Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[ian mcphee]

I think dual watch is better option than to scan many irrelivant freqs and as 
people upgrade radios within gliding there will be more dual watch in use. If 
there is chatter on ATC or a CTAF I tend to lower volume in order to 
concentrate on my glider flying.
Having recently been written up over a near miss with a Saab 340 of REX and my 
glider I will put extra effort into knowing IFR routes into regional airports 
and will check the ETAs of RPTs into these airports so I can be on there freq 
(usually CTAF) as they do their decent below 1ft (20 to 30 NM out)  into 
these regional airports. In the days when I learnt gliding we would have to be 
on the gound 30 min before RPT ETAs and 10min after the departure of RPTs so 
freedom is better these days!! 
A friend who is an ATPL pilot thinks we in gliding should offer to fund the use 
of FLARMS into many of Rex Saabs + some of Qlink Dash 8s. I am uncertain myself 
but I do mix with RPT jets near a regional airport & they love me when they can 
see me on TCAS. 
Ian McPhee

-Original Message-
From: Alan Wilson 
Sent: Saturday, 21 April 2012 9:11
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' 

Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

I watch this radio discussion with interest. 
 
Airspace is a big haystack out there and the needles are small.  Some  gliders 
have FLARM, but powered aircraft don’t.  
 
5, or is it 10, light aircraft pilots need to be aware that there could be 200 
VFR gliders airborne in G airspace between Waikerie, Benalla and Queensland on 
most sunny summer days.
 
In my history I once worked in management of avionic fits to many aircraft and 
the big issue is getting compatible equipment fitted to all thousands of 
existing flying aircraft.  A task generally found to be insurmountable! 
 
Secondary Surveillance Radar even mode C is ‘rudimentary’ in our age of 
computers and data.  SSR data is basically allows radar or ground stations to 
determine position and altitude whereas flight management systems in aircraft 
know where the aircraft is going and when it will be there in microseconds .. 
and where it is going next.  SSR is poor use of valuable RF spectrum and time. 
But it is fitted to most powered aircraft.
 
Radio’s simplex, slow, ambiguous, voice communications will never solve the 
safety issue, and eyesight won’t either, but they all help.  
 
But voice radio is fitted to the majority of aircraft and has capabilities 
seldom activated that could assist safety [and confusion].  Microair’s have a 
scan mode, selectable in two switch flicks.  The radio will then scan all 
frequencies in its memory and stop on any that are active.  Perhaps we should 
select scan mode whenever outside the local circuit area and scan all local 
frequencies.
 
Over.
 
Alan Wilson    Canberra Gliding Club, ex RAAF, CPL, 3 Diamonds etc.
 
 
PS.  In WWII they used ground controlled radar approaches to talk basic pilots 
with only basic gyro instruments  back to the runway.  Then they installed ILS 
and required instrument rated pilots.  
 
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net 
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Lucas James
Sent: Saturday, 21 April, 2012 11:02
To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.
 
On 20/04/2012 21:37, Simon Hackett wrote: 
In the unlikely event you've not all seen it already, here's one way the 
outcome could have turned out: 
 
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html
 
I will say that while I appreciate its an issue that more than a few glider 
pilots seem passionately opposed to for their own reasons, the notion of 
regularly operating transponders in gliders is one that I personally believe 
would be of active assistance here (I certainly do so).
 
I think that doing so could directly improve safety in this regard [noting that 
the link above indicates the glider concerned had one, but it wasn't powered up 
- like all electronics, its far less effective when its switched off]
 
I'm not directly arguing for mandating transponders in gliders (and not 
specifically seeking to re-start that particular debate).
 
Rather, I'm just indicating there are significant merits in choosing to operate 
a transponder in a glider, because having ATC and TCAS equipped powered 
aircraft able to see *you* is definitely a source of additional alerted 
avoidance of mid air collisions - whether or not you have something in your 
glider that works in the other direction. 
 
I've found that air traffic control is frequently helpful to VFR and IFR 
aircraft, in that they will call you up proactively and advise of the presence 
of transponder-equipped unidentified traffic in your vicinity on a pretty 
routine basis. They're as interested in avoiding mid air contacts as the rest 
of us are. 
 
In addition, aircraft like the powered plane I'm fortunate enough to 

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[emilis prelgauskas]

On 21/04/2012, at 9:13 PM, john.mcfarlane wrote:
Flarm, Power Flarm, SSR/TCAS, Mode C/Mode S, Primary Radar/ATS, ADS-B, 
Eyeball, VHF, CB, CTAF, CTAF(R) and NOTAM’s
Have you guys actually had a look at the shear amount of disparate 
systems you have mentioned.



And then we add into the mix that 'gliding' now encompasses the 
sailplane/pilot range from

top end motorglider cruising cross country in the hands of CPL
through to
luddite local soaring stick and rag with no electrics on board.

The traditional answer has been to tell the latter to stop flying
which has a range of repercussions to the sport more generally___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[john.mcfarlane]

Flarm, Power Flarm, SSR/TCAS, Mode C/Mode S, Primary Radar/ATS, ADS-B,
Eyeball, VHF, CB, CTAF, CTAF(R) and NOTAM's

 

Have you guys actually had a look at the shear amount of disparate systems
you have mentioned.

 

Now lets talk about Dodo ideas as a way to put some of these idea's in
perspective, like:

 

Australian DME

Betamax Video.

 

Perhaps, before heading down all of these routes - we could convince some
organisation of the need to take a common position here, that will
minimise/limit non-conforming ideas from being expanded, and later reversed
at personal/operator expense - and expand on using relevant  systems in a
situational awareness sense - and hopefully not limited to one aviation
category.

