Sailplanes to left, here I am again...

Captain

Captain

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
8,002
Location
NOYB
Display Name
Display name:
First Officer
Weird exchange today,

Letting down to land KTEB today ATC advised reports of sailplanes around STW VOR. We were getting close so we start looking ahead. Sure enough we spot two right away. One at 12:00 a little lower and one to the left a bit at the same altitude. We pass over the one by about 500' and by the one on the left by around a mile or so. Then we spot another one at 12:00 same altitude and same direction. I advise ATC we are going to maneuver. Looked like he was starting a turn to the right so we went left and passed him. Nothing on the TCAS from any of them.

So ATC asks us for a report of all the sailplanes we saw and what we saw as he was going to fill out an accident report. That raised my eyebrow a touch as I didn't really see anything wrong, but who knows what's already happened?

So, did anyone hear of any accident / incident involving sailplanes today near STW? Looks to me like they were well outside the NY mode C veil so I'm not sure what the problem was.

Thought I'd post and see if y'all knew anything...
 
I can't see why he would file any report, let alone an accident report. You said they were outside the 30nm ModeC veil?

Gliders can be anywhere, inside the 30nm arc, and below the top of the associated ClassB or 10,000MSL, which ever is lower, and outside of the ClassB. (91.215)! Anywhere below, 10,000 MSL, not inside Class B or C, not over classB or C below 10,000 MSL.

They can be anywhere above 10,000MSL to 17,xxxMSL, and higher with ATC approval.
Transponders are not required, even inside the ModeC veil. So no transponder, no TCAS hits, possible skin paint returns on ATC raw radar.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why he'd file any sort of report either assuming no accident. Could he have meant "incident"?. That area is marked on he charts as having glider activity.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I'm not sure why he'd file any sort of report either assuming no accident. Could he have meant "incident"?. That area is marked on he charts as having glider activity.
Click to expand...

He might have said 'incident report' but my FO and I both think he said 'accident' repot. That's why I posted...
 
BillTIZ said:
I can't see why he would file any report, let alone an accident report. You said they were outside the 30nm ModeC veil?

Gliders can be anywhere, inside the 30nm arc, and below the top of the associated ClassB or 10,000MSL, which ever is lower, and outside of the ClassB. (91.215)! Anywhere below, 10,000 MSL, not inside Class B or C, not over classB or C below 10,000 MSL.

They can be anywhere above 10,000MSL to 17,xxxMSL, and higher with ATC approval.
Transponders are not required, even inside the ModeC veil. So no transponder, no TCAS hits, possible skin paint returns on ATC raw radar.
Click to expand...

Gliders are exempt from the mode C veil xponder requirement?
 
Captain said:
Gliders are exempt from the mode C veil xponder requirement?
Click to expand...

Gliders are exempt from transponder and ADS-B requirements.
The key is, "not having and engine driven electrical system".
Gliders, balloons, J-3 Cubs and other aircraft of that type.

Mode c Veil goes to 10,000MSL, if the associated class B only goes to 9,000MSL, the glider is restricted to 9,000MSL or below within the veil. (91.215)
Need to fly outside the 30nm ring to climb higher, or have an LOA waiver with the local TRACON for climb windows.
 
Captain said:
Weird exchange today,

Letting down to land KTEB today ATC advised reports of sailplanes around STW VOR. We were getting close so we start looking ahead. Sure enough we spot two right away. One at 12:00 a little lower and one to the left a bit at the same altitude. We pass over the one by about 500' and by the one on the left by around a mile or so. Then we spot another one at 12:00 same altitude and same direction. I advise ATC we are going to maneuver. Looked like he was starting a turn to the right so we went left and passed him. Nothing on the TCAS from any of them.

So ATC asks us for a report of all the sailplanes we saw and what we saw as he was going to fill out an accident report. That raised my eyebrow a touch as I didn't really see anything wrong, but who knows what's already happened?

So, did anyone hear of any accident / incident involving sailplanes today near STW? Looks to me like they were well outside the NY mode C veil so I'm not sure what the problem was.

Thought I'd post and see if y'all knew anything...
Click to expand...

The only thing I can think of is an accident Saturday morning, involving a bad glider launch at VanSant... but that is well south of that VOR. :dunno: He must have said (or meant) "incident", although I don't see why spotting some gliders near Blairstown would be a surprise or a problem for anybody.

