F15s v Nimbus Glider

[FD2]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... lider.html

I expect the glider pilot needed a change of trousers afterwards but thank God he was showing on radar, even if he was on another frequency. I don't suppose the glider could manoeuvre quite as fast as the F15s but they seem to have had him visual from 5 miles. Perhaps they were slow to manoeuvre as they were in formation? No alerts from Marham? Maybe it was just a listening watch.

Low risk of collision so nothing to see here really.

[larsssnowpharter]

Actually, there is something to see here.

In the 1990s, the BGA mounted a vigorous campaign against the obligatory fitting of transponders to gliders. My recollection is that the argument was based on cost, weight penalty and battery life as well as the fact that gliders tend to operate VFR and there was no need for transponders!

Move on a few decades and technology will set you free. In most of Europe all gliders and many hang gliders are fitted with FLARM. The rate of mid air collision has now dropped drastically.

I doubt there would have been an incident had FLARM been fitted. Should be made standard equipment. But what does the BGA say? 'It was surprising they passed so close as the jets had seen the glider 5 miles out'.

Personally, I doubt the F15 crew saw the Nimbus visually from that range. A glider is surprisingly small when viewed from the same altitude unless it is turning and flashing 25m of wingspan. Time taken to:identify the radar plot, communicate the problem, decide on action and communicate that to the whole flight.

The glider pilot says he saw the F15s. Not unusual. A glider canopy provides excellent visibility and most pilots are good at lookout

Re manoeuvrability: You would be surprised just how nimble a Nimbus can be. Prepared to bet it can do a 360 faster than an F15.

My real point is that FLARM should be mandatory.

[Boac]

Low risk of collision so nothing to see here really.

And, FD, to add - Low risk of collision raised to high risk by dumb USAF pilot.

[larsssnowpharter]

Not just USAF pilots! I have a number of pet hates as regards airprox when flying gliders:

1. Commercial pilots who think that they don't have to keep a lookout when they are in a FIR. Yes, I'm thinking of you the crew of the Lufty A320 west of Dusseldorf 25 years ago. I saw you 20 miles out. Flashed my wings a couple of times and got out of the way sharpish. Nonetheless, you passed about 300 feet away and 50 ft below me. I could see clearly into the flight deck where you were both heads down looking at instruments or manuals. Did give the pax a wave though! I have at least three other examples of this.

2. Light aircraft pilots following roads through a MATZ at 500 ft. The MATZ at Gutersloh extended out across the A2 autobahn. Crappy day and hit a bit of cloud on approach inside the MATZ when 'something' went over the top of the canopy. Not seen clearly, don't know what it was. Closest I have ever flown to another aircraft unbriefed though.

3. Gliders joining a stack and deciding to fly the opposing direction to all the other aircraft.

Perhaps I should go to the rant thread.

[FD2]

larsss - Most of my flying was either offshore or near the coast but when it was a fine day, especially at a weekend, we might encounter gliders and they were almost always seen at frighteningly close range. Coupled with that they were almost always altering course in thermals and needed greater avoiding distance. The shape would often go from an almost invisible end on to a sudden plan view when they turned to catch a thermal. That and the natural liking for light colours on the wings and fuselage which didn't contrast with the scattered sunlit Cu. Thank God for lightweight FLARM!

Little Cessnas and other light aircraft were difficult enough to see, even when radar was telling us where they were, but gliders used to be a real worry with no ATC warnings except 'glider activity in the area' maybe, in NOTAMs.

Boac - yes - he should have turned the formation away or even broken it, if it was 'on the nose' at 5 miles. Was being a little facetious.

[Boac]

The veritable EXCELLENT Daily Wail at it again "Fighters jets flying at 335mph forced to avoid smashing into a glider"

'FORCED' - Outrageous - have they not heard of freedom of choice and 1984? Where is the outrage bus? Where is BM when you need a conspiracy theory?

PS Why were they flying so slowly? At LEAST 360kts, surely? Shambolic USAF.

[Pontius Navigator]

Stiff head wind ?

As it was 290 kts I wonder who did the conversion. Speed probably assessed from radar tapes or some such. I recall once our SATCO was called upon to analyse a tape as an independent assessor.