 

I don't like Flarm, due to the fact that its different from what the
Majority uses.   Eventually the minority, in numbers and revenue generated
from activities, will be told to get in line - at their expense - are you
sure you want to back the loosing horse

 

About the only sensible thing from this is the instrument that Cathy Conway
mentioned, as it appears to cover all bases - expensive though.

 

Cheers

John

 

 

From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Alan Wilson
Sent: Saturday, 21 April 2012 8:41 PM
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

 

I watch this radio discussion with interest. 

 

Airspace is a big haystack out there and the needles are small.  Some
gliders have FLARM, but powered aircraft don't.  

 

5, or is it 10, light aircraft pilots need to be aware that there could be
200 VFR gliders airborne in G airspace between Waikerie, Benalla and
Queensland on most sunny summer days.

 

In my history I once worked in management of avionic fits to many aircraft
and the big issue is getting compatible equipment fitted to all thousands of
existing flying aircraft.  A task generally found to be insurmountable! 

 

Secondary Surveillance Radar even mode C is 'rudimentary' in our age of
computers and data.  SSR data is basically allows radar or ground stations
to determine position and altitude whereas flight management systems in
aircraft know where the aircraft is going and when it will be there in
microseconds .. and where it is going next.  SSR is poor use of valuable RF
spectrum and time. But it is fitted to most powered aircraft.

 

Radio's simplex, slow, ambiguous, voice communications will never solve the
safety issue, and eyesight won't either, but they all help.  

 

But voice radio is fitted to the majority of aircraft and has capabilities
seldom activated that could assist safety [and confusion].  Microair's have
a scan mode, selectable in two switch flicks.  The radio will then scan all
frequencies in its memory and stop on any that are active.  Perhaps we
should select scan mode whenever outside the local circuit area and scan all
local frequencies.

 

Over.

 

Alan WilsonCanberra Gliding Club, ex RAAF, CPL, 3 Diamonds etc.

 

 

PS.  In WWII they used ground controlled radar approaches to talk basic
pilots with only basic gyro instruments  back to the runway.  Then they
installed ILS and required instrument rated pilots.  

 

From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Lucas James
Sent: Saturday, 21 April, 2012 11:02
To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

 

On 20/04/2012 21:37, Simon Hackett wrote: 

In the unlikely event you've not all seen it already, here's one way the
outcome could have turned out: 

 

http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html

 

I will say that while I appreciate its an issue that more than a few glider
pilots seem passionately opposed to for their own reasons, the notion of
regularly operating transponders in gliders is one that I personally believe
would be of active assistance here (I certainly do so).

 

I think that doing so could directly improve safety in this regard [noting
that the link above indicates the glider concerned had one, but it wasn't
powered up - like all electronics, its far less effective when its switched
off]

 

I'm not directly arguing for mandating transponders in gliders (and not
specifically seeking to re-start that particular debate).

 

Rather, I'm just indicating there are significant merits in choosing to
operate a transponder in a glider, because having ATC and TCAS equipped
powered aircraft able to see *you* is definitely a source of additional
alerted avoidance of mid air collisions - whether or not you have something
in your glider that works in the other direction. 

 

I've found that air traffic control is frequently helpful to VFR and IFR
aircraft, in that they will call you up proactively and advise of the
presence of 

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Alan Wilson]

I watch this radio discussion with interest. 

 

Airspace is a big haystack out there and the needles are small.  Some
gliders have FLARM, but powered aircraft don't.  

 

5, or is it 10, light aircraft pilots need to be aware that there could be
200 VFR gliders airborne in G airspace between Waikerie, Benalla and
Queensland on most sunny summer days.

 

In my history I once worked in management of avionic fits to many aircraft
and the big issue is getting compatible equipment fitted to all thousands of
existing flying aircraft.  A task generally found to be insurmountable! 

 

Secondary Surveillance Radar even mode C is 'rudimentary' in our age of
computers and data.  SSR data is basically allows radar or ground stations
to determine position and altitude whereas flight management systems in
aircraft know where the aircraft is going and when it will be there in
microseconds .. and where it is going next.  SSR is poor use of valuable RF
spectrum and time. But it is fitted to most powered aircraft.

 

Radio's simplex, slow, ambiguous, voice communications will never solve the
safety issue, and eyesight won't either, but they all help.  

 

But voice radio is fitted to the majority of aircraft and has capabilities
seldom activated that could assist safety [and confusion].  Microair's have
a scan mode, selectable in two switch flicks.  The radio will then scan all
frequencies in its memory and stop on any that are active.  Perhaps we
should select scan mode whenever outside the local circuit area and scan all
local frequencies.

 

Over.

 

Alan WilsonCanberra Gliding Club, ex RAAF, CPL, 3 Diamonds etc.

 

 

PS.  In WWII they used ground controlled radar approaches to talk basic
pilots with only basic gyro instruments  back to the runway.  Then they
installed ILS and required instrument rated pilots.  

 

From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Lucas James
Sent: Saturday, 21 April, 2012 11:02
To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

 

On 20/04/2012 21:37, Simon Hackett wrote: 

In the unlikely event you've not all seen it already, here's one way the
outcome could have turned out: 

 

http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html

 

I will say that while I appreciate its an issue that more than a few glider
pilots seem passionately opposed to for their own reasons, the notion of
regularly operating transponders in gliders is one that I personally believe
would be of active assistance here (I certainly do so).

 

I think that doing so could directly improve safety in this regard [noting
that the link above indicates the glider concerned had one, but it wasn't
powered up - like all electronics, its far less effective when its switched
off]

 

I'm not directly arguing for mandating transponders in gliders (and not
specifically seeking to re-start that particular debate).