FWIW: you may or may not know that gliders will often share a thermal, ridge, or wave... it's kind of like deer crossing the road- if you see one, expect another. :D
Good to know, because most of them have no transponder... and yes, they are exempt in Mode C areas, like any aircraft certified without electrics.
 
Captain said:
Gliders are exempt from the mode C veil xponder requirement?
Click to expand...

Another place you'll find them is around Somerset, (SMQ) just a little northeast of the SBJ VOR. It's not shown on the charts as having glider activity but there's a club based out of Somerset Airport. I think there's a glider operator out of Central Jersey Regional (47N), around 7 or 8 miles southeast of the VOR. Both of these are in the mode C veil.

Just he heads-up if you transit that area often.
 
Nav8tor said:
Do you have any more details on that?
Click to expand...

Google search found this article, with a good picture of the damage (which indicates the 2-33 "took one on the chin", something pretty damn hard). I don't know the guy, but I've seen the glider there. I saw another picture elsewhere that shows more of it, and it looks OK other than the nose. Hope they can repair it...


http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-bucks-county-glider-crash-tinicum-20130504,0,800249.story

All I've heard through the grapevine is pretty much what the article says, with the addition that the glider seemed to be "rocking its wings" between the release and the actual impact. It is that time of year for first flights after reassembly... so it's quite possible there was a control issue not caught during assembly or preflight check. But that's just my first guess; I can't substantiate it.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I think there's a glider operator out of Central Jersey Regional (47N), around 7 or 8 miles southeast of the VOR.

Just he heads-up if you transit that area often.
Click to expand...
Not much glider flying out of Somerset these days AFAIK, but yes, there's a little club at 47N. ;)
 
rottydaddy said:
Not much glider flying out of Somerset these days AFAIK, but yes, there's a little club at 47N. ;)
Click to expand...

That's changed a bit then. I used to live almost equidistant from 47N, N51, and SMQ and Somerset used to have a fairly active club. I used to ride over there and watch the operations.

Looks like they are still around... http://www.oocities.org/hvsoaring/index.htm
 
Cap'n Jack said:
That's changed a bit then. I used to live almost equidistant from 47N, N51, and SMQ and Somerset used to have a fairly active club. I used to ride over there and watch the operations.

Looks like they are still around... http://www.oocities.org/hvsoaring/index.htm
Click to expand...
Huh, I thought I'd heard they moved out of there, but for all I know this is yet another club. :dunno:
 
rottydaddy said:
Huh, I thought I'd heard they moved out of there, but for all I know this is yet another club. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Or it's an orphaned web site. Considering where we each live, I'm not certainly not going to say that you are wrong about where gliders are based at.

That area, especially over Solberg, tends to be a path to other airports, and gliders will be very near, or on, the routes to those airports.

Do you do ridge off the hills near where 78 and 287 cross?
 
There are no more glider op's out of Somerset anymore. Most went to Van Sant, a few to Blairstown, with the rest in the wind.

A friend of mine saw the accident at Van Sant and said the glider got high on tow, wings rocked back and forth like buffet or near stall. Glider released and crashed on grass of airport right at the tree line.

Mike G
47N
 
Turboz1r said:
There are no more glider op's out of Somerset anymore. Most went to Van Sant, a few to Blairstown, with the rest in the wind.

Mike G
47N
Click to expand...

Mike, thanks. Guess I found an orphaned web site.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Do you do ridge off the hills near where 78 and 287 cross?
Click to expand...
Not really. I can only remember one day when I found streets in that general area, possibly generated by that terrain... and I probably wouldn't feel comfy getting low over there trying to actually work that ridge. With the wind usually out of the west or the SW quarter, I tend to stay away from the 3000-foot shelf of the Bravo, anyway.
One of these days I'd like to fly the ridge near Blairstown, or someplace even better... but for now I"m content to work with the thermals near 47N, which can be pretty good.
 
NTSB Identification: ERA13LA229 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Accident occurred Saturday, May 04, 2013 in Erwinna, PA Aircraft: SCHWEIZER SGS 2-33A, registration: N2045T Injuries: 1 Serious. This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report. On May 4, 2013, about 1130 eastern daylight time, a Schweizer SGS 2-33A glider, N2045T, operated by the Civil Air Patrol, was substantially damaged when it impacted trees and terrain near Erwinna, Pennsylvania. The commercial pilot was seriously injured. The flight departed from Vansant Airport (9N1), Erwinna, Pennsylvania about 1130. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed. The maintenance test flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. According to the tow plane pilot, the tow plane and glider departed runway 07 with the intention of the glider pilot practicing stalls at 3,000 feet mean sea level, as part of a maintenance test flight. After takeoff, the tow plane pilot observed the glider yaw to the left, then right, and left again. For most of the flight, the glider appeared to be above the normal tow position with its nose pointed 45 degrees to the right. At about 400 feet above ground level, the glider pilot released the tow line and made a left turn. The tow plane pilot observed the glider turn about 180 degrees, where it impacted trees with its right wing, pitched down, and impacted terrain. A post-accident examination by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed substantial damage to both wings and that the rudder controls had been rigged incorrectly. The wreckage was retained for further examination.
 
