ATC know we were there. We had a radio and transponder and it wasn't a big deal. Our "electrical system" was very rudimentary and cheap. but it worked and worked well. After all, what is the amp draw of a modern transciever and transponder? Not much. Having a transponder equipped glider isn't going to eliminate all of the risks, but it will add another level of protection to your operation.

LS

Exactly. You can add an "electrical system" to anything that flies. It's called a Lithium Polymer, NiCD, or NiMH battery, some red and black wire, maybe a switch, and the device of your choice.

I am not advocating mandatory compliance. It's simple prudence. Wearing leathers and a helmet when you motorcycle, or reflective clothing when you jog. A transponder says "Here I am!" Maybe ATC can give a timely heads up to something fast with some less-than-sharp guys at the controls.

 

[Lead Sled]

A transponder says "Here I am!" Maybe ATC can give a timely heads up to something fast with some less-than-sharp guys at the controls.

That's all that it's for, just another set of eyes looking out for you. And it's not just for those less than sharp guys - a glider is pretty stealthy. These glass ships have very little metal in them to reflect radar. They're comparatively small and pretty near all of them are pure white. They can be pretty tough to see when you're looking for them. As far as radar goes, they are darn near invisible.

LS

 

[glasspilot]

If you just drone on about the legality of an issue you miss an important point in my opinion. Consider this;

We all know that the PIC is to be familiar with ALL aspects pertaining to his or her flight right? Well, I suppose it could be argued that if a jet (with two pilots reading the USA Today) slammed into a glider then the glider pilot could be found at fault with the law. The jet was on an IFR flight plan. The fact that the jet hit the glider makes it extreamly relevant to the gliders flight. Therefore the glider pilot failed to become familiar with ALL aspects of his flight.

Obviously this is insane, but it's also crazy to say, "the law is see and avoid" and use that to justify the exclusion of any and all other safety measures.

 

[Lead Sled]

Being on an IFR flight plan does not excuse you from See and Avoid. ATC is not there to provide separation from VFR traffic. If a jet overruns a glider, someone in the jet wasn't paying enough attention. (I'm pretty sure the glider didn't overrun the jet. )

Am I missing something? However, it's possible to be "Dead Right" as well. Using the motorcycle analogy, I spent a few years flying air ambulance. I picked up a lot of motorcyclists - most of them had done nothing wrong either. In this case, I'm sure that the glider pilot probaby could have been more vigilant as well.

LS