 

Rather, I'm just indicating there are significant merits in choosing to
operate a transponder in a glider, because having ATC and TCAS equipped
powered aircraft able to see *you* is definitely a source of additional
alerted avoidance of mid air collisions - whether or not you have something
in your glider that works in the other direction. 

 

I've found that air traffic control is frequently helpful to VFR and IFR
aircraft, in that they will call you up proactively and advise of the
presence of transponder-equipped unidentified traffic in your vicinity on a
pretty routine basis. They're as interested in avoiding mid air contacts as
the rest of us are. 

 

In addition, aircraft like the powered plane I'm fortunate enough to fly
also paints any aircraft with a working transponder on my moving map... with
position, relative altitude, and aural and visual alerting of nearby
traffic. This is becoming very much more common over time, and increasingly
affordable as a retrofit as well (cf. Zaon units, and the
always-nearly-available Power FLARM units).

 

As for all of the other ways we might become aware of another aircraft in
our vicinity (Mark I eyeball, use of VHF radio, FLARM, hang glider pilot
screaming obscenities after a powered aircraft or glider passes too close,
etc)... having one more way to avoid a collision has to be a good thing,
IMHO.

 

Anyway - we all do the best we can. And if we keep looking out for (and
looking after) each other, hopefully we can continue to minimise the chances
of such collisions overall.

 

Last thought I have here is that I reckon it'd be great if CASA (via the
GFA?) was asked about the notion of allocating a generic transponder code
for transponder-equipped gliders to use instead of 1200. That would help ATC
to be sure that what they are seeing is a glider, and hence would help them
to inform other traffic more usefully about the likely tracking
characteristics of a glider they 

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Lucas James]

On 20/04/2012 21:37, Simon Hackett wrote:
In the unlikely event you've not all seen it already, here's one way 
the outcome could have turned out:


http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html

I will say that while I appreciate its an issue that more than a few 
glider pilots seem passionately opposed to for their own reasons, the 
notion of regularly operating transponders in gliders is one that I 
personally believe would be of active assistance here (I certainly do so).


I think that doing so could directly improve safety in this regard 
[noting that the link above indicates the glider concerned had one, 
but it wasn't powered up - like all electronics, its far less 
effective when its switched off]


I'm not directly arguing for mandating transponders in gliders (and 
not specifically seeking to re-start that particular debate).


Rather, I'm just indicating there are significant merits in choosing 
to operate a transponder in a glider, because having ATC and TCAS 
equipped powered aircraft able to see *you* is definitely a source of 
additional alerted avoidance of mid air collisions - whether or not 
you have something in your glider that works in the other direction.


I've found that air traffic control is frequently helpful to VFR and 
IFR aircraft, in that they will call you up proactively and advise of 
the presence of transponder-equipped unidentified traffic in your 
vicinity on a pretty routine basis. They're as interested in avoiding 
mid air contacts as the rest of us are.


In addition, aircraft like the powered plane I'm fortunate enough to 
fly also paints any aircraft with a working transponder on my moving 
map... with position, relative altitude, and aural and visual alerting 
of nearby traffic. This is becoming very much more common over time, 
and increasingly affordable as a retrofit as well (cf. Zaon units, and 
the always-nearly-available Power FLARM units).


As for all of the other ways we might become aware of another aircraft 
in our vicinity (Mark I eyeball, use of VHF radio, FLARM, hang glider 
pilot screaming obscenities after a powered aircraft or glider passes 
too close, etc)... having one more way to avoid a collision has to be 
a good thing, IMHO.


Anyway - we all do the best we can. And if we keep looking out for 
(and looking after) each other, hopefully we can continue to minimise 
the chances of such collisions overall.


Last thought I have here is that I reckon it'd be great if CASA (via 
the GFA?) was asked about the notion of allocating a generic 
transponder code for transponder-equipped gliders to use instead of 
1200. That would help ATC to be sure that what they are seeing is a 
glider, and hence would help them to inform other traffic more 
usefully about the likely tracking characteristics of a glider they 
may wish to alert other traffic about.


Regards,
 Simon



For all that want to read the report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20060906X01297&ntsbno=LAX06FA277B&akey=2 



And the recommendations:

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2008/a08_10_13.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2008/a08_14_15.pdf


regards,
Lucas
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Catherine Conway]

I recently operated motorglider for AEFs at a large regional airport with RPT 
and the flying doctor.  The aircraft was fitted with a device that was both a 
flarm and an ADSB (I think). And yes it had a transponder connected.  

It worked.  I spoke to the flying doctor on the ground after we both landed and 
we both had traffic alerts. 

Details here.  

http://www.garrecht.com/index.php/en/ads-b/trx-2000

Cath


Sent from my iPhone

On 20/04/2012, at 9:07 PM, Simon Hackett  wrote:

> In the unlikely event you've not all seen it already, here's one way the 
> outcome could have turned out:
> 
> http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html
> 
> I will say that while I appreciate its an issue that more than a few glider 
> pilots seem passionately opposed to for their own reasons, the notion of 
> regularly operating transponders in gliders is one that I personally believe 
> would be of active assistance here (I certainly do so).
> 
> I think that doing so could directly improve safety in this regard [noting 
> that the link above indicates the glider concerned had one, but it wasn't 
> powered up - like all electronics, its far less effective when its switched 
> off]
> 
> I'm not directly arguing for mandating transponders in gliders (and not 
> specifically seeking to re-start that particular debate).
> 
> Rather, I'm just indicating there are significant merits in choosing to 
> operate a transponder in a glider, because having ATC and TCAS equipped 
> powered aircraft able to see *you* is definitely a source of additional 
> alerted avoidance of mid air collisions - whether or not you have something 
> in your glider that works in the other direction. 
> 
> I've found that air traffic control is frequently helpful to VFR and IFR 
> aircraft, in that they will call you up proactively and advise of the 
> presence of transponder-equipped unidentified traffic in your vicinity on a 
> pretty routine basis. They're as interested in avoiding mid air contacts as 
> the rest of us are. 
> 
> In addition, aircraft like the powered plane I'm fortunate enough to fly also 
> paints any aircraft with a working transponder on my moving map... with 
> position, relative altitude, and aural and visual alerting of nearby traffic. 
> This is becoming very much more common over time, and increasingly affordable 
> as a retrofit as well (cf. Zaon units, and the always-nearly-available Power 
> FLARM units).
> 
> As for all of the other ways we might become aware of another aircraft in our 
> vicinity (Mark I eyeball, use of VHF radio, FLARM, hang glider pilot 
> screaming obscenities after a powered aircraft or glider passes too close, 
> etc)... having one more way to avoid a collision has to be a good thing, IMHO.
> 
> Anyway - we all do the best we can. And if we keep looking out for (and 
> looking after) each other, hopefully we can continue to minimise the chances 
> of such collisions overall.
> 
> Last thought I have here is that I reckon it'd be great if CASA (via the 
> GFA?) was asked about the notion of allocating a generic transponder code for 
> transponder-equipped gliders to use instead of 1200. That would help ATC to 
> be sure that what they are seeing is a glider, and hence would help them to 
> inform other traffic more usefully about the likely tracking characteristics 
> of a glider they may wish to alert other traffic about. 
> 
> Regards, 
>  Simon
> 
> On 20/04/2012, at 1:37 PM, Tim Shirley wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> It's not quite right to suggest that it is only glider pilots who need 
>> training.
>> 
>> A recent radio exchange at Benalla went something like this:
>> 
>> "Cessna XXX 10 miles SE Benalla maintaining 4500 ft overflying for Mangalore"
>> "Cessna XXX glider YYY, be aware there are approximately 6 gliders operating 
>> in the vicinity of the airfield up to 6000ft"
>> "YYY this is XXX, please give locations of all gliders"
>> "XXX, gliders may be operating at any location within 10 miles of the 
>> airfield and altitude up to cloudbase.  Please keep a good lookout."
>> "YYY, there should be a NOTAM out for that"
>> "XXX, this is YYY, the ERSA entry for Benalla states that glider operations 
>> may be carried out during daylight hours on any day"
>> 
>> As I have commented before on this forum, the operational characteristics of 
>> gliders makes information provided by radio far less useful in a predictive 
>> sense than the same information given by a powered aircraft because gliders 
>> don't fly precise tracks or maintain constant altitudes.
>> 
>> This is no one's fault, and it won't be fixed simply by more frequent, more 
>> detailed or more "correct" transmissions.  
>> 
>> I have a simple rule for the radio.  I listen as much as possible and I talk 
>> as little as I can get away with while still complying with all reasonable 
>> rules.
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare
>> 
>> 
>> On 20/04/2012 10:17, Mark Newton wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[David Long and Cathy Lincoln]

I was recently flying Mildura to Wagga.  About a mile in front of
me, at _exactly_ the same level, I saw another aircraft zoom right to
left. 

A few minutes later the helpful ATC person came out with "Traffic
alert Narrandera area, two aircraft converging tracks." 

Yeah, thanks, ATC.  Despite having transponders, had been 30
seconds earlier and not seen them I would have been mince meat, all
with no help from ATC. 

  

I'm actually amazed how much other traffic I see flying around the
countryside. 

Dave Long 

- Original Message -
 From:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
To:"AUS Soaring" 
Cc:
Sent:Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:03:57 +0000
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

Scott, 
 There are multiple benefits beyond 'big planes and towers' seeing
you. 
 As I said: 

 I've found that air traffic control is frequently helpful to VFR and
IFR aircraft, in that they will call you up proactively and advise of
the presence of transponder-equipped unidentified traffic in your
vicinity on a pretty routine basis. They're as interested in avoiding
mid air contacts as the rest of us are.   
 ... i.e. ATC will often actively notify other VFR traffic they can
see, of the presence of conflicting traffic they can see. They will
happily notify any little plane about threats they should act to
avoid, they are not just there to help the big planes and/or passenger
planes. They're frequently alerting VFR traffic about other VFR
traffic on a proactive basis, too. This includes traffic flying
outside of controlled airspace, and nowhere near where 'passenger
planes' are present.  
 The devices you can choose to fit in your own glider that can respond
to transponder transmissions and provide alerts back to you directly
include readily available units like the Zaon and Power FLARM units: 
 http://www.lxavionics.co.uk/traffic-monitor.htm [1] 
 http://www.zaon.aero/ [2]

Returning to the point of running a transponder even if you can't
actively receive data from other transponders around you, the whole
system is designed (amongst other things) to help ATC to assist in
helping pilots avoid killing each other.  
 If ATC can only reach the Cessna driver and get him to avoid slamming
into you, and you have no idea that this just happened, trust me, its
still a benefit to all concerned ;)   
  Regards,   Simon 
 On 20/04/2012, at 9:16 PM, Scott Penrose wrote:

 On 20/04/2012, at 9:37 PM, Simon Hackett wrote:
 I will say that while I appreciate its an issue that more than a few
glider pilots seem passionately opposed to for their own reasons, the
notion of regularly operating transponders in gliders is one that I
personally believe would be of active assistance here (I certainly do
so).