Hey Tony,

The word is that after annual and assembly for the first flight of the season the rudder cables were reversed inside the fuselage.

Enjoy reading your adventures in the gliding world.

Mike the Tow Pilot at 47N
 
strange that the rudder cables were even disconnected unless they were doing some repair to the rudder during the annual. bummer deal anyway
 
dell30rb said:
Well damn. Didn't know I could fly the cub inside the mode C veil.
Click to expand...

91.215 B (3). But, I think 91.215 D (3) also applies:

"For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with a transponder, the request must be made at least one hour before the proposed operation."
 
tonycondon said:
strange that the rudder cables were even disconnected unless they were doing some repair to the rudder during the annual. bummer deal anyway
Click to expand...
Yeah it is kind of odd... even if we remove our 2-33's rudder, as we did this last winter, it's simple enough to just leave the ends of the cables, with the shackles, hanging out of the fuselage from their respective holes. It would be unlikely for both of them to fall back inside, too
Maybe they replaced the cables or took them off the rear-cockpit pedals for some reason, and got them crossed up somewhere. Without stripping fabric off, I can see how they might not see it... but it's not impossible to look back there with a flashlight! There also should be inspection holes back by the empennage. So I'm not sure how were left crossed up...
:dunno:
But the bottom line is that this would have been revealed during a proper post-assembly positive control check! It's not easy for the pilot to see the rudder when sitting in the cockpit. But the control check on the runway is not the time to verify rigging after assembly. Even if you don't have a helper, standing outside the glider you can easily reach in there, deflect a pedal with your hand, then look back at the rudder. This should be done before the glider ever goes to the line for staging.

Oh well... I'm just glad he survived to put this hard lesson to use later.
 
Last edited:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I think 91.215 D (3) also applies:

"For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with a transponder, the request must be made at least one hour before the proposed operation."
Click to expand...

That's a little vague... 91.215D doesn't exactly say you have to make a deviation request if you are non-electric.; it just specifies who you ask and how much notice to give for each non-tx situation.
I've only heard of these requests being made for the usual inop-tx ferry flight into or out of a controlled airspace within a Mode C area, and I've also heard of requests for, say, glider ops in a Mode C being met with "no need to ask us unless you're landing at a tower-controlled field within the Mode C".
When I was flying a Champ in SoCal (with no tx but a battery-powered comm radio), I never heard anything about 91.215D from the FBO, the instructor, or even the controllers at KDSM, where it was based... that's inside a Mode C veil, and a lot of the hours I logged in that airplane were flown within that veil. :dunno:
 
I've never heard anyone run the entire ridge, but there are soaring sites that generally follow into the Catskills - Blairstown, Randal, Wurtsboro, Ellenville come to mind.
 
DJTorrente said:
I've never heard anyone run the entire ridge, but there are soaring sites that generally follow into the Catskills - Blairstown, Randal, Wurtsboro, Ellenville come to mind.
Click to expand...
Yeah, out there close to the "real" ridges, some amazing stuff is possible... 800+ km flights in a 1-26 out of Blairstown, for example. and several 12-hr+ flights of lesser distance. 12 hours!!!
I'd like to fly that ridge eventually, but it'd be a stretch for me to get there from 47N. I'd be very happy just to make it to Blairstown and land. :D
I'd probably be better off taking some dual out of Blairstown first, anyway, because it's not something to just plunge into on your own. Although the terrain is not very high, that area can be dangerous, even for advanced ridge-runners.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
91.215 B (3). But, I think 91.215 D (3) also applies:

"For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with a transponder, the request must be made at least one hour before the proposed operation."
Click to expand...

That only applies to aircraft with inop transponders.
Does not apply to aircraft with no engine driven electrical system, they are exempt under 91.215(b)(3).

91.215(d)(3) is asking for a deviation from the reg, it's not a deviation if you are already exempt under 91.215(b)(3)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top