I think it is a great idea for us to do transponders. The power
requirements are not what they used to be. One question though, how
does it help these situations? Can't only big planes and towers see
the transponders. I believe there are now some small devices, but
mostly planes only transmit - ie. the whole system is to protect
passenger planes from everyone else. 
 Scott  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net [3]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring


Links:
--
[1] http://www.lxavionics.co.uk/traffic-monitor.htm
[2] http://www.zaon.aero/
[3] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Scott Penrose]

On 20/04/2012, at 10:03 PM, Simon Hackett wrote:

> ... i.e. ATC will often actively notify other VFR traffic they can see, of 
> the presence of conflicting traffic they can see. They will happily notify 
> any little plane about threats they should act to avoid, they are not just 
> there to help the big planes and/or passenger planes. They're frequently 
> alerting VFR traffic about other VFR traffic on a proactive basis, too. This 
> includes traffic flying outside of controlled airspace, and nowhere near 
> where 'passenger planes' are present.

Excellent. I thought they only monitored if you registered IFR or in controlled 
space.

The new devices like Power Flarm etc are going to be great.

Thanks

Scott

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Simon Hackett]

Scott,

There are multiple benefits beyond 'big planes and towers' seeing you.

As I said:


I've found that air traffic control is frequently helpful to VFR and IFR 
aircraft, in that they will call you up proactively and advise of the presence 
of transponder-equipped unidentified traffic in your vicinity on a pretty 
routine basis. They're as interested in avoiding mid air contacts as the rest 
of us are.

... i.e. ATC will often actively notify other VFR traffic they can see, of the 
presence of conflicting traffic they can see. They will happily notify any 
little plane about threats they should act to avoid, they are not just there to 
help the big planes and/or passenger planes. They're frequently alerting VFR 
traffic about other VFR traffic on a proactive basis, too. This includes 
traffic flying outside of controlled airspace, and nowhere near where 
'passenger planes' are present.

The devices you can choose to fit in your own glider that can respond to 
transponder transmissions and provide alerts back to you directly include 
readily available units like the Zaon and Power FLARM units:

http://www.lxavionics.co.uk/traffic-monitor.htm

http://www.zaon.aero/

Returning to the point of running a transponder even if you can't actively 
receive data from other transponders around you, the whole system is designed 
(amongst other things) to help ATC to assist in helping pilots avoid killing 
each other.

If ATC can only reach the Cessna driver and get him to avoid slamming into you, 
and you have no idea that this just happened, trust me, its still a benefit to 
all concerned ;)

Regards,
 Simon

On 20/04/2012, at 9:16 PM, Scott Penrose wrote:


On 20/04/2012, at 9:37 PM, Simon Hackett wrote:

I will say that while I appreciate its an issue that more than a few glider 
pilots seem passionately opposed to for their own reasons, the notion of 
regularly operating transponders in gliders is one that I personally believe 
would be of active assistance here (I certainly do so).


I think it is a great idea for us to do transponders. The power requirements 
are not what they used to be.
One question though, how does it help these situations? Can't only big planes 
and towers see the transponders. I believe there are now some small devices, 
but mostly planes only transmit - ie. the whole system is to protect passenger 
planes from everyone else.

Scott

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Scott Penrose]

On 20/04/2012, at 9:37 PM, Simon Hackett wrote:

> I will say that while I appreciate its an issue that more than a few glider 
> pilots seem passionately opposed to for their own reasons, the notion of 
> regularly operating transponders in gliders is one that I personally believe 
> would be of active assistance here (I certainly do so).
> 

I think it is a great idea for us to do transponders. The power requirements 
are not what they used to be.
One question though, how does it help these situations? Can't only big planes 
and towers see the transponders. I believe there are now some small devices, 
but mostly planes only transmit - ie. the whole system is to protect passenger 
planes from everyone else.

Scott
 ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Simon Hackett]

In the unlikely event you've not all seen it already, here's one way the 
outcome could have turned out:

http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html

I will say that while I appreciate its an issue that more than a few glider 
pilots seem passionately opposed to for their own reasons, the notion of 
regularly operating transponders in gliders is one that I personally believe 
would be of active assistance here (I certainly do so).

I think that doing so could directly improve safety in this regard [noting that 
the link above indicates the glider concerned had one, but it wasn't powered up 
- like all electronics, its far less effective when its switched off]

I'm not directly arguing for mandating transponders in gliders (and not 
specifically seeking to re-start that particular debate).

Rather, I'm just indicating there are significant merits in choosing to operate 
a transponder in a glider, because having ATC and TCAS equipped powered 
aircraft able to see *you* is definitely a source of additional alerted 
avoidance of mid air collisions - whether or not you have something in your 
glider that works in the other direction.

I've found that air traffic control is frequently helpful to VFR and IFR 
aircraft, in that they will call you up proactively and advise of the presence 
of transponder-equipped unidentified traffic in your vicinity on a pretty 
routine basis. They're as interested in avoiding mid air contacts as the rest 
of us are.

In addition, aircraft like the powered plane I'm fortunate enough to fly also 
paints any aircraft with a working transponder on my moving map... with 
position, relative altitude, and aural and visual alerting of nearby traffic. 
This is becoming very much more common over time, and increasingly affordable 
as a retrofit as well (cf. Zaon units, and the always-nearly-available Power 
FLARM units).

As for all of the other ways we might become aware of another aircraft in our 
vicinity (Mark I eyeball, use of VHF radio, FLARM, hang glider pilot screaming 
obscenities after a powered aircraft or glider passes too close, etc)... having 
one more way to avoid a collision has to be a good thing, IMHO.

Anyway - we all do the best we can. And if we keep looking out for (and looking 
after) each other, hopefully we can continue to minimise the chances of such 
collisions overall.

Last thought I have here is that I reckon it'd be great if CASA (via the GFA?) 
was asked about the notion of allocating a generic transponder code for 
transponder-equipped gliders to use instead of 1200. That would help ATC to be 
sure that what they are seeing is a glider, and hence would help them to inform 
other traffic more usefully about the likely tracking characteristics of a 
glider they may wish to alert other traffic about.

Regards,
 Simon

On 20/04/2012, at 1:37 PM, Tim Shirley wrote:

Hi all,

It's not quite right to suggest that it is only glider pilots who need training.

A recent radio exchange at Benalla went something like this:

"Cessna XXX 10 miles SE Benalla maintaining 4500 ft overflying for Mangalore"
"Cessna XXX glider YYY, be aware there are approximately 6 gliders operating in 
the vicinity of the airfield up to 6000ft"
"YYY this is XXX, please give locations of all gliders"
"XXX, gliders may be operating at any location within 10 miles of the airfield 
and altitude up to cloudbase.  Please keep a good lookout."
"YYY, there should be a NOTAM out for that"
"XXX, this is YYY, the ERSA entry for Benalla states that glider operations may 
be carried out during daylight hours on any day"

As I have commented before on this forum, the operational characteristics of 
gliders makes information provided by radio far less useful in a predictive 
sense than the same information given by a powered aircraft because gliders 
don't fly precise tracks or maintain constant altitudes.

This is no one's fault, and it won't be fixed simply by more frequent, more 
detailed or more "correct" transmissions.

I have a simple rule for the radio.  I listen as much as possible and I talk as 
little as I can get away with while still complying with all reasonable rules.

Cheers

Tim

tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare

On 20/04/2012 10:17, Mark Newton wrote:

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:31:21AM +1000, Christopher  Mc Donnell wrote:

 > http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2012/04/20/teenage-pilots-quick-response-avoids-collision/

The actual ATSB report referenced by the article is here:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3548648/ab-2012-019.pdf#page=47

I'm sure there's a lot of room for interpretation here (i.e., concerning
whether a CAR166C broadcast is strictly required if the glider pilot
doesn't believe "it is necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or
the risk of a collision with another aircraft.")  The differing guidance
between the competition rules, GFA rules and CASA rules about which
frequency should be used and when broadcasts should be made is also
up for discussion.

But one th

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Stuart & Kerri FERGUSON]

Maybe all the gliders should have passed Cessna XXX their exact positions
and intentions;

the pilots would have been completely overloaded with data and avoided the
area by 20nm J   

 

 

From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Scott
Penrose
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2012 2:55 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

 

 

On 20/04/2012, at 2:07 PM, Tim Shirley wrote:





"Cessna XXX 10 miles SE Benalla maintaining 4500 ft overflying for
Mangalore"
"Cessna XXX glider YYY, be aware there are approximately 6 gliders operating
in the vicinity of the airfield up to 6000ft"
"YYY this is XXX, please give locations of all gliders"
"XXX, gliders may be operating at any location within 10 miles of the
airfield and altitude up to cloudbase.  Please keep a good lookout."
"YYY, there should be a NOTAM out for that"
"XXX, this is YYY, the ERSA entry for Benalla states that glider operations
may be carried out during daylight hours on any day"



 

It is hard to know both sides when I am only on one side - eg. Gliding, but
I have a couple of friends who are pilots. They tell me that it is all safe
because of the 500' separation. I explain that balloons, gliders, para/hang
gliders, etc are all sharing the same space and don't have that rule.

 

The conversation above is interesting, although there is an ERSA entry for
Benalla, what about outside of the CTAF. Gliders are there too.

 

With the increase of more SA planes, will this problem increase?

 

Scott

 

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[emilis prelgauskas]

An excellent example of differing management styles:
- by rote, - by priorityand then there is - by objective

On 20/04/2012, at 1:49 PM, Peter F Bradshaw wrote:

It would be better to reasonably comply with all rules.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Tim Shirley wrote:

  I listen as much as possible and I
talk as little as I can get away with while still complying with all
reasonable rules.


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[emilis prelgauskas]

How do we get the spirit of this across to other aviators, public and 
media?:


On 20/04/2012, at 1:37 PM, Tim Shirley wrote:
the operational characteristics of gliders makes information provided 
by radio far less useful in a predictive sense than the same 
information given by  a powered aircraft because gliders don't fly 
precise tracks or maintain constant altitudes.


 This is no one's fault, and it won't be fixed simply by more 
frequent, more detailed or more "correct" transmissions. 


 I have a simple rule for the radio.  I listen as much as possible and 
I talk as little as I can get away with while still complying with all 
reasonable rules.
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Scott Penrose]

On 20/04/2012, at 2:07 PM, Tim Shirley wrote:

> "Cessna XXX 10 miles SE Benalla maintaining 4500 ft overflying for Mangalore"
> "Cessna XXX glider YYY, be aware there are approximately 6 gliders operating 
> in the vicinity of the airfield up to 6000ft"
> "YYY this is XXX, please give locations of all gliders"
> "XXX, gliders may be operating at any location within 10 miles of the 
> airfield and altitude up to cloudbase.  Please keep a good lookout."
> "YYY, there should be a NOTAM out for that"
> "XXX, this is YYY, the ERSA entry for Benalla states that glider operations 
> may be carried out during daylight hours on any day"

It is hard to know both sides when I am only on one side - eg. Gliding, but I 
have a couple of friends who are pilots. They tell me that it is all safe 
because of the 500' separation. I explain that balloons, gliders, para/hang 
gliders, etc are all sharing the same space and don't have that rule.

The conversation above is interesting, although there is an ERSA entry for 
Benalla, what about outside of the CTAF. Gliders are there too.

With the increase of more SA planes, will this problem increase?

Scott

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Peter F Bradshaw]

Hi;

It would be better to reasonably comply with all rules.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Tim Shirley wrote:

> Hi all,
>
.
.
.
>
> I have a simple rule for the radio.  I listen as much as possible and I
> talk as little as I can get away with while still complying with all
> reasonable rules.
>
> Cheers
>
>
>   /Tim/
>
> /tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare/
>
>
> On 20/04/2012 10:17, Mark Newton wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:31:21AM +1000, Christopher  Mc Donnell wrote:
> >
> >   >  
> > http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2012/04/20/teenage-pilots-quick-response-avoids-collision/
> >
> > The actual ATSB report referenced by the article is here:
> > http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3548648/ab-2012-019.pdf#page=47
> >
> > I'm sure there's a lot of room for interpretation here (i.e., concerning
> > whether a CAR166C broadcast is strictly required if the glider pilot
> > doesn't believe "it is necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or
> > the risk of a collision with another aircraft.")  The differing guidance
> > between the competition rules, GFA rules and CASA rules about which
> > frequency should be used and when broadcasts should be made is also
> > up for discussion.
> >
> > But one thing worth hilighting is that I think CASA and GFA have
> > diverged in their focus on radio of late.
> >
> > My experience of GFA's training concerning radio is that it
> > emphasised minimizing radio chatter in favor of focussing on
> > flying the aeroplane and looking out.  Meanwhile CASA's training
> > of GA pilots has emphasised more promiscuous use of the radio,
> > leading to glider pilots making snarky comments about GA pilots
> > spending all their time talking instead of looking where they're
> > going.
> >
> > I think glider pilot radio training has probably varied quite
> > a bit from club to club too -- which is, itself, a problem.
> >
> > Over the last couple of years, CASA has shifted from "see and avoid"
> > to "radio assisted see and avoid" to "see and avoid alerted by
> > mandatory radio calls."  The CTAF rules published last year are
> > the latest step in that evolution.
> >
> > I don't think a lot of glider pilots have kept up with those changes.
> > Moreover, glider pilots trained more than a few years ago who
> > haven't updated their skills are now probably using radio very
> > differently to other airspace users, even if it is consistent with
> > the way they were trained.
> >
> > (have you read the latest version of the GFA radio operators
> > handbook?  It's probably different from the one you were trained
> > against. I'd include a link, but GFA's website seems to be
> > down at the moment...)
> >
> >- mark

Cheers

-- 
Peter F Bradshaw: http://www.exadios.com (public keys avaliable there).
Personal site: http://personal.exadios.com
"I love truth, and the way the government still uses it occasionally to
 keep us guessing." - Sam Kekovich.

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Tim Shirley]

Hi all,

It's not quite right to suggest that it is only glider pilots who need 
training.


A recent radio exchange at Benalla went something like this:

"Cessna XXX 10 miles SE Benalla maintaining 4500 ft overflying for 
Mangalore"
"Cessna XXX glider YYY, be aware there are approximately 6 gliders 
operating in the vicinity of the airfield up to 6000ft"

"YYY this is XXX, please give locations of all gliders"
"XXX, gliders may be operating at any location within 10 miles of the 
airfield and altitude up to cloudbase.  Please keep a good lookout."

"YYY, there should be a NOTAM out for that"
"XXX, this is YYY, the ERSA entry for Benalla states that glider 
operations may be carried out during daylight hours on any day"


As I have commented before on this forum, the operational 
characteristics of gliders makes information provided by radio far less 
useful in a predictive sense than the same information given by a 
powered aircraft because gliders don't fly precise tracks or maintain 
constant altitudes.


This is no one's fault, and it won't be fixed simply by more frequent, 
more detailed or more "correct" transmissions.


I have a simple rule for the radio.  I listen as much as possible and I 
talk as little as I can get away with while still complying with all 
reasonable rules.


Cheers


 /Tim/

/tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare/


On 20/04/2012 10:17, Mark Newton wrote:

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:31:21AM +1000, Christopher  Mc Donnell wrote:

  >  
http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2012/04/20/teenage-pilots-quick-response-avoids-collision/

The actual ATSB report referenced by the article is here:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3548648/ab-2012-019.pdf#page=47

I'm sure there's a lot of room for interpretation here (i.e., concerning
whether a CAR166C broadcast is strictly required if the glider pilot
doesn't believe "it is necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or
the risk of a collision with another aircraft.")  The differing guidance
between the competition rules, GFA rules and CASA rules about which
frequency should be used and when broadcasts should be made is also
up for discussion.

But one thing worth hilighting is that I think CASA and GFA have
diverged in their focus on radio of late.

My experience of GFA's training concerning radio is that it
emphasised minimizing radio chatter in favor of focussing on
flying the aeroplane and looking out.  Meanwhile CASA's training
of GA pilots has emphasised more promiscuous use of the radio,
leading to glider pilots making snarky comments about GA pilots
spending all their time talking instead of looking where they're
going.

I think glider pilot radio training has probably varied quite
a bit from club to club too -- which is, itself, a problem.

Over the last couple of years, CASA has shifted from "see and avoid"
to "radio assisted see and avoid" to "see and avoid alerted by
mandatory radio calls."  The CTAF rules published last year are
the latest step in that evolution.

I don't think a lot of glider pilots have kept up with those changes.
Moreover, glider pilots trained more than a few years ago who
haven't updated their skills are now probably using radio very
differently to other airspace users, even if it is consistent with
the way they were trained.

(have you read the latest version of the GFA radio operators
handbook?  It's probably different from the one you were trained
against. I'd include a link, but GFA's website seems to be
down at the moment...)

   - mark
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Stuart Cassidy]

The ATSB report states
"The pilot of MST did not recall hearing a call from ULZ and was unaware of
ULZ’s position until the incident"
And in the news article the pilot states he was changing the radio and
"preparing for landing"
I would say he was too distracted by knobs, dials, gauges and passengers to
watch where he was going.
On Apr 20, 2012 11:18 AM, "Mark Newton"  wrote:
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Mark Newton]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:12:20AM +0930, Stuart Cassidy wrote:

 > A more accurate title would be "teen pilot nearly causes accident"
 > I think it is poor form when passengers are maintaining a better lookout
 > than the pilot.

The ATSB says the glider pilot saw the Cessna at about 2 miles distance.
His subsequent actions (not making CTAF broadcasts) permit the inference
that he didn't believe that there was risk of collision.

The news article says the Cessna pilot saw the glider some miles away
too (although I don't think that info is in the ATSB report)

So both pilots appeared to see each other at quite some distance
away from each other;  but then passed within 100m of each other.

Hard to reconcile those two facts.  

Do you think someone is telling porkies about the quality of their
lookout skills?

  - mark
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Stuart Cassidy]

A more accurate title would be "teen pilot nearly causes accident"
I think it is poor form when passengers are maintaining a better lookout
than the pilot.
On Apr 20, 2012 9:47 AM, "Mark Newton"  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:31:21AM +1000, Christopher  Mc Donnell wrote:
>
>  >
> http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2012/04/20/teenage-pilots-quick-response-avoids-collision/
>
> The actual ATSB report referenced by the article is here:
> http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3548648/ab-2012-019.pdf#page=47
>
> I'm sure there's a lot of room for interpretation here (i.e., concerning
> whether a CAR166C broadcast is strictly required if the glider pilot
> doesn't believe "it is necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or
> the risk of a collision with another aircraft.")  The differing guidance
> between the competition rules, GFA rules and CASA rules about which
> frequency should be used and when broadcasts should be made is also
> up for discussion.
>
> But one thing worth hilighting is that I think CASA and GFA have
> diverged in their focus on radio of late.
>
> My experience of GFA's training concerning radio is that it
> emphasised minimizing radio chatter in favor of focussing on
> flying the aeroplane and looking out.  Meanwhile CASA's training
> of GA pilots has emphasised more promiscuous use of the radio,
> leading to glider pilots making snarky comments about GA pilots
> spending all their time talking instead of looking where they're
> going.
>
> I think glider pilot radio training has probably varied quite
> a bit from club to club too -- which is, itself, a problem.
>
> Over the last couple of years, CASA has shifted from "see and avoid"
> to "radio assisted see and avoid" to "see and avoid alerted by
> mandatory radio calls."  The CTAF rules published last year are
> the latest step in that evolution.
>
> I don't think a lot of glider pilots have kept up with those changes.
> Moreover, glider pilots trained more than a few years ago who
> haven't updated their skills are now probably using radio very
> differently to other airspace users, even if it is consistent with
> the way they were trained.
>
> (have you read the latest version of the GFA radio operators
> handbook?  It's probably different from the one you were trained
> against. I'd include a link, but GFA's website seems to be
> down at the moment...)
>
>  - mark
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Mark Newton]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:31:21AM +1000, Christopher  Mc Donnell wrote:

 > http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2012/04/20/teenage-pilots-quick-response-avoids-collision/

The actual ATSB report referenced by the article is here:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3548648/ab-2012-019.pdf#page=47

I'm sure there's a lot of room for interpretation here (i.e., concerning
whether a CAR166C broadcast is strictly required if the glider pilot 
doesn't believe "it is necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or
the risk of a collision with another aircraft.")  The differing guidance
between the competition rules, GFA rules and CASA rules about which
frequency should be used and when broadcasts should be made is also
up for discussion.

But one thing worth hilighting is that I think CASA and GFA have
diverged in their focus on radio of late.

My experience of GFA's training concerning radio is that it
emphasised minimizing radio chatter in favor of focussing on
flying the aeroplane and looking out.  Meanwhile CASA's training
of GA pilots has emphasised more promiscuous use of the radio,
leading to glider pilots making snarky comments about GA pilots
spending all their time talking instead of looking where they're
going.

I think glider pilot radio training has probably varied quite
a bit from club to club too -- which is, itself, a problem.

Over the last couple of years, CASA has shifted from "see and avoid"
to "radio assisted see and avoid" to "see and avoid alerted by 
mandatory radio calls."  The CTAF rules published last year are 
the latest step in that evolution.

I don't think a lot of glider pilots have kept up with those changes. 
Moreover, glider pilots trained more than a few years ago who
haven't updated their skills are now probably using radio very
differently to other airspace users, even if it is consistent with
the way they were trained.

(have you read the latest version of the GFA radio operators 
handbook?  It's probably different from the one you were trained
against. I'd include a link, but GFA's website seems to be 
down at the moment...)

  - mark
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] Radio & near collision.

[Christopher Mc Donnell]

http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2012/04/20/teenage-pilots-quick-response-avoids-collision/___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring