Improve Light A/C Separation

[Robin400]

New post regarding separation, I feel the Coventry thread is not the best place to continue this. Thanks. :ok:

[tdbristol]

I know it is by no means 100%, but many times I have been flying along, looking out to the best of my abilities - and also many times, head down looking at maps etc. - when my little portable PCAS unit goes off and warns me of another aircraft.
Just a few weeks ago I was flying along maybe 500-1,000ft below a broken cloud base, and the unit went off - warned me of an aircraft ahead, same level. I had been looking out but just had not seen it. I quickly descended by a few hundred feet and very shortly after saw a twin only a few hundred yards away, pretty much nose-on to me, which passed a few hundred feet overhead. Based on the 'big sky' we probably would not have hit each other, but it would have been close.

The unit itself is pretty small, very light, sits easily on top of the panel, and uses 12V power from the panel (or a battery unit I carry) so is no problem to use in the club aircraft that I rent.

It doesn't necessarily give peace of mind, but at least it helps a lot to spot aircraft that are transponding Mode C (or S) and which are a 'threat'. (Of course not all aircraft have Mode C/S, like perhaps the smaller aircraft in the Coventry accident, but it tends to be most of the faster ones, where you would have less time to avoid.)

It was pretty expensive - over £1,200 - but having used a PCAS unit I would be pretty reluctant to fly without.

[Robin400]

"Of course not all aircraft have Mode C/S, like perhaps the smaller aircraft in the Coventry accident, but it tends to be most of the faster ones, where you would have less time to avoid."

Thanks for the info. A Rotax or a IO540 makes little difference landing on your lap.:eek:

[Fuji Abound]

So by way of resume, and to solicit peoples views, one aspect of this discussion which I find particularly interesting was developing as follows:

Very few light aircraft have "full" TCAS. Full TCAS, in addition to actively interrogating other aircraft, will provide the pilot with an RA, in other words what action to take if a collision becomes likely. (This is a simplistic explanation for the purpose of this discussion).

To keep down the price GA typically uses two different types of systems. The first (such as Skywatch) also actively interrogates traffic which is then displayed on a PFD (moving map) or stormscope showing the relative position of the traffic, its height, its change in height (relative to you) and the trend in its position relative to you.

PCAS on the other hand relies on piggybacking traffic information from ground based radar returns (in other words it is passive, and would not work in an environment without any other interrogators). In its simplest version it indicates range and altitude relative to you. In its more "advanced" version it also indicates direction, but only to the extent of the four quadrants relative to you.

PCAS has some other limitations. A return may not be received because it relies on a single antenna, whereas Skywatch has two antennas above and below the aircraft and mounted externally. PCAS is not approved and it is unclear how well the technology has been tested.

Skyforce typically offers the following level of accuracy:

Range accuracy 0.05nm (typical)

Bearing accuracy 5d rms (typical), 30d peak error

Altitude accuracy +/- 200 feet

I haven’t looked up the figures for PCAS.

FLAME is also used, particularly by the glider community, but very little within powered aircraft. It has some similarities with ADS-B.

I am familiar with the first two and have used both, but not with FLAME.

This discussion I think is relevant to all these systems.

Skywatch say that the intention of the system is to enable pilots to far more readily visually acquire conflicting traffic. They caution that separation should not be initiated until the traffic has been acquired visually. As far as I recall PCAS don’t say anything in their OM, but I may be mistaken (it is not to hand). I don’t know what FLAME say.

The discussion is should you do nothing until you visually acquire the traffic because of the inherent errors in range and bearing accuracy and because the other pilot might resolve the conflict in the same but opposite way to you. Only in the case of TCAS are expected to carry out an RA even if you have not visually acquired the traffic.

I think it is an interesting discussion as to how this might work in the GA environment giving the differences between TCAS and CAS.

What are the differences in environment.

Well for GA traffic outside CAS the traffic has complete freedom to manoeuver both laterally and vertically as it wishes. In other words as we all know there is no need to tell anyone that you are departing from your heading or altitude. Moreover other traffic often cannot be verified by reference to ground based radar because the traffic is not receiving any ground based service.

So the question is, in short, outside CAS do you make any adjustments to avoid an apparent conflict with other traffic based solely on CAS, or do you always wait until you have acquired the traffic visually however close that may mean you get.

I gave in the previous thread an example. You are enroute, VFR in 4k viz. Traffic at a range of 10k is converging your track at right angles, same height.

Do you:

React immediately either by altering course, height, or course and height,

or

Do you do nothing and wait until you have acquired the traffic visually how ever close that may take you?

Thoughts welcome from anyone using any of these sytems or just interested in how they work in a "non controlled" enviroment with the mix of traffic we are all accustomed to.

[Robin400]

Thanks for your post. Now I think we are making progress with a problem that we have to find a solution to.
:ok:

[Pace]

Tcas will only ever be reliable if all aircraft are forced to be transponding. That is the case flying in the IFR invironment of airways.

The downside out of controlled airspace is that Tcas can give a false sense of security and hence in a certain respect make a collision more likely.

So its really an all or nothing game ie make all aircraft use working transponders ie gliders, microlights light aircraft even balloons before they can legally fly.

Most of us who fly in IMC conditions out of controlled airspace are at risk especially as one poster said when making a cloud break blind to VMC and not knowing what aircraft are circling or flying below the clouds.

Maybe we should consider the possibility of a complete network of radar coverage to be allowed to fly in IMC offering RAS or RIS services but even that is not foolproof especially low level.

The only "almost foolproof system is a combination of both ie TCAS and radar from takeoff to touchdown or controlled airspace.

Pace

[Robin400]

So its really an all or nothing game ie make all aircraft use working transponders ie gliders, microlights light aircraft even balloons before they can legally fly.

Pace. Please can you explain how. Transponders alone do not give you separation.

[chrisN]

Fuji, you may wish to know it’s “FLARM”, not “Flame”. The Flarm people emphasise in their manuals that it is an aid to lookout and visually acquiring other Flarm carrying aircraft (and/or obstacles in its database – in Switzerland, cable car cables etc.), not a collision avoidance thing in itself.

From their website: “FLARM is designed and built as a non-essential 'situation awareness only' unit to support the pilot, and cannot always provide reliable warnings. In particular, FLARM does not give any guidance on avoiding action. Under no circumstances should a pilot or crewmember adopt different tactics or deviate from the normal principles of safe airmanship.”

My comments are limited to “Original FLARM for gliders and portable use” – I see that they now have other products including one “for GA” – dunno what that does.

It does have algorithms that separate what it deems non-threat (e.g. formation flying, gliders sharing a thermal and on non-intersecting courses) from threats – projected collision paths. So it does not do the same job F-F as Txp-Txp or PCAS-PCAS.

FLARM is the ONLY solution available now and in the foreseeable future that all, or almost all, gliders could use – because its battery requirements are low.

Sorry it’s not interoperable, but that’s a fact. Transponders are also not interoperable – notably, with things that can’t carry enough battery and/or can’t install it, as well as not being interoperable with other transponder-carrying aircraft unless they have TCAS or PCAS or something like it, or ATC and a totally known environment.

I presume other glider pilots who have it believe, like I do, that Flarm is the best available tool for us at present. I leave others to judge whether it could be so for them.

Chris N.
[edited to add points from Flarm website]

[Robin400]

Transponders are also not interoperable – notably, with things that can’t carry enough battery and/or can’t install it, as well as not being interoperable with other transponder-carrying aircraft unless they have TCAS or PCAS or something like it, or ATC and a totally known environment.

chirsN. Many thanks. Your post is exactly how i see the situation to date. You have seem to posses an in depth knowledge of the Flarm system please let us know all you can.

[SNS3Guppy]

TCAS comes in two flavors; TCAS I, and TCAS II. TCAS II provides resolution advisories, whereas TCAS I does not.

Even a professionally installed TCAS II system in a radar environment has it's limitations. It's a tool, but still misses traffic, and collisions still occur with TCAS onboard and functioning.

See and be seen is still the best policy, with everything else serving only to back that up.

[Pace]

I never said transponders alone would, but if you have TCAS you will not pick up non transponding aircraft.

TCAS is a tool but can give a false sense of security making you believe you have a shield of protection which you do not have.

In the same way an RIS also gives you a false sense of security. How many times do radar miss an aircraft that passes in front of you?

Pace

[Robin400]

This is why TCAS is a dead duck as far as light aircraft/ microlights and gliders are concerned.
The cost alone will prevent most people from installing such a system.

R400

[egbt]

The discussion is should you do nothing until you visually acquire the traffic because of the inherent errors in range and bearing accuracy and because the other pilot might resolve the conflict in the same but opposite way to you.

If my PCAS is showing a contact closing steady at the same alt I may change my alt to avoid. If above and coming down I'll make a judgement as to what to do depending on the rate in change of height and difference in height. Doing nothing does not make much sence to me.

[Pace]

Robin

It may be a dead duck as far as gliders microlights etc are concerned but transponders fitted to those aircraft will at least allow aircraft fitted with TCAS to see them.

A white glider circling in one spot under a cloud is not very visible especially to a twin prop chopping in and out of cloud, IMC one second VMC another second.

Maybe it should be a choice to have TCAS but compulsory to have at least mode C transponder for all flying machines?

Pace

[Robin400]

Pace. Do you have Tcas II or a variation of ?
Robin.
compulsory to have at least mode C transponder for all flying machines?
Without doubt that is correct. TCAS II warnings with no level displayed frighten me to death!!!:eek:

[IO540]

I detect the same prejudices in some quarters here as happens with GPS.

TCAS allegedly damages your lookout.

GPS allegedly damages your traditional navigation skills.

Why not just have a long spike in the middle of a steering wheel, and ban the use of seat belts. It would do wonders for road safety - without a shadow of doubt. Mandate crossply tyres, with excellent aquaplaning properties, for good measure.

But seriously, in the GA OCAS context, one uses TCAS to assist in visually spotting the target, and if one cannot visually spot it then one has no option but to take avoiding action based on TCAS alone. It is better than doing nothing.

[Robin400]

Just to clarify terminology.. . . .

When we refer to "TCAS" it is only applicable to "TCAS II" equipped flying machines.

Is it possible to fit an error free static source to microlight type aircraft?

If not the mode "C" is of no value.

[gasax]

TCAS cost - well the Avidyne TIS starts at $10,000 and moves on up. Skywatch $19,000 and on up.

FLARM £350.

Wonder which is likely to have any substantive takeup?

[A and C]

Perhaps a little more time looking out of the window rather than playing with the 3285 GPS functions and dreaming of a "magic" bit of kit to relieve us of one more bit of responsibility to avoid hitting another aircraft is the true low cost solution to this problem............... Sorry for the younger pilots that is consulting the large reality display!

[Rod1]

“Is it possible to fit an error free static source to microlight type aircraft?

If not the mode "C" is of no value.”

Yes it is. I have an MCR01 home built (the group a version but the micro would be identical in this case). Despite my kit being entirely self installed it works well (BK76a + encoder). The problem with modern 3X micros is not a technical one it is the regulations. UK micros have a max empty weight. The popular designs are built to come very very close to this limit. The CT for example is 1lb under the max. This makes it almost impossible to install such kit. When the CAA was pushing Mode S for all we pointed this out to stunned disbelief. The CAA types initially thought it would be easy to get their own organisation to increase the limit, but this was ruled out completely. This area of flying is the fastest growing and all 2000 ish of them fly around at normal GA levels, at typical GA speeds – VFR day only.

If you add in the LAA aircraft, the gliders etc then there are more aircraft flying at “normal GA levels” without transponders than with. It often amuses me when people complain that pilots do not turn on transponders that they do not have!!

What we need to do to improve separation is to improve lookout. In the gliding world, if you cannot demonstrate a good lookout to your instructor, all the time, you will not be allowed to fly solo. Some people (particularly ex royal observer types) were trained to be very good at lookout. We need to actively teach lookout to PPL’s and test the lookout of existing pilots. This should take priority over any “black box” solution, unless the solution is going to detect non-transponder aircraft.

Rod1

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Rod1. Your para 5; agree entirely.

Not GPS but the number of times I've flown abeam the LIC NDB and watched GA traffic pass its overhead at similar levels but seemingly oblivious to each other's presence is quite alarming.

For the record, I do not want any transponder in my aeroplane (I've better things to route the limited juice through and squander lift on); ENDEX. I have windows and perfectly good (and trained, disciplined) MK 1 eyeballs.

[PPRuNe Radar]

When we refer to "TCAS" it is only applicable to "TCAS II" equipped flying machines.

Have you told ICAO and all the TCAS I equipped aircraft operators ??

[Steve N]

My (limited) experience of TCAS in a 182T (G1000) is that it's useful on route but it's value diminishes as one closes on a GA airport with a busy circuit. Any circuit traffic sends it nuts and the continual TRAFFIC warnings just become a distraction. I guess it's possible we don't have it set up right.

[SNS3Guppy]

Just to clarify terminology.. . . .

When we refer to "TCAS" it is only applicable to "TCAS II" equipped flying machines.


No. TCAS applies to TCAS I, and TCAS II systems, as previously described.

Other systems in use such as TPAS, FLARM, etc, are not TCAS systems.

[gpn01]

Rod1 & GBZ...."Not GPS but the number of times I've flown abeam the LIC NDB and watched GA traffic pass its overhead at similar levels but seemingly oblivious to each other's presence is quite alarming"

I'm quite astonished to see the amount of traffic that uses airfields as navigational waypoints by flying directly over them at 2050' (estimated!). Common sense suggests to me that flying directly over NDB's/VOR's/VRP's and airfields is best avoided, particularly at around 2000'. Why don't pilots navigate with some sort of offset from the feature that they're using ? Actually, thinking about it, the more pilots who navigate this way, the safer it is for me as I avoid such hotspots!

[NigelOnDraft]

Maybe it should be a choice to have TCAS but compulsory to have at least mode C transponder for all flying machines?Remember, we as a community, or at least certain parts of it, have "successfully" fought off (at least delayed) "compulsory" transponders for GA. You might say the fight was over Mode S v Mode C, but in practical terms the effect is the same... (quick Google shows an A/C Xpdr at £1, S at £1.5K - each + same installation costs).

The problem you "fight" is that you, with a TCAS / PCAS / Skywatch / FLARM or whatever are expecting / relying on someone else to purchase / fit / get approved a device to make yours work. Some of the latter would, maybe quite rightly, ask you to pay for it? *

I do not know the numbers who have Mode C / Mode S / FLARM / whatever, but for collision avoidance purposes, especially given the lack of radar service(s), we are surely a long way from the "critical mass" to significantly reduce the chance of a mid-air?

NoD

PS before it gets personal, we are just fitting Mode S, but for other reasons...

[dbee]

If on a visual approach, the rule is "see and be seen" 100% lookout and no gadgets to help. I appreciate this as a former fast jet and airline pilot; I also used to be a CVT resident before moving to Scotland, Now a pensioner, too!!:\dbee

[BackPacker]

I'm quite astonished to see the amount of traffic that uses airfields as navigational waypoints by flying directly over them at 2050' (estimated!). Common sense suggests to me that flying directly over NDB's/VOR's/VRP's and airfields is best avoided, particularly at around 2000'. Why don't pilots navigate with some sort of offset from the feature that they're using ? Actually, thinking about it, the more pilots who navigate this way, the safer it is for me as I avoid such hotspots!

Laziness?

Navaids and airfields are all in the GPS database under their normal ICAO code so it's easy to string a bunch of them together to make a route, then follow the magenta line.

(VRPs are a different matter. Most GPS databases have a limit to the length of a waypoint and a VRP like "South Woodham Ferrers" has to be abbreviated, which doesn't happen in a consistent way across GPSs and GPS manufacturers, or omitted altogether.)

But even without GPS, navaids are intended as navaids: string them together to form a route, then fly the route with fairly simple nav equipment. And airfields are rather easy to recognize and identify from the air if your nav is purely visual/DR.

But I agree that it concentrates the traffic, particularly in busy areas or areas without much else to base your navigation on, onto a single point in space. Flying offset (in case of a GPS not that hard to do, just make sure the cross track error is constant at 1 nm or so) would make a lot of sense.

[IO540]

I do not know the numbers who have Mode C / Mode S / FLARM / whatever, but for collision avoidance purposes, especially given the lack of radar service(s), we are surely a long way from the "critical mass" to significantly reduce the chance of a mid-air?

That depends on where you fly. If you fly at 1000ft then I agree 100%. If you fly at 3000ft+ then I am sure nearly all are Mode C/S equipped and transponding.

From my 900hrs of flying, with as much under an RIS as I can get, of the "level unknown" i.e. nontransponding contacts that I recall spotting, countless contacts were below me, and none that I ever recall was above me. (Of course the majority I never spotted). The statistical picture here is overwhelming and that is why I sometimes appear a bit cynical on this forum about the correlation between who is flying without a transponder (often a homebuilt/microlight type) and how low they fly, and probably how far (I mean not far) they fly.

Practically everybody who flies seriously, doing real distances and using the available airspace to the full, has a Mode C at least and uses it. But there is a large and vocal group who are against transponders but who probably do little beyond local bimbles, at low levels.

(time to duck under the barrage of examples of adventurers who flew their motorised hang glider all the way to Kathmandu, etc)

Backpacker - I don't think airfields generally make good waypoints. I would challenge you to to a dead reckoning exercise with say 10 waypoints, all of them being grass-only ones. Some are damn hard to spot for a visitor (easy for locals, obviously). And the bigger ones have an ATZ so you have to be at least 2000ft AGL and preferably more due to overhead joins at 2000ft, and you ought to talk to them. I never use airfields as waypoints, in the GPS route. They have minimal visual benefit - unless it's Heathrow ;)

[Rod1]

IO540

“That depends on where you fly. If you fly at 1000ft then I agree 100%. If you fly at 3000ft+ then I am sure nearly all are Mode C/S equipped and transponding.

From my 900hrs of flying,”

The trouble is I have more than 900 hours, I actually fly one of these and I KNOW they fly 2-5000 ft on a regular basis!

“and how low they fly, and probably how far”

A typical 912 powered machine will climb at over 1000 fpm (mine is typically around 1700 fpm) and cruse at 100kn+ (mine does 138kn at 75%). Why would such aircraft a) fly low or B) stay at home. I am based on a strip with 18 other aircraft 2 of which have C of A and most fly significant distances and at normal GA levels using normal GA methods. The majority are flown by ex spamcan drivers who have found a “better” way. If you were to argue that weight shift micros were flown low you would have more of a point (about 3000 aircraft not transponder equipped), but now the engines are getting bigger you increasingly see them at 2-3000 ft too.

The LAA hold a series or regional rallys around the country. You will find 200 + aircraft a day visiting from all over the UK, with some from Europe. The picture of a home built / micro which is just capable of getting airborne is completely out of date. A CT Micro (factory built) will do 120kn with 4 hours fuel, nobody flyes such a machine at low level, too many ATZ, MATZ etc. The 12000 paramoters probably do fly low, but add in the gliders and traditional transponder equipped GA is a minority at 3000 ft on a summer’s weekend

I raise the above so that we all understand the problem. The CAA came in all guns blazing for every flying machine to be fitted with mandatory Mode S. Just a few short month ago they accepted it was an impossible dream for a host of reasons. Current technology transponders will never be made mandatory for all airspace users. If we are serious about improving separation we must go back to basics and be prepared to retrain people in better lookout and test to measure the improvement. This is the only game in town right now. If there is a form of airborne radar we can fit which detects non transponding aircraft, costs 2k and 2kg then I will buy one now, but until then go out and get your eyes tested and clean the canopy.

Rod1

[IO540]

I just knew you would be next in here, Rod1 :)

When is your next trip to Kathmandu?

[gpn01]

"If you fly at 3000ft+ then I am sure nearly all are Mode C/S equipped and transponding"

As a converse example, on Saturday 23rd August there were (NOTAM'd) gliding competitions at Dunstable, Lasham, Bicester, Pocklington, Husbands Bosworth and Aston Down. These alone will have accounted for around 200 gliders airborne between 12:00-16:00. Cloudbase in the task area (basically most of Southern England) was between 3000-6000'. Therefore I'm pretty sure there'll have been several hundred non-transponder equipped aircraft operating between 1000'-10,000'. Anybody out flying that might day might ponder on how many gliders they saw (and importantly, how many they didn't).

[Robin400]

The CAA came in all guns blazing for every flying machine to be fitted with mandatory Mode S. Just a few short month ago they accepted it was an impossible dream for a host of reasons.

Is there any interest in a fitting a cheaper system such as Fl..m to all types of light aircraft?

About 30 yrs ago students at Cranfield uni experimented with a system that detected aircraft strobe lights. It was basically sphere covered with photelectic cells that detected the flash from the strobe lights.
This info was then displayed on the flight deck.

With the vast development in electronics since the would this be a possibility?

[chrisN]

Outside of gliding competitions, there were also plenty of people flying above 3000 feet on other tasks, whether self-selected or club gliding tasks. I flew from Essex to Saltby, Lincolnshire, and back to Ely, much of the time above 3000 feet. I encountered several other gliders at similar heights, nothing to do with the main competitions.

The previous week, when flying between Cambridge and Suffolk in the Lakenheath area, I heard the pilot of a transponder-equipped aircraft near Bury St Edmunds making repeated efforts for his squawk to be seen, and Lakenheath could see nothing of him, on either primary or secondary radar. So please don’t think that having a transponder automatically makes you visible to air traffic control. Like any other machine, they are not 100% reliable.

Regarding wider use of FLARM, my personal opinion is that for the UK, use by gliders will increase slowly from a few per cent to a significant proportion, when the critical mass will be perceived as being large enough to encourage most glider pilots to use it. Unless something better comes along for powered GA, I think it quite possible that the same thing would happen, with the timing a few years later. [Always provided that it is permitted, and not prohibited, by the CAA or other authorities.] I suspect that the middle phase, rapid increase in use once a critical mass is reached, will happen because those without will be shown how many more aircraft they can’t see that are in fact detectable. Just my opinion.

Chris N.

[Fuji Abound]

IO and Rod

I think there are a few issues at work.

I commented earlier on a recent trip to the West Country.

In both directions it would have been difficult or impossible to fly at altitude without an instrument rating. This summer such conditions have been a common feature of the weather. To remain "VFR" (and even then not strickly legal) you might have weaved around the cloud or found a route on top but even then without an instrument rating a route down was far from assured.

I think this means that had the viz been 10K with a base well above GA levels there might have been more of a mix of traffic but the fact of the matter is there wasnt and that seems to be typical of any number of trips this year.

For that reason I think LAA types will often be "held down" by the weather but when the weather is good we will increasingly see their numbers grow at higher levels.

In my view there is no doubt the percentage of faster traffic has grown. As you say LAA types are flying at speeds that were never obtainable not that many years ago and there are more fast singles around.

To nail my colours to the mast I dont believe see and avoid works - or should I have said works sufficiently well enough of the time. The faster the traffic the more this becomes true.

It leaves me wondering if we are not going to mandate the carriage of transponders for all traffic we should mandate its carriage for traffic flying above a certain speed or above a certain altitude (regardless of the class of airspace). At least that would mean in the second instance we could be assured that en route above a certain altitude we were no longer totally reliant on see and avoid.

I remember many years ago coming across a hang glider at just over 5,000 feet. Given that the terrain was at most 700 feet I never expected to see him there (all his mates were at least 2,000 feet below). He was legal and he was entitled to be there. Perhaps I should even have expected to come across him. However, despite his slow speed he presented a very poor target - I hasten to add we never the less managed to avoid each other!

I appreciate this may not suite the gliding community or some paraponting and hang gliding sites but how much of this traffic is en route? NOTAMing or establish "danger areas" around sites with non transponding traffic operating above the transponder base might help accomodate all.

[NigelOnDraft]

It leaves me wondering if we are not going to mandate the carriage of transponders for all traffic we should mandate its carriage for traffic flying above a certain speed or above a certain altitude (regardless of the class of airspace).Already is is it not? Mode C compulsory > 10,000' I think: Conspicuity Code
When operating at and above FL 100 pilots shall select code 7000 and Mode C except:
(a) when receiving a service from an ATS Unit or Air Defence Unit which requires a different setting;
(b) when circumstances require the use of one of the Special Purpose Codes or one of the other specific conspicuity codes assigned
in accordance with the UK SSR Code Assignment Plan as detailed in the table at ENR 1-6-2-5 to ENR 1-6-2-10.I suspect you mean though wanting a much lower altitude e.g. confining the nasty LAA types to <2000' where they can have even more chance of bumping into each other :oh:

NoD

[Fuji Abound]

I suspect you mean though wanting a much lower altitude

Yes

confining the nasty LAA types to <2000' where they can have even more chance of bumping into each other

No

Confining non transponding aircraft of any type.

I wonder what percentage of LAA types are unable to fit a transponder (because of weight or power) and what percentage are unwilling because of cost?

[NigelOnDraft]

I wonder what percentage of LAA types are unable to fit a transponder (because of weight or power) and what percentage are unwilling because of cost?Or just don't want to full stop? Bear in mind the recent campaign by the LAA (and others) to stop mandatory Xpdrs...

I am not sure it would achieve much, since mid-airs seem to happen in the lower levels (?), and you would still have to transit in and out of the "upper areas" through the "danger zone" (unless you could confine that to CAS).

The 10,000' is a long established rule? What would you change it to? On what basis/reasoning? What arguments would alter the debate we have just been through? Would it be amsl? Or agl?

NoD

[Robin400]

I started this thread to try and prevent another terrible accident.

It seems to be going the way of most threads and ignoring the core question.

How can we stop banging into each other?


We all have to share the same airspace irrespective of the type of flying we do.

Please lets try to have constructive discussion.

[Fuji Abound]

NoD

For the purpose of debate (because I am not certain my proposal is serious)

1. I agree most collisions occur in or around the circuit. However, see and avoid should work well in the circuit (the fact it doesnt may be for other reasons). Nearly all the traffic (around GA airports at any rate) is likely to be slow moving. The circuit should help pilot's know where to look for traffic. Where there is AT they should provide additional help.

2. The 10,000 foot rule is well established but how much GA traffic is there above 10,000 feet? Very little. Oxygen constraints provide little headroom above 10,000 feet for most, combined with semi-circular or quadrangle levels and CAS. In short I would suggest the 10,000 rule is largely irrelevant to GA.

3. Providing a corridor above the terrain but below transponding height would point in favour of agl however I am not in favour of the use of dual or alternate altimeter settings.

4. Perhaps 10,000 feet is simply too high to be relevant but that opens up the debate as to what would be a more sensible height / level.

5. As I commented earlier perhaps speed would provide a better common demoninator. How many aircraft capable of flying above 100 knots indicated are incapable of fitting a transponder for reasons other than cost or desire?

Robin 400

I dont see your point.

I agree there are many aspects to avoiding collisions. Only one aspect is the impact of PCAS, TAS and TCAS but I think it is very relevant. A PCAS unit can now be purchased for a few hundred pounds and fitted to anything that is capable of getting airborne! I have noticed the up take of these units has significantly increased but of course there is no relevant training involved in their use and their limitations.

By all means lets discuss how we can adapt our flying to reduce the risk of collision a very effective means of reducing the risk - the floor is yours on that topic as you wish. I will be happy to chip in.

[NigelOnDraft]

R400... It might not seem so, but I am trying to be constructive.. by "testing" the various arguments / solutions being offered. Only if the arguments are fairly watertight does the solution have any realistic prospect?

There are a core of posters here who clearly desire a mandated system - fine, but as I said above, the trouble is, they have already gone to the expense / hassle of fitting systems. Trouble is they now seem to want (to mandate) "others" to buy kit so their (and their alone) systems "work" - but I doubt they will pay for them?

How can we stop banging into each other?There is a long standing current system called lookout :ooh: Until it is fairly provable that whatever system is being mandated is a significant enhancement to the current system (to all users), and by a sufficient margin to offset the cost arguments (cost v risk) I doubt we'll get anywhere.... apart from using the tragedies to emphasise look and listen out.

The "cost / hassle" but little benefit to the installer was a major argument used in the Mode C debate. So, IMHO, mandating Xpdrs for all, just so a small % of people with 5 figure bits of kit can see us just will not happen. The "benefit" has to accrue down to the installer, but at these sums I do not see it happening.

FLARM is at a realistic cost, but incompatible with the big boys' and ATC systems... so seems confined to maybe the gliding world?

To be absolutely crude about it... how much of a problem is it? What % of (GA) fatalities, over a few years' timescale, are due to midairs? And of those, how mnay might have been prevented by other means (look/listen out). If we were to blow all this money on something else, could it produce more effect / safety? Leave aside accidents under investigation for obvious reasons....

NoD

[NigelOnDraft]

Quick AAIB scan shows a few midairs, and this recommendation:It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority should initiate further studies into ways of improving the conspicuity of gliders and light aircraft, to include visual and electronic surveillance means, and require the adoption of measures that are likely to be cost-effective in improving conspicuity.I think the last point is lilely to be the problem ("cost-effective") given caveats such as Accordingly, it is considered that the organisation best placed to lead any study would be the CAA.
However, it would be necessary to include other organisations, such as the BGA, in any study.

FA - of the 4 midairs I found they involved 4 gliders, 2 helicopters, 1 microlight and 1 "light aircraft" (I think). So I am not sure an additional height / speed band for, say, Xpdrs, seems warranted by experience?

To further the debate, maybe worth someone doing a search and seeing how far the CAA have got (rec was 2005)?

NoD

[NigelOnDraft]

Found something:SAFETY RECOMMENDATION - 2005-006

It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority should initiate further studies into ways of improving the conspicuity of gliders and light aircraft, to include visual and electronic surveillance means, and require the adoption of measures that are likely to be cost-effective in improving conspicuity.

Response

The CAA does not accept this Recommendation. However, the CAA reviewed its ongoing work on the use of visual and electronic measures to enhance the conspicuity of General Aviation aircraft, particularly in the light of impending wider transponder carriage. Since the review, the CAA has taken action in relation to contrasting colour and reflective surfaces. Two further recommendations concerning the "see and avoid" principle and GA carriage of transponders and electronic awareness systems will be included in the CAA's GA safety promotion activities.

In respect of gliders the CAA has no regulatory powers to require the adoption of any recommended measures. The CAA will forward details of any recommended measures to the British Gliding Association (BGA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) for their information.

Status - Rejected

SAFETY RECOMMENDATION - 2005-008

It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority should promote international co-operation and action to improve the conspicuity of gliders and light aircraft through visual and electronic methods.

Response

The CAA does not accept this Recommendation insofar as it is directed to light aircraft. The promotion of international co-operation and action to improve the conspicuity of light aircraft through visual and electronic measures will depend upon the outcome of the review noted in Recommendation 2005-06. The CAA cannot accept the Recommendation in respect of gliders since it has no regulatory powers to require adoption of recommended measures. Details of recommended measures will be forwarded to the British Gliding Association (BGA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) for their information and use for any international promotion that these agencies might believe appropriate.

Status - Rejected - closed

[Fuji Abound]

NoD

I agree. On a cost return basis it makes no sense at all. I have no idea how many flying machines there are in the UK without transponders - lets say it is 25,000 - at £4,000 a shot to fit a mode S that is a £100M business. Based on the stats that might save a dozen lives or so over its life time - assuming for that matter every mid air would be avoided if everyone had mode s - which it would not.

Of course as a society we choose not to measure safety always in terms of cost but the "return" for pilots would be abysmal (compared with say the cost of fitting seat belts to cars).

The reality is harsh and it is not much help if you are one of the very unfortunate few.

However expenditure of this sort is not always rational. How many pilots spend £1,000 on a life raft and how many ditchings occur each year? How many yachties carry a liferaft and how many end up needing it? How many yachts are now fitting transponders and how many life threatening collisions occur at sea? (There was one last year in UK waters that I know about).

[IO540]

That's why I have said there is no value for money case here, and suggested simple ways to drastically reduce the risk of a mid-air.

Simply flying higher than the average pilot i.e. in the 3000ft+ bracket eliminates the vast majority of traffic, and those that do venture up there tend to be transponding and thus present a useful target to ATC radar.

There is very little chance of a widespread adoption of the £10k+ TCAS systems but a straight Radar Information Service (which is FREE) is all but worthless unless the traffic is Mode C or S.

[englishal]

I think that the right for people to NOT carry transponders / radios / whatever should be preserved if they really want.

However there has to be some give and take and I'd be happy to have mandatory Mode C (as a minimum) above say 3000' AGL, and Mode C vales around big ATC controlled airports which don't have Class D airspace attached (Exeter / Plymouth for example). If you want access inside this mode C area, obviously you need to have it turned on to Mode C or better unless previously agreed with ATC.

Isn't this fair enough? The the microlight lobby can go on flying without one, gliders can as long as they stay below 3000' and no one has to dash out and spend any money on a txpdr, and we don't suddenly see new airspace popping up everywhere.....

[Rod1]

“I wonder what percentage of LAA types are unable to fit a transponder (because of weight or power) and what percentage are unwilling because of cost?”

About 50% of the LAA fleet has a radio. 20% are micros, so almost certainly no transponder. I would guess 25% of the LAA Fleet have transponders. The BMAA would be probably 5%. The micros effectively cannot fit one (there are a few exceptions), the next largest group are the vintage enthusiasts. Almost all are constrained by power, space and weight. The aircraft values range from £1500 up to £100,000 but at the lower end you are not going to fit £2k of kit to a £2000 aircraft even if it is technically possible.

“In short I would suggest the 10,000 rule is largely irrelevant to GA.”

I and 90% of the gliding community find the 10,000 foot limit a pain. 12000 would have been better.

“How many aircraft capable of flying above 100 knots indicated are incapable of fitting a transponder for reasons other than cost or desire?”

Many 1000’s could not fit one. 200kn would be another mater. CAA were convinced of this after a very rigorous investigation.

FLARM would be great, but the CAA will not back it (not compatible with TCAS plus many other reasons).

Most of the issues raised above regarding transponder mandatory altitudes etc have been thrashed out in detail over the last three years. The decisions have been made in the last few months and it is not going to be revisited for many years.

I see very little support for mandatory training to improve lookout, but lots of attempts to keep the majority of aircraft out of the spamcan drivers way. Do you all think you have nothing to learn?

Rod1
(I was one of the LAA team involved in the interoperability consultations (Mode S))

[englishal]

See and avoid is not something that can't be taught.

A new Mode C txpdr can be bought for under £1000. I don't nescessarily agree with forcing people to fit Mode S if they have a servicable Mode C transponder but I am of the view that the majority of aircraft should have a transponder. If not we'll be regulated in other ways (airspace for example).

Look at the USA, many "homebuilt" aeroplanes have them. It seems that they are not too hard to fit in the USA are they? Why is that? Different mentality perhaps? Of course in the USA you can fly your homebuilt or ex-warbird IFR with the right kit. You'll find many second world war warbirds with a GNS430onboard. There are many Mode C Vales, where aircraft are not allowed without a Mode C txpdr unless previous agreement with ATC has been sought. Sounds fair enough to me.....

[Rod1]

“A new Mode C txpdr can be bought for under £1000.”

More importantly a second hand one is £250 ish. This is one of the reasons getting the ban on fitting Mode C removed was important. As a direct result of this the number of mode c transponders on the LAA fleet has risen to current levels.

“Look at the USA, many "homebuilt" aeroplanes have them.”

“many” UK home builts have them, 30% is 1100 + (total LAA fleet 4300 ish). If you introduce the US rules and remove the Euro/CAA restrictions, transponder usage on home builts would increase by 50% in my opinion. The empty weight nonsense, for example, has no equivalent in the USA so 5000 UK aircraft can now fit them in one stroke of the pen.

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

Rod1 - I have to say I have never understood this obsession with mode S other than regulatory conformity. As you say mode C transponders can be purchased for very little. That largely eliminates the cost argument.

The weight power aspect is more difficult. I dont think there is really any significant weight saving between a mode C and a mode S unit with both offering light weight alternatives.

I wonder what percentage of the fleet could / would fit a mode C transponder if they were required to?

[Rod1]

“I wonder what percentage of the fleet could / would fit a mode C transponder if they were required to?”

If the regulatory structure remained the same regarding max empty weight etc, maybe an additional 10 – 15%. The rest would be unable to comply for a variety of reasons. If you start looking at individual cases it gets very complicated indeed! It was this that changed the CAA’s mind on compulsory carriage, it is just not possible for many 1000’s of aircraft using current tec and current rules.

Mode S has advantages in high traffic density, according to the CAA this is important, but the US experience is different.

Rod1

[Pace]

I would go with all flying machines being fitted with at least mode C.
It is all very well saying see and avoid which might be great in a pure VFR machine with good visibility and minimal instruments.

Take a twin stacked with instrumentation, poor visibility, engines obscuring the views and going a lot faster and he needs a back up to his eyes ie TCAS.

Gliders do pose a problem as they circle in numbers and being white in colour blend with the clouds and sky.

There is a problem or threat to aircraft like performance singles or twin aircraft flying in IMC conditions or in poor visibility and the pilots transitioning from instrument flying to VFR flying.

It is a case of "I am descending through cloud, I may be under RIS or RAS but can the controller know about a microlight or glider around the base of the clouds especially if it does not have a transponder? It is a game of Russian roulette whether you meet such an aircraft breaking cloud.
Or even worse flying IMC with no radar coverage which does happen a lot.

If its a case that we all fly VFR and in VMC out of controlled airspace at least we are all on a level playing field but its when the boundaries of VFR IFR VMC IMC overlap outside of controlled airspace that the threat of a collision increases especially with such a variety of aircraft types, speed and pilot capability.

Unlike in a car it is also hard to determine where another aircraft is going. a small speck can appear to be heading in another direction but can quickly turn into a screen full of aircraft or can be obscured by a high wing an engine or a turn.

We probably can all remember an occasion that we got too close and there for the grace of god go I to aircraft that do collide.

Maybe the solution has to be a mix of techology, a stronger boundary between VMC flying and IMC flying, more visible aircraft colouring, better communication and more advancement in the fitting of ballistic chute systems so that you do stand a chance if it all goes pear shaped.

Pace

[Robin400]

Excellent posts now everyone.
:ok:

[bjornhall]

If a powered paragliders use Mode C transponders, how is it possible there are aircraft that can not be fitted with one?

[ShyTorque]

I think an all encompassing fix is never going to happen. However, I have developed my own strategy for minimising the problem; I think personal awareness coupled with good lookout and use of all available facilities is the best way but there is no foolproof method.

Mode S on, TCAS (TAS) on, RIS/FIS whenever possible. Transit inside controlled airspace in preference to skirting round the edge of it. Avoid the airspace just below the cloudbase. Avoid choke points, climbout areas and approach paths (some intelligence needed at times if you aren't familiar) and don't overfly beacons if at all possible, VFR or IFR. Use the second radio to listen to minor airfields en route, even if keeping well clear of the ATZs and do speak up if relevant, provided it doesn't adversely interrupt the ATC service under receipt.

A couple of things I have noticed in my thirty odd years of flying:

Some pilots don't speak up when relevant. For example, pilots operating in the circuit where there is no ATC (or leaving or about to join) seem reluctant to answer a call from a passing aircraft and simply plod away giving standard circuit calls and nothing else. Calls such as "Two miles south, approaching the overhead for join", or "Climbing 2500 ft and departing west", or even "In the circuit, remaining" might be a very sensible type of call to make in reply, allowing us all to build a mental picture of who's about.

Some pilots don't make full use of their transponder. This is increasingly important in the days of TCAS equipment; everyone flying with a Mode C transponder should actually use it, 100% of the time! The most silly remark I've heard in respect of this is "Why should I bother, when I'm not getting the benefit?" Everyone gets the benefit because the pilot of the TCAS equipped aircraft coming the other way will get advanced warning, rather than relying on his/her lookout at a much closer range. The paradox is that pilots who believe their lookout and "see and avoid" is foolproof might actually be the ones most at risk; they don't understand the limitations of the human eye and habitually miss seeing many other aircraft. They relax in the false belief that the sky is less congested than it really is.

[robin]

A new Mode C txpdr can be bought for under £1000. I don't nescessarily agree with forcing people to fit Mode S if they have a servicable Mode C transponder but I am of the view that the majority of aircraft should have a transponder. If not we'll be regulated in other ways (airspace for example).

Actually, (Rod will correct me on this) you can't now fit a new Mode C, only a secondhand one.

Since March all new installations are supposed to be Mode S and they are not available at less than £1800. Some who have fitted Filsers have now found they don't work and there is an AD on them

Our dear CAA have been telling us for some years that Mode S won't be mandated unless and until there is a low-cost low-powered version at less than £1000- they are starting to rat on this, as industry is not playing ball

[gpn01]

Hey EnglishAL, I'm not sure if your comment "The the microlight lobby can go on flying without one, gliders can as long as they stay below 3000' " is well intended, or said tongue in cheek or intended to be inflammatory but it suggests a complete misunderstanding of the modus operandi of gliders in the UK.

For cross-country flight in a glider I prefer to be between 4000'-6000' as this gives me sufficient gliding range to search out thermals and stay within reach of friendly airfields and glidng sites. At 3000', assuming flying in still air (a fairly rare situation), a glider is typically losing 150'-180' per minute. So a maximum height of 3000' gives a useable period for soaring/searching for thermals of around 12-15 minutes (allowing for a safe circuit). At 60kts that equates to a range, at best, of 15nm. Would you be comfortable on a three hour flight having to choose a field to potentially land in every 15 minutes ?

If you genuinely don't know much about glidng then I'd suggest that you go and visit a gliding club that does cross-country soaring and chat to the members about the typical height operating bands....see if you can have a flight too but beware, you might enjoy it!

[denhamflyer]

gpn01 - you start to raise an interesting point. Specifically how far gliders go from a recognised gliding site. Dont get me wrong as far as I am concerned the air is for all of us. But as I understand it many glider pilots are allowed to enter IMC and often do to benefit from the thermal properties within them. Now I often take care to avoid or be very alert at / over / near recognised glider sites BUT get quite nervous when they move much further away and use clouds without any requirement for transponder or radio. Whilst I accept this is perfectly legal it makes me feel un-comfortable. Not least because I had a "scare" when a glider popped out of some cloud well away from any gliding sites. See and Avoid would have been useless at the closings speeds we were at, but luckily there were far enough away. Now my question is how many of the longer range gliders will carry radios / transponders? As someone previously stated gliders will often not paint on radar - are they required to carry radar reflectors?

Also what are glider pilots taught wrt to radio frequencies - I know they will use the glider frequency when at know sites or in groups but what about trundling across the country? I would hope that they use FIS / RIS etc when possible?

Sorry for my ignorance about gliders in advance...

[David Roberts]

Virtually all gliders that fly cross-country will have radios, although this is not required by any current regulations. Their pilots will be operating on one of several dedicated gliding frequencies - mostly 130.100, 130.125 for cross country. When a glider pilot wants to enter cloud they should (must) change to the cloud flying frequency which is 130.400 and call their position and height (the latter at regular intervals).

Pilots will call FIS or ATC units when close to or wanting to transit certain classes of controlled airspace, obviously on the appropriate frequencies.

There are about 2,600 gliders in the UK. I would guess that c.50% to 70% of them could be airborne cross-country on a good thermal day, particularly weekends.

The performance of modern gliders is such that distances of 300 km in a flight is now normal, and 500km+ is done regularly. The UK record is c. 1,500 km in a day (in Scotland, in wave). Cross country cruising (gliding) speeds are generally between 60kts and 100kts, but occasionally up to 120kts, depending on the glider type / performance and weather / thermal conditions on the day.

To get some idea of the number of cross country flights in a year, go to
Ladder Home (http://www.bgaladder.co.uk/)
Here glider pilots log their cross country (or wave, height gain) flights. Not everyone by any means logs their flights on this website. Those that do have logged 2,900 flights so far this year, and 2008 has been one of the worst seasons for cross country gliding, weather-wise. Imagine a good year!

Gliders operate generally up to the base of (cumulus, mainly) cloud before setting off on a glide to the next thermal. On days when there is 'wave' the are likely to be operating above cloud and up to heights that can reach 25,000 feet (subject to airspace restrictions of course) in mountainous areas such as Scotland, Vale of York, Welsh border country, Eden Valley, Severn Valley. Most wave flights however tend to be from c. 4,000 ft to 15,000 ft.

Enough info?

[ShyTorque]

When a glider pilot wants to enter cloud they should (must) change to the cloud flying frequency which is 130.400 and call their position and height (the latter at regular intervals).

Why do they not call the most appropriate ATC unit for a meaningful service, so the other aircraft might be warned of their presence? Also, if they are in cloud, how can they give position reports?

[gpn01]

"Why do they not call the most appropriate ATC unit for a meaningful service"

...Perhaps because it isn't always easy to establish which is the most appropriate ATC unit ? As an example, if climbing above 3000' in cloud near Bedford, should I called Brize Radar, Benson Zone, Cranfield, London FIS, Luton ? (apols if this is a poor example, I don't have a half-mil map to hand to use a valid case but it hopefully makes the point). The most likely traffic to be in a cloud in Open FIR is going to be another glider (or several) on 130.4. Therefore it makes sense for a common frequency to be used (although it would be nice if some more of the radio spectrum could be allocated - say a North and South frequency, using a half-mil map to differentiate which one to use).

A Position report is given before entering cloud...e.g. "Glider 123 entering cloud 3 NM SW of Ely, 3500'". Subsequent position reports are primarily to give height "Glider 123 is remaining in cloud, climbing through 5000', last known position 3NM SW of Ely". As there's no point in cloud climbing in 30kt winds, then a guestimate is generally sufficient. GPS can also be used as an additional aid.

Denhamflyer - David's thorough response describes well the areas that gliders operate in relation to their home airfield - we often operate hundreds of miles away from base. If we're flying on a cross-country day (e.g. cloudbase of 2000'+, nice Cumulus growing, 5/8 cover) then you'll probably discover that there aern't many gliders near the home airfield as we're all making the best use of the conditions to go fly for hundreds of miles elsewhere!

[Rod1]

“Actually, (Rod will correct me on this) you can't now fit a new Mode C, only a secondhand one.”

This was overturned to allow Mode C to be fitted (both new and old). The second hand units from C of A aircraft requiring IFR fit have boosted transponder numbers in the LAA fleet to current levels.

To give some more numbers, there is about 7000 C of A SEP aircraft in the UK. I do not know what % of these have transponders, but less than 1% will have any form of traffic detection.

Some people are suggesting we should use RIS. I have not managed to get a RIS at a weekend for years. There are almost no units open at weekends and if it is a good VFR day they cannot offer RIS (for VFR traffic) due to workload. If you want to base separation on current transponder tec then you would have to provide blanket LARS plus compulsory radio and transponder, or compulsory traffic avoidance on top of a transponder. I do not see either happening in the next 10 years and not at all with current tec..

Rod1

[BackPacker]

Now my question is how many of the longer range gliders will carry radios / transponders? As someone previously stated gliders will often not paint on radar - are they required to carry radar reflectors?

Good comments on this already. To add, about transponders: Gliders have not carried transponders in significant numbers in the past. With mode S becoming mandatory in the Netherlands, some gliders now have gotten battery powered transponders on-board, but switching them on is a significant drain on the battery. These types of gliders make flights of five hours or more (let's not get started on the diaper issue) so they only switch the transponder on when they're in a TMZ or controlled airspace transit. They will switch them off afterwards.

At least, that was the official policy that was published on the noticeboards of the glider field where I spent a week learning how to glide.

I've never heard of a (presumably passive) "radar reflector" in a glider or any other type of aircraft. I've heard a story once about military target radar being able to pick up seagulls and such, so I guess with that type of radar a glider, particularly if partly made from carbon fibre, would not be hard to pick up. But I would not know about civilian primary radar, and whether yacht-type radar reflectors would make a difference.

"Why do they not call the most appropriate ATC unit for a meaningful service"

As a power pilot, I agree with most posters here that gliders should be on the normal, published frequencies requesting a FIS or RIS instead of their own frequency, even if that takes a bit of figuring out the proper frequencies before starting the flight. Not that different from what power pilots do. But another factor in this debate is that a lot of glider pilots do not have an R/T license and are thus not legally allowed to operate on most VHF frequencies. The glider frequencies mentioned are typically exempted from the requirement of having an R/T license.


To finish, a little anekdote. A few weeks ago I flew from Rotterdam to Berlin Tempelhof. We were warned about glider championships near EDOJ (Luesse) so we avoided that area by at least 10 nm (routing was north of Magdeburg, EDBG, south of Brandenburg if you're interested).

Near EDBG (Burg) I spot a glider far away, same level. I focus and see three more, flying at the same altitude and direction. I make a comment to my brother who was pax sitting beside me "looks like they're flying in formation". As I say this, I spot eight more, and then another dozen or so. As it turns out, apparently the assignment for that day took them from EDOJ to EDBG and since this was a good thermal day but with (relatively) low cloud bottoms, all these gliders were following one another at approx. 3500'. My altitude. Possibly a hundred of them. Directly across my track.

I climbed over them instead of trying to cross the stream same level. But the funny thing was, I was on a FIS from Bremen Info, who warned me of every traffic they could see on their scopes (for practical purposes, it was a RIS). They knew about glider activity in the area of EDOJ (that was NOTAMed, even), but did not know the assignment for that day. And none of these gliders, apparently, had a transponder turned on. So I never got a warning about them from Bremen.

It seems to me, gliders somehow live in a world of their own. They have their own ideas about radio use, transponder use, altimeter use, airspace use, traffic patterns, risk avoidance and acceptance, navigation methods, GPS usage and so forth. I, for once, am very glad to have done a weeks gliding course so I sort of know the way they operate and think. It's been a real eye-opener for me.

[Fitter2]

Risk management.

Quite apart from gpn01's valid point about which is the most appropriate ATC unit (and in this case it's information - they have no controlling responsibility) who is most likely to give a glider pilot useful information - a wide area Air Traffic service or another glider pilot in the same cloud with a personal interest in avoiding a collision?

And as for knowing where we are, when racing in competitions control at a waypoint is recorded by GPS position within 500metres of a point. Looking at the positions competent pilots fly just into the circle (typically 450meters from the point), tight turn and fly on. I know my position to within a wingspan (actually better - my normal span is 26.5 metres).

[Robin400]

There are about 2,600 gliders in the UK. I would guess that c.50% to 70% of them could be airborne cross-country on a good thermal day, particularly weekends.

Any ideas how many gliders in the uk are Flarm equipped?

[ShyTorque]

gpn01,

The most likely traffic to be in a cloud in Open FIR is going to be another glider (or several) on 130.4.

I'm very surprised by that comment; where did you glean that information because it is surely incorrect? From practical experience I disagree most strongly. I have flown TCAS equipped rotary aircraft in "open FIR" for a living for ten years now (twenty years before without). One thing TCAS has taught me is to always use an appropriate radar service where available. The number of transponder equipped aircraft operating in Class G in IMC is increasing all the time, much of it rotary wing. On an average IFR / IMC flight from the south of England to the Leeds area I nearly always encounter a number of other aircraft carrying out IMC transits, either informed by ATC or via TCAS, or both.

If you fly in IMC over Bedford you really should speak to Cranfield Approach on 122.850 who do not have radar, but they do give a very useful FIS and will obviously pass details of aircraft in their instrument pattern, which is sometimes very busy). Bedford is only 2 miles east of the CIT NDB and therefore any glider circling in cloud is dangerously close to the instrument letdown for their main runway 21 and aircraft holding at the beacon at varying levels, including jet traffic. Bedford is also directly on a track commonly used by IFR helicopters coming through the Luton CTR via their overhead and routing just west of the Bedford Danger Area 206 before continuing north or northwest bound via LIC or east of the EME.

A call to Luton would at least give them the chance to inform other aircraft speaking to them about your presence, even if you didn't remain on frequency (a call departing the area would be appreciated too). North of Bedford a call to Cottesmore 130.20 would allow them to do the same for aircraft participating in their LARS service.

[gpn01]

"Bedford is only 2 miles east of the CIT NDB ...". ......I did put in a caveat in my posting "(apols if this is a poor example, I don't have a half-mil map to hand to use a valid case but it hopefully makes the point)". I was simply trying to choose somewhere (off the top of my head) which would demonstrate that there's often several valid air traffic units with whom aircraft could be in contact with.

[scooter boy]

"I think that the right for people to NOT carry transponders / radios / whatever should be preserved if they really want."

Ok, Englishal, so how about the rights of the people that they kill in the midair who were in an aircraft that was transponding with TCAS etc... is it fair for their level of risk to be controlled by the bloke who has built a plane in his garage and wants to just bimble around not talking or squawking to anybody?

TCAS repeatedly helps me avoid low level VFR traffic who generally remain oblivious to the fact that we have got a little closer than comfortable and that I have had to take avoiding action. Last time it saved my bacon was on Monday on the approach to Lausanne, Switzerland, a VFR airport on the end of an IFR flightplan. I had just cancelled IFR with Geneva when we had a near miss - low level VFR, same level, reciprocal heading. We came very close, he never saw me and I doubt I would have seen him in time had the "traffic" not began chiming. Could have been Coventry all over again.

Although I completely agree that see and avoid is the best policy, TCAS can seriously open your eyes to the real risks out there that you miss 75% of the time when you are relying on the mark 1 eyeball alone. It should be seen as visual scan amplification and absolutely does not encourage complacency.

As far as I am concerned if people want to jump off a cliff then that's absolutely fine with me, so long as they don't take me and my family out with them.

SB

[ShyTorque]

gpn01,

I think you chose a very good example to illustrate that glider pilots (and some others) perhaps need to think "outside of the box" in these days of increasing air traffic congestion. The UK "big sky" is getting smaller.

Imagine this situation: A transponding, TCAS equipped powered aircraft, in receipt of a Lower Airspace Radar service, flying in IMC in Class G at the correct quadrantal level, collides with a glider thermalling in cloud, the pilot of which was not in receipt of any ATC service, had not announced his presence, had no transponder and was invisible to radar. The wreckage of both aircraft falls into a congested area, causing further casualties and damage on the ground.

What would be the general opinion of the public? What would the press say? Who would be held responsible? Increased legislation and restrictions would quite possibly be the outcome, which would help no-one. :(

[Rod1]

It is somewhat entertaining, if a bit depressing, to see the “spamcan” minority systematically having a go at the micros, the home builts, the gliders and presumably other spam can drivers with fewer toys.

The rules are well known to all of us. The risks are well known to most of us. We all have the option to stay on the ground.

In the example given above it would be interesting to talk to the glider pilot afterwards and understand which make of shoot he would recommend and his view on the mad GA types who enter cloud without the right equipment.:rolleyes:

Rod1

[Robin400]

I am sure we would all feel more comfortable if all flying machines were equipped with a inexpesive, light, low power traffic alerting system.

Is there any chance we could agree on such a system.

I would still feel very exposed to collision if I operated with TCAS, due to its failure to warn of all traffic.

There are lost of viewers of this thread but only a small number of contributors, please post your thoughts.

[gpn01]

I think Rod1's point that everybody knows the rules is actually part of the problem....many pilots seem to be completely unaware of the risks that theyr'e exposing themselves to in 'Open' airspace. They need to remember that an ATC unit provides only an information SERVICE outside of CONTROLLED airspace.

Part of the risk of operating in UNCONTROLLED airspace is that it is exactly that - ATC can't guarantee that they know about every aircraft in the area (but all credit to them for trying, and being pretty clear about the service they're providing, e.g. "No KNOWN contacts in the area....").

If you choose to fly in uncontrolled airspace then you have to accept that there is a risk element involved. Yes, procedures will help (e.g. keeping to the right of ground features) but they do not guarantee your safety. By all means chat away to whatever ground unit you feel will be able to best help you (but it's not 100% guaranteed). Likewise pilots should be encouraged to adopt any technology that helps to improve EVERYONE's safety. Part of the risk with the Mode-S/TMZ proposal is that it could channel non-transponding aircraft into an even smaller piece of sky, thereby INCREASING the risk of collision.

We can all hypothesise about how the press would spin a story to increase the sensasionalisation of an event. Indeed you only need to look at the recent Ryanair depressurisation story - don't see any newspapers with headline banners saying "passenger admits that he ignored the safety briefing, put the oxygen mask on his child's face instead of his own and didn't tug the mask to activate the oxygen"....No, because "Oxygen fails on Ryanair flight as passenger rescues his Son" makes far more meaty headlines for the Public. I'm therefore keen that we ensure that everyone is aware of the risks involved and, where appropriate, we mitigate against them - whether that be through processes, controls or VIABLE technology adoption. I also want to make sure that we protect aviation for everybody (and on this forum, particularly for the GA community, whether that be power, helicopter, glider, microlight or hang glider).

[Fitter2]

Actually, ShyTorque, the glider pilot would have announced his presence and position in cloud on a standard frequency (rather than one of many possible information service frequencies and is increasingly likely to be carrying a traffic information system, albeit one mainly carried by gliders.

Is that less responsible than flying in IMC with no certain knowledge of other traffic?

[denhamflyer]

gpn01 + Dave etc. thanks for elaborating on behalf of gliders. But I dont agree with Rod1's assertion that the spamcan flyers are trying to dictate what others do.

I lean more towards ShyTorque and ScooterBoy in that we all have a duty to minimise the risk to others, what we do with our own lives is one thing but to do nothing to mitigate what harm we can do to others is not so clever.

Personally I would not enter cloud if my transponder was not working and hope others would not. I have relied on radar services to assist with collision avoidance even though the other aircraft was conversing with a different AT service. Because we were all transponding we painted a clear picture with altitude lives were saved. If people then have TAS or TCAS then all the better. It is still uncomfortable in IMC to hear the other craft is altering course to match your change - but thats yet another discussion.

I think there are number of immediate things I can take from this.

All PPLs etc should be made much more aware of the Glider "cloud" frequency and the fact they may be there. and dual listen when possible.

I would hope that most Glider pilots would try and contact the "most likely" AT station to increase awareness that they are there.

I would also like to understand how well Gliders paint on radar - when I had a boat i was amazed at how many small yachts painted no picture at all on radar and that they did not invest in radar reflectors - I think things have improved - but just because a glider pilot has a parachute does that really exempt them from bothering to think about the family of people that would be killed by them not being seen?

Since more and more controlled "areas" will need transponders it does not make sense to try and invent yet another system. And I would certainly upgrade to TAS if more people had transponders.

Having said all this - given the small number of actual collisions that actually happen then we need to be rational about what we should do next. BUT GA is being squeezed into smaller areas and with the good advent of more and more LAA aircraft running faster and higher then we need to take change seriously and all play our part in keeping others safe.

[VP959]

An interesting debate. I'm currently one of the large number of aviators who fly something that cannot physically fit a power hungry, high RF Tx power system, so have a somewhat different perspective on this, perhaps. I've got lots of experience in bigger stuff and flew gliders maybe 30 years ago too, so can see this from most angles.

With the state of the art we have available at the moment, there is absolutely no technological solution that would even come vaguely close to giving a significant reduction in mid-air incidents. Far more than half of the private aircraft fleet in the UK are unable to carry and use a transponder all the time. Very few could fit a TCAS-like system. Unless transponder equipped aircraft become the majority, and they fly all the time with both transponders and radios on and serviceable, then we cannot hope to gain any real anti-collision benefit.

It's already been pointed out that the cost effectiveness of these expensive solutions doesn't stand up to scrutiny with respect to other ways of improving safety. £100M spent on better pilot training and skills enhancement would prevent many more incidents, I'm sure.

Mention was made earlier of the strobe detection system trialled years ago. Potentially this could be something that might be developed into a working system. We can now fairly easily detect strobes very reliably with cheap sensors, thanks to lots of work that's gone into missile detection systems over many years (and now largely unclassified).

Strobes are already commonplace, even on hang gliders and paragliders - I have a small one that fits to the top of my paramotor frame that cost me about £15. They also have the advantage of enhancing visibility as well as potentially providing a trigger source for an anti-collision system.

Although not a panacea, such a system would not require such a massive outlay as either a transponder based anti-collision system or something like Flarm. All that is needed is a cheap and reliable detector system, which would, potentially, be a great deal simpler to develop than any other option at the moment, in my view.

VP

[Robin400]

We can now fairly easily detect strobes very reliably with cheap sensors, thanks to lots of work that's gone into missile detection systems over many years (and now largely unclassified).

I posted the info on the strobe detector that was tested many years ago.
The info at the time was a detection range of about a mile in clear air and 300yds in average cloud.

This is the only info I can recal.

[Fitter2]

But the strobe on its own doesn't really help, you need a strobe detector also, and how well does that work in cloud? Normally I see a potentially conflicting aircraft in VMC long before I see its strobe. How many detectors do you need for 3 dimensional detection?

Strobe + strobe detector, cost = ? Do strobe detect and display systems currently exist?

FLARM exists, is low power and affordable. Using GPS position information it is much more informative than the relative crudeness of transponder based solutions. I was astonished to hear from a CAA Technical expert that the position information contained in Mode S extended squitter is not used by TCAS systems, and there are no proposals to do this until ADS-B comes along sometime/never.

The proportion of cross-country gliders fitted with FLARM is almost certianly higher than the proportion of small powered aircraft (Group A, Microlights, LAA permit) fitted with TCAS.

If all VMC air users want a practical solution that can be fitted to virtually all relevant aircraft, rather than saying 'you must do it my way' then one answer exists.

I have FLARM. There is no current TCAS sytem/Transponder that I can practicably fit. I don't have a philosophical objection, just practical engineering.

Head down for incomimg........................

[Robin400]

Fitter2................. At last you have one. Please tell us as much as you about using your Flarm.

[ShyTorque]

Is that less responsible than flying in IMC with no certain knowledge of other traffic?

No, because that's exactly the situation I'm trying to avoid!

Gpn01,

You appear to have changed back to the VMC option; I was replying to your comments regarding gliding in IMC! How do glider pilots keep to the right of line features when orbitting in cloud? VMC see and avoid is a different situation altogether.

Rod1,

If you referred to me, although I don't fly a "spamcan" as you indelicately put it, I'm not "having a go" at anyone. We are all entitled to use the open skies, for what ever purpose we wish, and long may it remain so. I began my flying as as a glider pilot, albeit for a short time over 37 years ago.

However, as someone flying for my living, much of it necessarily in Class G airspace, I am always concerned about my own safety, the safety of my passengers and the safety of all others. I use all the facilities and equipment available to me to keep everyone safe but if I can't see a glider, or know of its presence by the other means available, I can't avoid, and it worries me hugely. This situation should concern us all and not simply result in this regrettable "Us v them" situation which usually occurs when ever we try to discuss it; obviously a mid-air collision never involves just one aircraft!

Encountering what is is in effect a "stealth" aircraft, in IMC, is something that should simply not be allowed to occur in this day and age.

Yes, we should all make ourselves aware of the true risks we take and do our best to minimise them. Having been flying for a living for all my adult life, the initial eighteen years as a military pilot, the last fourteen as a civvy one, I do have some idea of what I'm involved with.

It saddens me greatly that some pilots apparently don't care enough to make a simple one minute radio conversation to an ATC unit to help minimise the risk for their own safety and that of other airspace users. Or are perhaps not taught the "big picture" and how they fit into it and the risks they could create for others. The point that might be slipping by some is that an ATC unit will give whatever assistance it can, to anyone in contact. The simple call I proposed (Position, altitude, flight conditions) would benefit ALL airspace users, glider pilots included.

I would ask for FLARM if I thought it practical to do so. However, I fly an IFR public transport helicopter, which has to comply with a CAA regulated equipment list. The possibilities for fitting extra equipment such as FLARM are actually far more involved than for a glider or for a LAA aircraft; it's definitely NOT a buy, fit in a cigarette lighter socket and use option!

Because (at least AFAIK) FLARM has never been fitted to an IFR helicopter, someone would have to pay for the design, trials and certification costs for such an installation, prior to purchase, which would no doubt run into many tens of thousands of pounds, if not hundreds of thousands. It's unrealistic to expect any individual owner to bear these costs so in practice we would have to wait for mandatory action by the CAA. We all know what a debacle we already have over the proposal for mandatory transponders. :(

[bjornhall]

I was serious though. A friend of mine has a transponder for his paramotor, to allow him to fly in controlled airspace. He's certainly not the only one. Few aircraft are more weight and (electrical) power limited than a paramotor, right? So how can it be so hard to fit them to all other aircraft?

Or is this really more of a cost issue than a weight and power issue?

[IO540]

I am sure we would all feel more comfortable if all flying machines were equipped with a inexpesive, light, low power traffic alerting system.

Is there any chance we could agree on such a system.

The logical thing would be ADS-B, implemented using the Mode S data channel.

This is what the rest of the universe is currently going for.

You start with a Mode S transponder (which nearly all of us will have to fit eventually :) ) and you connect it to your existing GPS (if you haven't got a GPS then forget any possibility of a low cost effective anti collision system). The transponder will then continuously radiate your GPS position. Anybody with a Mode S can do this right now - but not legally because such an installation is now Enhanced Mode S which is an EASA Major Mod etc etc etc. On an N-reg you can do it - in the USA, a GTX330 etc will be radiating anything connected to it and nobody minds (the more the better).

The receiver for this data is very simple and needs just a little ADS-B aerial on the roof. The other plane has also got a GPS, of course, and a simple bit of software compares the two 3D positions. Much cheaper and much more accurate than the existing TCAS systems which for azimuth info use UHF direction finding principles whose azimuth accuracy will never be all that great.

The only issue is that I think ADS-B is meant to use barometric altitude, which is going to be a lot less accurate (in absolute terms) than GPS altitude. But it would work OK.

[Robin400]

The logical thing would be ADS-B, implemented using the Mode S data channel.

This how Flarm functions, using GPS altitude, and no requirment for a mode S transponder, reducing the power and weight requirements.

My choice would be ADS-B but this is unlikely ever to be fitted to gliders and LAA aircraft.

This exposes or colleague with his IFR helicopter to great danger.

[englishal]

Hey EnglishAL, I'm not sure if your comment "The the microlight lobby can go on flying without one, gliders can as long as they stay below 3000' " is well intended, or said tongue in cheek or intended to be inflammatory but it suggests a complete misunderstanding of the modus operandi of gliders in the UK.
Not meant to be either really :) But it was meant to illustrate the point that SOME compromise is going to be needed by everyone. I know that gliders are perfectly able to go to great heights, but my compromise would be that ANY aircraft above a certain low-level altitude should be transponding. Those who don't wish to, stay below. Those who want to transit in relative safety, then climb into the Mode C area......just chucking ideas around ;)

[Fitter2]

Re fitting FLARM to IFR helicopters, they certainly are in Switzerland/Austria since an auxiliary function is obstacle warning of cables strung across valleys, as well as avoiding all the FLARM equipped gliders. I believe it is classed as a portable device, and has a temporary fitting, similar to the portable Garmins that seem remarkably common as precaution against fitted equipment failure in other certified aircraft.

http://i35.tinypic.com/4ktf83.jpg

FLARM is the little box above the EFIS

As far as using FLARM, a full functional description appears on their website. In real life it's switch on (its a secondary function of my flight recorder, with a small display fitted in both front and rear cockpit.

Nearby FLARM equipped aircraft are indicated by an LED in the appropriate 'clock' direction, with an above/below indication of the closest. Near but no 'threat' re green.

If the software thinks a collision risk exists, it flashes the LED RED and with increasing risk flashes faster and lights ajacent LEDs. It also beeps to alert you if you aren't looking (although the display is so small it is easy to position on the sight line) and the beep can be fed into the aux port of an intercom (but obviously not on a certified aircraft - that might be safer, but you can't connect a non-certified object into a certified installation).

Similarly, 1090ES ADS-B involves not only an extended squitter Mode S transponder, but also an aviation certified GPS, costing an order of magnitude more than a non-certified one; cost weight and power.

[David Roberts]

Just a few further random comments from my practical experience, which includes a lot of hours flying gliders in the French Alps.

1. Our glider, like virtually all in the Alps, has dayglo strips over the wings. Makes the glider a little easier to catch with the Mark One

2. Gliders are often visible on radar but not that well. It is often heard that Brize (Oxon) can see gliders winch launching at Aston Down (Glos)

3. Gliders flying cross country do not have a predicable course - in the sense of a straight line. The pilots follow the best energy line, dictated by the clouds / thermals etc

4. From my recollection of nearly 40 years of gliding accident records and reports in the UK, whilst there have been a relatively high number of glider to glider midairs - often in the circuit - and by relative I mean relative to the rate of mid airs between aeroplanes, I can only recall four midairs in that time between a glider and an aeroplane. One about 20+ years ago in the Severn Valley area, another was a bit later near Thame. Both those two happened in clear air, not in cloud. The first was where the glider was hit from behind by the aeroplane. The third I recall was in the circuit at my home airfield, when sadly we lost a great friend. I cannot recall any midairs between gliders and aeroplanes in cloud. That is not to say it could not happen; just that the empirical risk appears to be low.

5. Flarm. In the UK it is catching on in the gliding world. I would hazzard a guess at c. 7 to 10% of the glider fleet are now equipped. But of course it relies on everyone else (or most) having it fitted also. In the French Alps it is far more prevalent and my experience so far with Flarm (three seasons) is that it is an extremely valuable additional aid to the Mark One. It is not a substitute. I have had a significant number of instances when Flarm has alerted me to other traffic well before I saw the traffic. It has the advantage of immediately indicating from which direction the conflicting traffic is coming and whether above, level or below one's own level. The big advantage of Flarm is it is instantaneous and does not need a third party (ATC, FIS etc) to intervene with all the critical time delays that involves. Mind you, in the Alps, flying close to the snow covered terrain often, it is very difficutly to see other gliders visually.

6. Unfortunately the regulators stick rigidly to the rule book when it comes to practical certification matters. Which is why we gliding folks wished we had not been subject to regulatory capture by EASA and all that goes with it. Flarm should be allowed to be fitted with the minimum of fuss from the certification boys. It ain't rocket science (to agree its fitment) even though the technology behind Flarm is, relatively.

[Fuji Abound]

Having caught up on this thread since yesterday I am not happy about the priviliges enjoyed by the gliding community.

I accept there is merit in not imposing transponders on traffic outside CAS in VMC. The argument that not all flying machines can fit transponders is persuasive as more importantly is the evidence that the risk of a collision is small.

There are two reasons it is small. See and avoid has a good chance of working given the low level speed restrictions imposed on all aircraft. The big sky comes to the rescue most times see and avoid fails.

See and avoid cannot wok in IMC. A RIS provides a good degree of salvation BUT the service is often not available and even when it is gliders do not always make good primary targets.

This can mean than anyone in IMC has no protection afforded to them what so ever from gliders also in IMC where the gliders are operating outside designated gliding sites.

I dont accept that is reasonable or fair to other airspace users. I would ban gliders flying in IMC unless they were fitted with a transponder that was at least turned on in cloud.

God forbid it ever happens but if there were a mid air between a glider and a powered aircraft in IMC I suspect the AAIB would have no alternative but recommend all gliders operating in IMC should be required to carry a transponder.

[VP959]

I was serious though. A friend of mine has a transponder for his paramotor, to allow him to fly in controlled airspace. He's certainly not the only one. Few aircraft are more weight and (electrical) power limited than a paramotor, right? So how can it be so hard to fit them to all other aircraft?

Or is this really more of a cost issue than a weight and power issue?

Firstly, I'm not at all sure that fitting a transponder in your flight suit pocket or on a chest pack "flight deck", is a safe or sensible thing to do. If it were me, I'd want some hard evidence that putting a 200 to 250 watt peak power microwave transmitter on my body was safe - not some hypothetical guess based on most probable average power, based on a minimal number of interrogations per hour. Work I did on the physiological effects of using hand-held portable radios many years ago showed that some of them were a potential problem for regular users.

Secondly, at the current price levels a transponder costs about the same as a good wing. In effect, it doubles the price of a paraglider and adds maybe 50% to the cost of a paramotor rig.

There is also the power source issue. Somehow you got to find enough power to keep the transponder operating reliably for a few hours. This takes a big battery, as few paramotors have any charging circuitry at all.

Lastly, there is the added problem of the risk of injury that carrying bulky stuff carries when operating a paramotor. Falling over is an occupational hazard when launching or landing these machines, so any hard and bulky bit of kit will both get bashed about and add to the possibility of injury.

Seems a bloody daft thing to do to me, especially as this is a machine that can only legally be flown under VFR, clear of cloud etc, isn't normally allowed to fly in controlled airspace and what's more cannot operate from most airfields, due to the restrictions it would place on other users.

VP

[ProfChrisReed]

So many of the posters to this thread want to improve safety ... but only their own safety, at the expense of the safety of other pilots.

For example, englishal (as the most recent only of these) wants to restrict my glider flying to 3,000 ft, which puts me at the risk of around 4 field landing per hour. Is that an acceptable trade-off? Or I should fit a transponder, which restricts my time in the air to 3 hours or so and will cost 30%-50% of the hull value of my aircraft. I note that he doesn't intend to change the way he flies to improve the safety of others.

There is no absolute safety in flying - it is a matter of minimising risk to the lowest acceptable extent. I can think of many ways to improve safety which would be unacceptable because they would stop others flying. As an example, how about excluding from class G airspace all aircraft which have restricted visibility from the cockpit? Gliders would keep on flying, but many powered aircraft would not. Clearly it is safer to be able to look out as far as possible, but in my view it is not acceptable to propose restrictions which would effectively ground or radically restrict the operation of aircraft which currently fly perfectly legally.

Within that constraint, what could be done?

Mode S, ADS-B etc are out because of the practical (power and space) and financial constraints.

Something FLARM-like could work if it were permitted without certification. Allowing the fitting of uncertified transponders (as in US gliders) would help, but wouldn't be as good as a universal, low power consumption solution because many users would need to turn the transponder off outside high traffic flow areas to conserve power. Certification seems to multiply costs x 10, which is why an uncertified solution seems to me the only possibility. I suspect that if enough gliders fit FLARM, it will be worthwhile other pilots adopting it as removable equipment (like a hand-held GPS). I'm not pushing FLARM, merely using it as an example of the kind of cheap solution which might be workable.

The cheapest solution is for all of us to work on lookout. If I haven't scanned the entire field of view (that's about 120 degress fore and aft, and 240 degrees side to side) at least once every 30 seconds I slap myself on the wrist. Some pilots would say that's barely adequate. Do we all set appropriate standards for our lookout? Do we all achieve them? This won't avoid all mid-air collisions, but then neither will any of the other solutions proposed here.

Finally, it's worth noting that the genesis of this thread is the collision of two powered aircraft on approach, both talking to ATC. No-one has proposed ways of reducing that (clearly real) risk, but the accident seems to have focussed minds on lower risks which might be avoidable if others changed the way they flew.

If it's relevant, I don't think I've ever flown so as to require a non-glider to manoeuvre to avoid me. I have taken avoiding action on a number of occasions when a powered aircraft has flown straight at me, on the assumption that the pilot hasn't seen me. This doesn't surprise me, given the restricted field of view, my lack of visibility and the number of things in the other pilot's cockpit which require attention, so (rules of the air notwithstanding) I make it my responsibility to look out for such situations and avoid the danger. I don't find this risk unacceptable.

[BackPacker]

God forbid it ever happens but if there were a mid air between a glider and a powered aircraft in IMC I suspect the AAIB would have no alternative but recommend all gliders operating in IMC should be required to carry a transponder.

I just remembered having read something on this topic in the summary of the latest EASA proposals for FCL as published in Flyer Magazine, September 2008, pp. 32-33. Of course the article is a two-page summary of a 600+ page document so they might (will) have left something out, but I've got the article here in front of me and it says the following about glider licenses:

"An appropriate EASA Licence will be mandatory for piloting aircraft covered by EASA airworthiness regulations, often known as Annex I aircraft."
"EASA licences will be available for ballooning, gliding (sailplane) and airships, as well as fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft."
"There will be no IMC rating unless further regulations are proposed"
"There will be no 'cloud flying rating'"

Furthermore, if I read the summary correctly, the IR can only be attached to a PPL (or higher), not to an LPL or BLPL, and the IR would only apply to powered flying.

Now I don't know how much of the gliding community is actually going to be brought under EASAs authority (it seems to depend on whether your glider is an Annex I aircraft) but the whole business of gliders flying in cloud might be gone anyway in a few years.

[robin]

The logical thing would be ADS-B, implemented using the Mode S data channel.

This is what the rest of the universe is currently going for.

You start with a Mode S transponder (which nearly all of us will have to fit eventually ) and you connect it to your existing GPS (if you haven't got a GPS then forget any possibility of a low cost effective anti collision system). The transponder will then continuously radiate your GPS position. Anybody with a Mode S can do this right now -

At a presentation by the CAA they spoke about ADS-B in rather scathing terms. In particular they reminded the audience that as well as paying for the main kit, the GPS itself must be 'an approved' one. So those of us with low-end Garmins, FlyAngels or even the SkymapIII would have to reequip with an expensive (and thirsty) GPS

[ProfChrisReed]

For those who want to know about gliders flying in cloud, this thread from a couple of years back is pretty comprehensive (and quite good-tempered, considering).

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/190161-gliders-flying-cloud.html

I've given up, at least temporarily, because although I can climb satisfactorily I can't straighten up and fly out of the cloud. A safety improvement for the rest of the community, though not as a result of this thread.

[Rod1]

ProfChrisReed

Good post.:ok:

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

ProfChrisReed

Well I have scan read that thread - which I vaguely remembered from its time.

I caught the following words.

.. .. .. something like flying in IMC without a transponder is like a lottery, you might as well close your eyes and cross your fingers.

It just does not make sense to me.

Forgive me for being blunt but it should be banned - no transponder, no IMC.

No transponder, but within VMC privileges, fill your boots.

.. .. .. but please note from my point of view I still dont want you stretching the limits of VMC and lurking around the base be you a glider, hot air balloon, or anything that cant fit a transponder, not because I have anything WHATSOEVER against anyone who cant or wont fit a transponder, but because if I have no possibility what so ever of seeing you and I'd rather not just cross my fingers.

[flybymike]

I am baffled by all this insistent talk of No IMC flying without a transponder, (although by all means use one if you have the money and inclination.)
99% of GA flying outside CAS is VMC, and there have been no recorded powered midairs in IMC since world war two, virtually all encounters occurring in VMC at low level. Many IMC and IR rated pilots make a specific point of flying IMC as much as possible, since statistically it is the safest place to be. Efforts should be concentrated in the low level VMC environment, not the high(er) level IMC environment

[chrisN]

Shytorque, see your pm’s. Chris N.

[bjornhall]

VP959, two points:

1. To fly in controlled airspace (where it most certainly is allowed to fly), the paramotor in question needs a transponder. Might be a daft thing to do if ATS where you fly wouldn't allow it in anyway ... But most people in the world do not fly in the UK...

2. The point of my post was that if a paramotor can fit it, so can anything else. Not sure exactly what transponder he uses, but it's not the same type of ancient, power hungry kit you'd find in an average 70's vintage PA28.

Seems to me having or not having a transponder is a cost issue complicated by British aviation regulations, not a practical issue of power and weight...

[VP959]

VP959, two points:

1. To fly in controlled airspace (where it most certainly is allowed to fly), the paramotor in question needs a transponder. Might be a daft thing to do if ATS where you fly wouldn't allow it in anyway ... But most people in the world do not fly in the UK...

2. The point of my post was that if a paramotor can fit it, so can anything else. Not sure exactly what transponder he uses, but it's not the same type of ancient, power hungry kit you'd find in an average 70's vintage PA28.

Seems to me having or not having a transponder is a cost issue complicated by British aviation regulations, not a practical issue of power and weight...

Firstly, this thread came about because of an accident in British airspace, so my comments (like the majority here) referred to UK rules and regulations.

Secondly, ALL transponders have to have a peak power output of around a couple of hundred watts in order to do what they have to - NATS have made it clear that upgrading the sensitivity of SSR to allow low power transponders to have an effective range won't happen. My health and safety concerns remain.

The cost issue is real and one of relative importance to those who take up this form of budget flying.

Jeremy

[Pace]

>I am baffled by all this insistent talk of No IMC flying without a transponder, (although by all means use one if you have the money and inclination.)
99% of GA flying outside CAS is VMC, and there have been no recorded powered midairs in IMC since world war two, virtually all encounters occurring in VMC at low level. Many IMC and IR rated pilots make a specific point of flying IMC as much as possible, since statistically it is the safest place to be. Efforts should be concentrated in the low level VMC environment, not the high(er) level IMC environment<

FlybyMike

I have to say that I am amazed that gliders or any other aircraft should be allowed to fly in cloud without a transponder.

You quote that there has not been a collision. I do not know whether that is factual or not.

A lot of this thread is based on see and be seen, the mark one eyeball.
How can that possibly work in cloud?

We are not just talking about the potential for a collision with a twin or sophisticated single but also the potentail for hitting an airliner carrying 300 people.

Remember that not all airports have a block of controlled airspace around them. Humberside and Inverness are examples of two where 737s and A320s operate out of.

The chance of a radar controller missing a glider flying in cloud and not transponding must be high.
In that situation there is no question of see and be seen MADNESS.

It will only take another major disaster for the CAA to see sense and stop this ludicrous practice. NO TRANSPONDER NO IMC !

Pace

[vanHorck]

it would be great if a manufacturer could make a mode S with integrated flarm.

[Fitter2]

VP959

For under 15,000ft, 175kts you only need 71 watts peak at the antenna. Stilll significant power.

CAA for many years proposed a 'low cost, low power' transponder. In spite of many voices saying 'it won't work, and no one will build it for £500' they persisted.

Surprise, now no one will build it and finally doing a trial, it doesn't work (and has been quietly dropped from their recent consultation).

Fuji Abound

You suggest that to make you feel happy I should spend several thousand pounds (and still not have a certified TCAS system that will help me). I suggest if you want to stop bumping into me, or many other gliders, in cloud or in VMC, you spend a few hundred pounds. Alternatively, (since my carrying a transponder is not a panacea) you only fly IMC in controlled airspace where you will have a full radar service to ensure your safety. As Prof. Chris Reed tactfully points out, some pilots require others to spend large sums of money (but do nothing thermselves) to minimise their own risk.

Alternatively, we can all carry on doing what we enjoy with a demonstrably tiny risk - remind me how many IMC glider/power collisions there have been?

As far as 'normal gliding areas' goes, mine is approximately the right hand two-thirds of the 1:500,000 S. England chart (and occasional sorties into Wales), excluding those classes of controlled airspace where I can't go.

[Pace]

>Alternatively, we can all carry on doing what we enjoy with a demonstrably tiny risk - remind me how many IMC glider/power collisions there have been?<

It maybe a tiny risk but my question to you is how does the rule of see and be seen apply in cloud?

As stated in my post above the risk is not only to twins but to 737s A320s operating on a radar advisory service out of controlled airspace.

Radar gives false returns and you flying blindly along in cloud making reports on some obscure glider frequency which no serious IFR pilot will even know about will make it a game of Russian Roulette.

Flying is an expensive business and I am sure you fork out for expensive bits of equiptment to improve your gliding experience so why not a transponder?
Then at least radar will see you and aircraft equipt with TCAS will see you too.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

You suggest that to make you feel happy I should spend several thousand pounds (and still not have a certified TCAS system that will help me). I suggest if you want to stop bumping into me, or many other gliders, in cloud or in VMC, you spend a few hundred pounds. Alternatively, (since my carrying a transponder is not a panacea) you only fly IMC in controlled airspace where you will have a full radar service to ensure your safety. As Prof. Chris Reed tactfully points out, some pilots require others to spend large sums of money (but do nothing thermselves) to minimise their own risk.

You make a reasonable point.

However some elments are incorrect.

A transponder "gives" you better than TCAS. More correctly AT can provide you with a RIS. Even on busy days if you tell them you are IMC you are likely to get a service. You and others can buy PCAS - an effective on board form of TAS at the cost of a few hundred pounds.

It is not true some pilots require you to spend money without an equivalent committment. In the same way powered pilots have bought a transponder.

The reality is our regulatory authority has based collision avoidance on transponders not FLARM. You might not agree, but there is little sense in people using different systems.

I agree the apparent lack of risk is a consideration. However, statistically an accident will happen. The consequences are horrific.

The number of aircraft and pilots that are "qualified" to operate in IMC is relatively few - it seems extraordinary we cannot agree on a common system for these few.

[Fitter2]

A radar service is only as good as the resource available outside controlled airspace.

I am not confident in the ability of the present system to cope with a large number of extra transponder equipped traffic, if the CAA have their way.

Our regulatory authority is determined that Mode S is the way to go, but has signally failed to answer (or refused to answer) many relevant technical questions.

Much of the rest of the world has recognised that ADS-B is a much more sensible, forward looking system.

FLARM works in large areas of Continental Europe for gliders and powered aircraft, and is affordable.

It seems extraordinary that a common system is only acceptable if it's yours.

[Rod1]

“The point of my post was that if a paramotor can fit it, so can anything else.”

Actually, this is not at all correct. A paramotor (to the best of my knowledge) is unregulated, so no rules, no max empty weight, it has no “structure” so no issues with internal aerials being blocked off and many other “advantages”.

Pace

“I have to say that I am amazed that gliders or any other aircraft should be allowed to fly in cloud without a transponder.”

I did not think there were any “other aircraft” which are allowed to fly in cloud, in the uk without a transponder? What did you have in mind?

“You quote that there has not been a collision. I do not know whether that is factual or not.”

It is correct.

If you regularly fly a sophisticated GA machine in IMC, you have all the toys, but you are worried about gliders fit FLARM. The glider cannot fit a £2000 transponder, but you could fit a £300 FLARM. Making FLARM compulsory to fly in the IMC OCAS would provide you all with an actual collision avoidance system.

Edited to add;

“Our regulatory authority is determined that Mode S is the way to go, but has signally failed to answer (or refused to answer) many relevant technical questions.”

To be fair to the CAA they have accepted the Mode S for all was technically flawed, and have taken a huge leap back from this.

Rod1

[ProfChrisReed]

Fuji Abound: I don't believe anyone has fitted a transponder in order to improve collision avoidance in Class G. Transponders are fitted to improve access to controlled airspace. The reduction in collision risk in Class G is a collateral benefit, but not why the transponder was fitted in the first place.

The collision you refer to will not happen "statistically" - there is a risk, which is roughly the same on average each year, though it varies with the amount of non-transponding flying (by powered a/c as well as gliders). It might happen tomorrow, it might never happen. The question is whether the costs of an avoidance measure are worth while.

As an example, there will be more than one fatal car crash in the UK today. That doesn't stop people driving. There will be more than one fatal passenger aircraft crash world-wide each year, but people still buy airline tickets. We all make these cost-benefit calculations (though not very well, beiing influenced more by the perceived risk than the actual risk).

Is the collision risk in Class G (as you now understand it) high enough to stop you flying IMC? I suspect not - just that you'd like it lowered. This takes us back to the question; is the cost acceptable, and who should bear it?

Pace asks, why not fork out for a transponder. The answer is that I don't see sufficient benefit compared to the cost. The cost is not purely financial - as an example, there is no good place on a glider to fit the aerial, and if I have a transponder fitted I'm obliged to use it (I believe) which reduces my flight time to the battery capacity I can carry. The benefit to me would be minimal - a minuscule reduction in the chance of being hit by a TCAS/PCAS equipped aircraft. I think this is the same reason Pace hasn't fitted FLARM - not enough benefit even though the financial cost is quite low (and I haven't fitted FLARM either, though it's on my list of possibles).

If anyone thinks this is dreadfully selfish, I still haven't noticed anyone on this thread proposing a measure to improve collision risk which will cost them something without achieving any appreciable benefit to themselves. I've seen a number of proposals for imposing costs on others to achieve benefits for oneself.

[Rod1]

“I still haven't noticed anyone on this thread proposing a measure to improve collision risk which will cost them something without achieving any appreciable benefit to themselves. I've seen a number of proposals for imposing costs on others to achieve benefits for oneself.”

I proposed mandatory lookout training and testing. This would cost everyone money, but all would benefit. Nobody was listening, but I tried!:ugh:

I would be very happy to fit FLARM, if it can get to critical mass for most flying machines. It has the big benefit that almost all could use it and all would benefit. I get zero benefit form my transponder.

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

It seems extraordinary that a common system is only acceptable if it's yours.

Ah, not so, its not mine, its not yours, it is our regulatory authorities.

It is not me wanting to impose transponders on you, it just so happens that is the only approved system on offer.

Moreover the issue cuts both ways. You could buy a PCAS for couple hundred quid. It runs on two AA batteries and weighs less than a matchbox. I think the unit is cheaper and lighter than FLARM. Have you bought a PCAS?

BTW I will certainly consider a FLARM unit - I am away to have a look at their web site.

In so far as Europe is concerned is it the case that gliders can legally operate in IMC.

[Pace]

>However the short range of the present power output makes FLARM unsuitable for avoiding collisions with fast moving aircraft.<

ProfChrisReed

Flarm in its present state is not the answer.

A mode C minimum fitted to an aircraft will at least give a Radar controller the ability to see you and your level rather than not seeing you at all.

I cannot fly a business jet airways which I do without a working transponder. If its U/S I am grounded.

In the same way an aircraft which is not suitably equipt to fly in clouds should not be there.

Its not me expecting you to pay out but flying in cloud you are putting me and my passengers at an increased level of risk by doing so in an aircraft which is not suitably equipt.

For a glider I am sure it would be acceptable to only transpond when in cloud rather than for the full duration of flight with a glider specific code.

Pace

[NigelOnDraft]

In the same way an aircraft which is not suitably equipt to fly in clouds should not be there.

Its not me expecting you to pay out but flying in cloud you are putting me and my passengers at an increased level of risk by doing so in an aircraft which is not suitably equipt.How can you say a glider is not suitably equipped to fly in cloud without a Xpdr? What regulatory requirement is there for you to say "it is not suitably equipped"?

Gliders have an established system for flying in cloud. They balance the risks as they and their regulators see fit. You are now aware that they might be in cloud, and it is nothing new. What has happened (in reality, or regulatory terms) why this should suddenly change?

If you choose to fly IMC outside CAS you also appreciate there is "a risk" - and maybe that is now higher than before you knew about gliders? So it gets added to your risk factors... but the change is for you - not them ;) In addition - other posters state that despite lack of a radar service, they still fly IMC in Class G. What use the Xpdr now?

I was aware of that risk, hence why I, to the occasional displeasure of NCL ATC, am not happy accepting RAS in IMC to the SW because of the gliders there, and have to get tight vectors to keep in CAS. I'd be happy accepting the risk, but do not feel it appropriate for the Pax...

NoD

[BackPacker]

In so far as Europe is concerned is it the case that gliders can legally operate in IMC.

I'm not 100% sure but I'd say no. Because of other regulatory differences.

First of all, most of Western Europe, from a certain level (rather low, 1500'-4500') upwards is controlled airspace (class E). Instead of having several frequencies to choose from like in the UK to obtain a FIS, RIS or something else, there is a dedicated frequency for each bit of airspace and it would be rather stupid to not have that selected.

Second, the UK is alone in its idea of aircraft (power and powerless) flying in IMC conditions outside controlled airspace, without a formal IFR flight plan or IR. In the rest of Europe it is more clear-cut. If you want to fly in IMC you have to be on an IFR flightplan, have to have an IR, and have to have an IFR-capable plane.

Now there may be specific exemptions for cloud flying gliders from all this, I don't know. But looking at the overall picture I'd say no, that situation is unique to the UK.

Furthermore, at least in the Netherlands, the requirement for mode S is far more advanced. In fact, we already know the date when the whole of the Netherlands will be a TMZ from 1500' up. That discussion is done and dusted and even gliders will have to comply, with the exception of a few dedicated glider fields and their immediate surroundings. I don't know the situation for other mainland Europe countries, and since my club has all aircraft fitted with mode S now, I don't really care anymore.

[englishal]

For example, englishal (as the most recent only of these) wants to restrict my glider flying to 3,000 ft, which puts me at the risk of around 4 field landing per hour. Is that an acceptable trade-off? Or I should fit a transponder, which restricts my time in the air to 3 hours or so and will cost 30%-50% of the hull value of my aircraft. I note that he doesn't intend to change the way he flies to improve the safety of others.
No I don't.

But equally, when I am flying IFR in IMC OCAS, and the radar controller tells me "multiple contacts 12 O'clock, no height information, could be gliders" then I HAVE to renavigate, in IMC, with all the stresses involved in that.

My COMPROMISE would be that IF you want to fly your glider above a certain height or in IMC then you should fit a transpoder. IF I want to fly my aeroplane above a certain height or in IMC then I NEED to havea transpoder?

Fair enough?;)

[Fuji Abound]

NoD

If you choose to fly IMC outside CAS you also appreciate there is "a risk" - and maybe that is now higher than before you knew about gliders? So it gets added to your risk factors... but the change is for you - not them In addition - other posters state that despite lack of a radar service, they still fly IMC in Class G. What use the Xpdr now?

.. .. .. because for those other operators in IMC who buy a PCAS or CAS they have a chance to do something about avoiding a glider without reliance on AT.

We seem to have a polarised debate. The gliders say the powered guys should fit our system and the powered guys say no, you should be fitting ours.

A few thoughts:

I guess at any one time there is likely to be more powered traffic en route in IMC than glider traffic,

It would seem FLARM is specifically desgined to cope with the needs of gliders. It has limitations dealing with faster moving targets which are approaching an area where a number of gliders are operating in IMC. Transponders, PCAS and TAS has no such limitations.

As a point of order is their a legal requirement for gliders to not only have but be using FLARM when they enter IMC?

[gpn01]

Hi EnglishAl, it sounds like we agree on the principal, it's simply haggling over the numbers and boundaries How about if gliders fly above FL195 then they should have a trasnponder? Until a few years ago 'Open FIR' went up to FL245. Now it has dropped to FL195. On the IMC front, let's try the alternate that if you want to fly in protected IMC then you need to fly within controlled airspace where everybody else is similarly equipped and there's somebody watching over you. Isn't this already available to you providing you have the appropriate equipment ?

[NigelOnDraft]

.. .. .. because for those other operators in IMC who buy a PCAS or CAS they have a chance to do something about avoiding a glider without reliance on AT.Yes - but we're back to the situation where Mr Glider pilot has to pay for your (their) benefit - not his (perceived) benefit :ugh:

FLARM, PCAS whatever, I thought we'd agreed that these systems are designed / intended to acquire visual acquisition, not to avoid traffic on... so what use IMC (if you choose to operate outside the design specs, then fine, but that can hardly be the basis for a mandatory action). The only ACAS I am aware of for IMC is full TCAS via RA?

It would seem FLARM is specifically desgined to cope with the needs of glidersI'd agree with you on that one;) Or maybe the lighter / slower end of GA as well...

As a point of order is their a legal requirement for gliders to not only have but be using FLARM when they enter IMC?I do not believe FLARM has any acknowledgement / basis / requirement in law... and since it was noted above, only ~10% of UK gliders have it even now... I doubt it is even recommended.. and again, does it have much use in IMC anyway?

NoD

[Pace]

>How can you say a glider is not suitably equipped to fly in cloud without a Xpdr? What regulatory requirement is there for you to say "it is not suitably equipped"?<

NigelOnDraft

Excuse my ignorance here but there are regulations for VFR and IFR flight. The VFR are to keep clear of clouds with a vertical and horizontal seperation as published.

Do you fly quadrantle rules in cloud?

Are your gliders equipt as regulated for IFR flight? I thought you had a very basic instrument panel?

The UK has an IMC rating which is not acknowleged outside of the UK which does allow you to fly in cloud. Do glider pilots hold valid UK IMC ratings otherwise there appears to be some serious rule breaking by glider pilots or stupidity by the CAA and double standards.

I hold an instrument rating but I am sure if I had no instrument rating or IMC rating and was caught cloud flying in IMC the CAA would soon jump on me.
I fly business jets and twin props. The business jets are equipt with TCAS.
At least I stand a chance of seeing you if you are transponding.

What you are saying is "I am a glider pilot so I have my own rules. If you hit me so be it I should be able to do what I want".

I am not saying that Gliders should not be able to fly in clouds but the pilots should at least have the basic level of instrument flying and the minimum level of equiptment that we have to carry to minimise risk no matter how small you see that risk.

Pace

[Pace]

>Hi EnglishAl, it sounds like we agree on the principal, it's simply haggling over the numbers and boundaries How about if gliders fly above FL195 then they should have a trasnponder? Until a few years ago 'Open FIR' went up to FL245. Now it has dropped to FL195. On the IMC front, let's try the alternate that if you want to fly in protected IMC then you need to fly within controlled airspace where everybody else is similarly equipped and there's somebody watching over you. Isn't this already available to you providing you have the appropriate equipment ?<

NO GPN01

Take Easy Jet out of inverness or fly out of Humberside in an A320 and until you climb into the airway you are flying on a RAS and in your passenger jet carrying 150 people relying on radar to keep you clear of other aircraft in clouds.

Mr Glider can fly in that space with no transponder and may not even be seen by radar. Go figure?

Pace

[NigelOnDraft]

What you are saying is "I am a glider pilot so I have my own rules. If you hit me so be it I should be able to do what I want".I am not a glider pilot (well, unless :{ )

However, I think you are correct Gliders have their own rules... and therefore your statement appears correct if they are abiding by them? Seems they can largely also fly up to FL195 sans Xpdr... (?)

My CAA CAS piece of paper shows no radio, ATC clearance (and presumably Xpdr) required in F/G in IFR... so if they are "qualified" under whatever mechanism a glider pilot needs to fly in IMC..?

NoD

[Fuji Abound]

FLARM, PCAS whatever, I thought we'd agreed that these systems are designed / intended to acquire visual acquisition, not to avoid traffic on... so what use IMC (if you choose to operate outside the design specs, then fine, but that can hardly be the basis for a mandatory action). The only ACAS I am aware of for IMC is full TCAS via RA?

I dont think we had. Visual acqusition in IMC is obviously not possible. We have agreed that a RIS is not always available so the alternates are:

1. Cross your fingers, and hope,
2. Use PCAS, TAS or TCAS

If I am in IMC without a RIS I'll take 2 please.

I do not believe FLARM has any acknowledgement / basis / requirement in law... and since it was noted above, only ~10% of UK gliders have it even now... I doubt it is even recommended.. and again, does it have much use in IMC anyway?

Much as I thought.

No one is flying powered in IMC without a transponder. This mean RIS works, and TAS almost certainly works even without a RIS.

However, 90% of the glider traffic in IMC are crossing their fingers it would seem - not only is that unacceptable but I think it is irresponsible.

The risk of flying in IMC is high enough already, I dont see that we should turn it into a complete lottery because 90% of gliders cant be bothered to do anything.

[NigelOnDraft]

Mr Glider can fly in that space with no transponder and may not even be seen by radar.To be clear, so can I (and do) in my LAA type?

NoD

[Fuji Abound]

To be clear, so can I (and do) in my LAA type?

Not legally.

[NigelOnDraft]

A quick web search shows (I am sure Glider pilots can back up or contradict):
130.4 MHz Cloud flying and relaying cross-country messages only.
6.12 No glider shall enter cloud within a radius of 5 nautical miles of a gliding site, except from at least 200 feet from below the lowest part of the cloud.
6.13 No glider shall enter cloud unless all its occupants are wearing parachutes and have been instructed in their use.
6.21 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). In IMC conditions outside controlled airspace above 3,000 feet amsl, power aircraft can expect to be flying according to the quadrantal height rule. This requires that aircraft flying
on the magnetic tracks shown below shall maintain their indication shown against these tracks with the altimeter set to 1013.2 millibars:

Less than 90 degrees odd ‘000s of feet (eg FL 90)
90 but less than 180 degrees odd ‘000s + 500 feet (eg FL135)
180 but less than 270 degrees even ‘000s of feet (eg FL 80)
270 but less than 360 degrees even ‘000s + 500 feet (eg FL 125)

From 19,500 feet (FL 195) upwards, different rules apply. (Note: since gliders are always either climbing or descending and never in steady level cruising flight the “quadrantal rule” is irrelevant to them. There are therefore no special rules for IFR flight by gliders outside Controlled Airspace at any height except for minimum height specified in Rule 33 (an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle for 5 nautical miles, unless necessary for taking off / landing, or on a notified route for this purpose, or cleared by a competent authority, or flying at an altitude not exceeding 3,000 feet amsl and clear of cloud and in sight of the surface). Collision avoidance is solely by see-and-avoid and random separation.

In controlled airspace, glider flight in IMC is forbidden without clearance from the appropriate ATC authority, unless specific exemptions are notified.

[NigelOnDraft]

Quote:
To be clear, so can I (and do) in my LAA type?

Not legally.To be clear I thought the topic was flying around e.g. Humberside... which I can easily do. The original quote I now see did refer to "in clouds" - so I will withdraw "(and do)" since I do not fly the LAA type IMC (of course).

However, for my reference, can say a type cleared for IMC flight (e.g. C152) fly in IMC without a Xpdr, legally, in Class G? I have seen nothing saying it cannot?

NoD

[denhamflyer]

To be clear, so can I (and do) in my LAA type?

Are you saying that your lump of metal up front wont paint on radar? If not then that raises a very interesting point.

The problem with all these entrenched views is that the only solution will be extended controlled airspace. Probably to the point where there is not true G airspace in the congested areas (i.e. london and south, around CVT etc). Fine by me cos Im fully equipped - but not something I would want in general. I dont think the CAA have given up on Mode-S they will just introduce Mode-S vales over large areas - and possibly sooner rather than later.

[Pace]

Nigel

This shows the nonsense and double standards shown by the CAA as there are specific regulations for VFR flight (google those) and gliders are not equipt for IFR flight or their pilots? correct me if I am wrong.

It appears to be one set of rules for one and another for the boys? that is until a glider hits an airline.

One last point homebuilts and PFA aircraft are not supposed to fly IMC whether their pilots hold IMC or instrument ratings but gliders can ? or maybe I have that wrong too :-)

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

I dont want to do the sensationalism thing but this is what happens when a glider and a powered aircraft meet in IMC - and it does and has happened:

Mid-Air Collision of Glider and Jet near Reno: ASG-29 vs. Hawker XP800 (by Jeremy Zawodny) (http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html)

These were very very lucky and obvioulsy kept their fingers cross after they had collided.

[Fitter2]

Hello Pace

Glider are not equipped for IFR flight (and never have been to my knowledge). Gliders have been equipped for IMC flight for most of the last century. And the ANO, the type certificate, and operational regulations permit this.

Airliners have been traditionally kept safe from collision (although not always successfully) by segregation and control. The result is that enormous areas of the air are sterilised for the exclusive use of IFR aircraft, and strict separation apropriate for the days of poor or non-existent primary radar exists.

If airliners now wish to fly full of passengers in the open FIR, and require other aircraft to fit expensive equipment, then they might consider investing in the safety of their passengers.

And I suspect it will be an airliner hitting a glider rather than the other way round..............

[Fitter2]

Actually Fuji, the collision happened in VMC, open IFR.

More a good case for limiting aircraft that cannot practically operate 'see-and-be-seen' to controlled airspace.

Perspective depends on which side of the fence you sit.

[gpn01]

Hi Fuji, have to dispue your logic here....

(a) "No one is flying powered in IMC without a transponder. This mean RIS works."

and

(b) "90% of the glider traffic in IMC are crossing their fingers it would seem"

Given that there is (and always has been) the potential for a power IMC pilot to be in the same bit of sky as an IMC glider, using your logic in (a) then this means that (b) works too.

The only difference between (a) and (b) is that in (a) the pilot presumes that there isn't a risk (which is incorrect) whereas the aviator in (b) assumes that there is a risk (which is correct).

[Fuji Abound]

Fitter2

My point was about the outcome of the impact.

Do you think the outcome would have been any more or less pretty in IMC?

You retort that see and avoid should have worked (or would have worked if the aircraft was travelling more slowly) which may be a reasonable point but please remind me how it is going to work in IMC?

If nearly all of you dont have a transponder and 95% (is that correct) dont have FLARM are the vast majority of you relying on good fortune?

gpn01

I know you are relying on the big sky to keep you out of trouble. I agree it does so nearly all the time. But there is the catch. The accepted wisdom is the rest of us think there is a risk and that is why we prefer operating with a RIS and fitting a transponder. Powered aircraft never had transponders and then they had tansponders but didnt get TCAS, now we talk about mode S and ADS-B. These technologies add a further layer of protection - they may not be perfect, but in an enviroment in which you cant see they aint half a comfort.

[Pace]

>Fitter2

My point was about the outcome of the impact.

Do you think the outcome would have been any more or less pretty in IMC?

You retort that see and avoid should have worked (or would have worked if the aircraft was travelling more slowly) which may be a reasonable point but please remind me how it is going to work in IMC?

If nearly all of you dont have a transponder and 95% (is that correct) dont have FLARM are the vast majority of you relying on good fortune<

Fuji

Well said! and I add this extract from the investigation

>I'm led to believe that the ASG-29 had a working transponder on board but that it wasn't currently powered up. If that's the case, it means the glider was virtually invisible to the jet's pilot and co-pilot, not to mention Reno Air Traffic Control. Even if the jet pilots couldn't have visually detected the glider (which is pretty difficult going that fast), their TCAS would have picked up the transponder signal and suggested a safe diversion.

If the glider was not equipped with a transponder, that was a serious oversight. While they're not required (yet?), it's a very good idea to have one if you're flying in busy airspace.<




Pace

[mm_flynn]

Actually Fuji, the collision happened in VMC, open IFR.

More a good case for limiting aircraft that cannot practically operate 'see-and-be-seen' to controlled airspace.

Actually the collision was in controlled airspace. Remember, the UK is very rare in having absolutely controlled airspace (class A) adjacent to absolutely uncontrolled (Class G). In the US, like many other countries, most airspace is Class E (IFR is controlled VFR is not). There is a reason a speed limit exists for flights below 10,000 ft (to help see and avoid work). And equally why there is a strong desire from the guys doing 300 knots to have some technical help in avoiding other airspace users.

Glider are not equipped for IFR flight (and never have been to my knowledge). What equipment is required for a glider to be legal for IFR? It isn't specifically mentioned in the ANO, but night (which is IFR in the UK is) and doesn't seem to require anything other than a chart and the basic essential information. Even a powered aircraft only needs an altimeter and a turn and slip indicator. (plus a radio, which a glider seems to be specifically exempt from with regard to IFR in Class G). On the other hand, from NoD's extract from the BGA, IMC in a glider is clearly recognised as a high risk activity as everyone needs to wear parachutes!

[flybymike]

An ex gliding instructor chum of mine once commented to me that he regularly flew gliders in IMC with only a turn and slip, ASI, VSI and altimeter.
adding rather laconically on one occasion.."only ever spun out once or twice old boy..."

[englishal]

On the IMC front, let's try the alternate that if you want to fly in protected IMC then you need to fly within controlled airspace where everybody else is similarly equipped and there's somebody watching over you. Isn't this already available to you providing you have the appropriate equipment ?
Unfortunately at the moment lots of "airspace" is not available to certain aeroplane types, due to performance reasons, qualification reasons and equipment issues.

Personally I'd be happy with all airspace above say FL100 - FL195 being class D so you need a clearance to enter. Then people could fly from Lands End to to the top of Scotland in a straight line with an ATC clearance, VFR or IFR!

[Fuji Abound]

Even a powered aircraft only needs an altimeter and a turn and slip indicator.

Not so.

There are two layers - the ANO specifies the equipment required in UK airspace, but the aircraft must also be operated in accord with the POH and the aircraft manufacturers limitations.

There is nothing in the ANO to prevent you doing 6G aeros in a Warrior but you had better watch out if you do - fortunately the POH specifically prohibits such activity.

Most manufacturers will not certify an aircraft for IMC operations unless it fulfills their quipage specifications. For example consider the DA40 range which comprises aircraft with three avionics fit, day VFR, day VFR night in VMC and IFR.

I dont know what the average glider POH says - is a glider specifically approved by its manufacturer for operations in IMC, or are the manufacturers silent on the matter, or do pilots ignore the POH and operate illegally?

There is one further layer - perhaps the most important - it is called common sense.

It is for that reason that I think you would be mad to fly cross country in IMC in a glider without some means of telling other airspace users you are there, in the same way you would be just as mad with an IR and an aircraft appropriately equipped to fly an ILS to minima cold turkey. Of course every so often someone tries - trouble is you only get one chance to get it wrong. They usually kill themselves.

[Fitter2]

Hello Fuji

For the majority of gliders currently in production (including mine) there is a required equipment fit for VMC flight, and an additional minimum equipment list for IMC flight.

Nothing illegal proving the ANO or equivalent of the country of operation permits it.

My aircraft is operated in accordance with the POH. Foolish not to, really.

[Fitter2]

However, it has been pointed out by another PPruner that the thread started regarding a collision in VMC between two powered aircraft. Both allegedly talking to the tower of the same airfield. A real, unfortunately demonstrated risk.

Before starting a fight about what others who's modus operandi is clearly not understood, why not address the serious issue - or start another thread?

[Fuji Abound]

Fiiter2

Interesting.

What is the minimium fit for IMC?

[Fitter2]

In addition to ASI, Altimeter and Compass

Turn and slip indicator (approved type in the specified equipment list) or attitude indicator (again a list of approved make/models is specified).

However, I would not enter cloud in a modern high performance glider with only a T&S, although I have several hours in lower performance gliders with only T&S as a gyro.

I am comfortable with a current generation EFIS such as Dynon D10A, but the type certificate requires me to use an AH - RCA26AK-3 for example (which doesn't do as good a job, and doesn't have an interbnal standby supply - such is certification).

[IO540]

I like flying VMC on top. Exactly zero chance, I would think, of meeting a glider there - no updraughts.

One is extremely unlikely to encounter any other traffic there, for that matter.

[mm_flynn]

I dont know what the average glider POH says - is a glider specifically approved by its manufacturer for operations in IMC...

I doubt any airframe manufacturer certifies their aircraft for flight in IMC. For flight under IFR yes, but for flying near a cloud??? (depending on the airspace)

Not withstanding the technicality, your point is correct. However, it does seem fairly common for gliders to soar in clouds (after all there is good lift there) so I would be very surprised if glider POHs in general prohibited cloud flying, or require anything more than a modest set of gyros.

Back to the point.

I think people have shown-

There is a significant risk of glider/glider collision (and FLARM seems a good product to address this)
There is good evidence that there is a powered/powered risk at low levels and in the circuit (and with recent incidents, even radios and ATC don't eliminate this risk), In addition the range of powered aircraft involved is quite large from Microlights to Fast Jets - but almost always under 1500 feet.
There is some evidence of Glider/Power collision risk at altitude and the current approach to equipage and rules doesn't address this with anything other than big sky (think about the time you have to make a manoeuvre and how violent that manoeuvre is if you see a target at 1 mile closing at 300-350 knots).
There is unfortunately compelling evidence that even with the best technology available, CAT can still hit each other enroute- so at the GA level this isn't ever going to be a risk free game.
Most of the text has been about collision risk in IMC - and this just doesn't seem to happen (probably because there are a lot less aircraft flying in IMC than VMC)

My conclusion is the powered guys have a set of challenges that need answers and the glider guys do - but at low level those answers are probably different. It is at high altitude, mixing with high speed aircraft where the glider/power conversation is relevant - and due to airspace, that doesn't really seem to happen in the UK. Unless IMC traffic density increases a lot, we probably have a lot of better things to worry about than a glider/power collision in IMC at 2500 feet.

[ShyTorque]

I would be very happy to fit FLARM, if it can get to critical mass for most flying machines. It has the big benefit that almost all could use it and all would benefit. I get zero benefit form my transponder.


What? But you most certainly DO get a benefit from a transponder! It enables those in receipt of a radar service in Class G, or those using an ACAS system to avoid you, in good time, keeping everyone safe, including YOU and all in YOUR aircraft! Many of the ones that have avoided you already, to date, were possibly never even seen by you because the avoidance taken would quite possibly have put the other aircraft beyond the human eye's effective visual range, certainly so in IMC.

[Fuji Abound]

I doubt any airframe manufacturer certifies their aircraft for flight in IMC. For flight under IFR yes, but for flying near a cloud??? (depending on the airspace)

Equally, without wishing to be pendantic, I choose the term carefully. Aircraft are certified (or not) for IFR ops., but IFR in VMC is no different from VFR in VMC. VFR and IFR refer only to the flight rules not the met. conditions, but the presumption is for IFR ops at least for some of the time you might be IMC. It is for the reasons of the met conditions, not the flight rules as such, that the instrumentation requirements are different.

I dont agree that the conversation is only relevant to high level. In fact the risk of a collision is far greater at low level because there is more traffic.

If you are willing to permit flying machines to operate without any commonly agreed means of identifying their position then you might just as well permit pilots to fly around with foggles or screens in VMC (sans safety pilot). In both cases you have removed any chance of see and avoid working.

IO540

You have a point, but as you know it is often inconvenient to fly airways, particularly on short legs. Often CAS restricts the aircraft to a corridor above the base, but in IMC below CAS. The options are to scud run or continue IMC in the corridor. There in lies the real risk of colliding with a glider that is transparent to air traffic and every other user of the said airspace.

[gpn01]

Englishal sums up the attitude of many here:
"Unfortunately at the moment lots of "airspace" is not available to certain aeroplane types, due to performance reasons, qualification reasons and equipment issues"

....and so the proposal by many on this thread is to increase the airspace limitations, introduce additional controlled airspace and mandate increased equippage of kit that may not be suitable for the platform! So, to paraphrase....you don't have, or are unwilling/unable to invest in, the equipment necessary to fly in fully controlled airspace so we want others to spend money upgrading their equipment instead!

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the majority of mid-air collisions, despite rigourous procedures, technology, etc. appear to happen in CONTROLLED airspace. Therefore we need to ensure that the appropriate measures, commensurate with the actual (and not perceived) risks are adopted.

This thread also shows how much there is for us all to learn from each other about how we operate....Everyone is now a little more aware that gliders operate throughout Open FIR between ground level and FL195. Yes they can legally fly in IMC conditions, yes they have an established operating procedure for cloud flying that involves notification through a common frequency (130.4). Very few gliders are transponder/TCAS/Mode-S/ADS-B equipped which means they won't be picked up on the units in power pilots cockpits. Yes they can stay airborne for eight hours plus and fly for hundreds of miles and don't spend all their time within a few miles of the home site. Yes there can be several hundred gliders airborne at the same time. No, many power pilots don't seem to be aware of them.

Here's a quick test - if you fly tomorrow (Sat 30th), see how many gliders you spot on your trip. Then take a look at Daily Scores (http://www.bgaladder.co.uk/Enquiry.asp) in a few days and see how many you should have seen. Then bear in mind that only a small number of pilots put their flights up on the ladder (not everyone is competitive).

Finally, a poster (Rod1?) mentions about introducing something that would undoubtedly help in VFR to reduce the risk...that of proper training AND TESTING of good lookout. When I do a check flight (gliders) with a pilot, lookout is an aspect that I will always be specifically watching out for (pun not intended). If a student pilot flies brilliantly, does a wonderful circuit and exhibits wonderful decision making but does not demonstrate good lookout then I will spend time with them to improve this before I will allow them to fly solo. I believe this to be the case with the other instructors at my club too. The very first lesson that I do with a new student is to stress the importance of lookout. I'd assumed this was the case throughout the aviation community and not just in gliding. Perhaps that isn't the case?

[David Roberts]

IO540 wrote:

"I like flying VMC on top. Exactly zero chance, I would think, of meeting a glider there - no updraughts.

One is extremely unlikely to encounter any other traffic there, for that matter."

"No updraughts" - oh, yes there are! Best stay in blistful ignorance....! Because despite this long debate about gliders in clouds - implying thermalling up in cumulus, as distinct from close to the base of clouds - in reality and in my experience, this practice is far less frequent nowadays than, say, 40 years ago because modern gliders have so much better glide angle performance and therefore do not require the same absolute height to reach the next thermal as with poorer performance gliders. However...

as I was saying...blistful ignorance....in fact you will find gliders VMC on top in certain areas of the country when there are wave conditions. Modern gliding knowledge and met foreacsting (for this purpose) is so much greater now, and the equipment so much better, that the frequency of using wave lift has increased dramatically. So you will find (if not see!) gliders above cloud, usually riding the wave bars. For power guys who have never experienced this, you are really missing a magical world where the air is laminar smooth and the lift is creamy.

To get into the wave it is often necessary to take a short cloud climb under the leading edge of the wave bar. By short I mean perhaps 1 or 2 minutes, which gives the extra 200-400 ft to contact the wave lift. This sort of flying is no problem for glider pilots and represents an infitessimal risk to others (and self) if one does the calculation of time lapse / occassions / sky space, vertical and horizontal etc. And it is not in CAS. The rewards to the glider pilot are worth that tiny risk. And the fact is that when doing this sort of flying we exercise the sharp look out principle as well as comms on 130.4 to avoid other gliders searching for that elusive lift.

There is a lot of useful - mostly - debate here, but please remember glider flying in IMC, within the constraints quoted earlier, is legal and does not require transponders. And, to answer a question earlier about the rest of Europe, yes, it is legal in several (but not all) EU countries also.

[robin]

Do you fly quadrantle rules in cloud?

Do youj understand how gliders operate? Normally we are circling, so quadrantal (sic) rules don't apply........:ugh:

[Fuji Abound]

Yes they can legally fly in IMC conditions, yes they have an established operating procedure for cloud flying that involves notification through a common frequency (130.4).

I dont understand why you would be proud of a procedure the sole function of which is to help prevent only your glider mates colliding with you? Seems to me very little regard for others sharing the same air space.

In fact indulge me please and let me see if I've got to grips with this matter.

1. You fly aircraft that present a very poor radar target,

2. You fly aircraft that present a poor visual target, particularly when you are not thermaling,

3. You operate on a frequency that almost no one else is likely to be listening on (other than other gliders),

4. You use a TAS sytem that is almost unique to your fraternity and which cannot be interogated by radar, and then only a small minority of you do so,

5. You dont tell anyone when you are entering or in cloud other than your own kind,

6. When in cloud you dont obey the usual rules of the air (quadrangle FR),

7. If it all goes pear shaped you wear a parachute knowing that in all probability the occupants of the aircraft you collide with even if they were wearing parachutes are restricted by the design from deploying.

How am I doing so far.

:)

[flybymike]

Fine, except that a quadrangle is where the troops march.....;)

[Fitter2]

Fine, if you are writing polemic rather than facts.

1. My mainly carbon structure is a pretty good primary radar target, better than many Group A aircraft. Others have commented on being told by radar controllers of 'numerous targets, presumably gliders'.

2. We manage to see each other pretty well, the best indication of lift is the presence of another glider behaving appropriately. Of course, a good lookout is needed.

3. Then now you are aware that frequency will warn you of gliders in the cloud you are blundering through in the open FIR, why not have it on your COM2? 130.400 in case you have forgotten.

4. FLARM use is increasing in gliders, at present rates of growth it will be a majority of cross-country gliders by 2011. It is also widely used by light aircraft and helicopters (including IFR equipped ones) in continental Europe where a high densit of glider traffic is common.

5. See 3.

6. The clouds we use (because that's why we use them) have vertical air movements often over 1,000 f.p.m. How accurately can you maintain your quadrantal height in view of that? In any case, not required by gliders, see the ANO. (I don't mind how you spell quadrantal, I knew what you meant).

7. Yes, I wear a parachute - the seating is designed so it's the easiest way to be comfortable. I am not relying on it saving my life if several hundred horses chew through my airframe, and therefore taking excessive risk (in my own judgement).

However, once again, why has this thread degenerated into a power/glider slanging match about a minuscule risk when it started about a tragic, and by no means unique, collision between two powered aircraft in VMC in circuit for the same airfield?

[Fuji Abound]

Fitter2

An excellent reply.

As is often the case there are two sides to every coin. This discussion has explored both and I suspect some of us have learnt a deal more about gliders.

I have always wanted to have a go in a glider. I look forward to doing so.

PS sorry abot my spelling.

[bookworm]

3. Then now you are aware that frequency will warn you of gliders in the cloud you are blundering through in the open FIR, why not have it on your COM2? 130.400 in case you have forgotten.

I'm astounded that you think this will help. On 130.4 I'll pick up transmissions from every cloud flying glider within VHF range, possibly an area of 10,000 square miles. They'll report a position that is almost impossible to relate to the position of my own aircraft.

I have a simple choice in collision avoidance. I can turn left, or I can turn right. Cockpit display of traffic information can help me make that choice.

[Fitter2]

The position is reported as distance and direction from a prominent named feature on the 1:500,000 chart. You do carry a chart, no?

[englishal]

....and so the proposal by many on this thread is to increase the airspace limitations, introduce additional controlled airspace and mandate increased equippage of kit that may not be suitable for the platform! So, to paraphrase....you don't have, or are unwilling/unable to invest in, the equipment necessary to fly in fully controlled airspace so we want others to spend money upgrading their equipment instead!

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the majority of mid-air collisions, despite rigourous procedures, technology, etc. appear to happen in CONTROLLED airspace.

Actually no. We HAVE a transponder, not because we NEED one legally, but because it increases safety and some may say it helps us get CAS transits. A good investment. We have already shelled out for the extra equipment. It is a proportional thing, to upgrade our aeroplane and qualifications (which powered aircraft require) to fly IFR in CAS (I.e. class A) would probably cost us £30,000 minimum. It is a bit more than £900 for a Mode C transponder isn't it.

Most collisions happen OUTSIDE CAS. The last two I can think of happened in class G.

I'll fit any practical equipment I think is nescessary and within reasonable cost if it increases safety. I don't know why some people are so against fitting a relatively cheap bit of kit to theirs....?

[Bravo73]

The position is reported as distance and direction from a prominent named feature on the 1:500,000 chart. You do carry a chart, no?

Of course, we do. But a VFR chart is of little use for plotting your position if you are currently IMC.

(Are you capable of giving your position as a distance and bearing from the nearest VOR? Don't worry, the question was rhetorical. I already know the answer. ;))



For the record, I (like ShyTorque) fly IFR helicopters in Class G airspace. I am also concerned about the fact that there might be other aircraft in the same cloud as me that I have no effective means of knowing about. This thread (and the other one specifically about gliders in clouds) has been a real education to me. :uhoh:

[Rod1]

ShyTorque

I hope you were joking, but just in case you were serious;

“It enables those in receipt of a radar service in Class G”

I am a “fun flyer” I fly almost exclusively at the weekend. At the weekend almost all LARS is closed, and the ones that are open have no capacity to give me a RIS (I am VFR only remember in a permit aircraft). This benefit is effectively non-existent.

“or those using an ACAS system to avoid you”

I fly an LAA aircraft into strips and small licensed airfields (all over the UK plus some of Europe). The chances of me colliding with an airliner are billions to one (I stay clear of ILS’s etc). The fractions of 1% of the traffic I am likely to hit that have ACAS are probably flying IFR. Likelihood of collision billions to one.

My risk of a mid air is with other traffic at low level. I fly from a strip so the first 1500 ft up and down is the big risk. 80% of local traffic (I did some research) is not transponder equipped and not likely to be (busy gliding site, lots of micros and LAA with some GA mixed in). My only chance of avoiding them is to use my 1700 fpm RofC and the exceptional visibility of my aircraft, combined with a clearing turn at 500ft and keep the canopy spotless. I take this risk very seriously as the previous mid air involved an aircraft taking off from my strip, at 1400 ft agl.

The only technical tool which might improve things is FLARM. Because it was designed for gilders, it is light and can be portable. Almost all of the machines, which cannot fit a transponder, could fit it and it gives the user (the person paying) a benefit. If it starts to gain critical mass in the UK I will fit it.

To be fair, I get two benefits from my mode C transponder. I can get attention if I have a serious problem, and I am allowed in French class D (legally).

This does not stop me keeping it switched on and adjusted, but if it failed I would probably not bother replacing it. If it were possible to get a RIS more than one a year, I would agree it would be worthwhile, but I see no sign of this ever happening.

Rod1

[Robin400]

ShyTorque and Bravo 73 Does Oulton Park on a race day ring a bell this year.

[Bravo73]

ShyTorque and Bravo 73 Does Oulton Park on a race day ring a bell this year.

No, not for me. Why, what happened? :confused:

[Robin400]

Twin helicopter departing Oulton Park I guess, climbed through my level about 50yds ahead. Transponder with mode C on what can one say!!!!

[Bravo73]

Well, FWIW Robin400, seeing as a) I wasn't in that helicopter, b) I've never flown out of Oulton Park and c) this 'incident' wasn't publicised either on here or in the national media, how on earth is it meant to 'ring a bell'? :confused:


Were you IMC at this time? Because, otherwise, I can't see how it relates to my post about concerns about meeting gliders in IMC.

(If you were VMC, which I suspect you were, then I can only surmise from your very brief details that 'see and avoid' worked in this case - ie you saw him, so you avoided him. There's every chance that the heli pilot never even saw you.

The fact that you had your Mode C 'on' was absolutely the right thing to do. But remember a couple of facts - although some IFR helicopters have TCAS fitted (ShyTorque is one of the 'lucky' ones), the majority don't. And, secondly, if the heli was in the climb-out, there's every chance that he was either too low level or had not had the time to receive a radar service from Liverpool or Manc.)

[Whirlygig]

“It enables those in receipt of a radar service in Class G”

I am a “fun flyer” I fly almost exclusively at the weekend. At the weekend almost all LARS is closed, and the ones that are open have no capacity to give me a RIS (I am VFR only remember in a permit aircraft). This benefit is effectively non-existent.

Rod, just because you do not fly in an area with LARS at the weekend, does not negate what ShyT is saying. I flew today in Class G airspace, with an RIS from a LARS unit. And I may do tomorrow as well!

............................................................ ...................

I have read through all this thread and the overall feeling I'm getting is one of selfishness; "it doesn't help me/affect me so I'll do nothing"! I am not directing that comment at any one poster.

Cheers

Whirls

[Robin400]

Please let me asure you all that I am not trying to apportion blame.

I ony posted this event to illustrate frailty of the system.

Only after passing through our level were we aware of the situation.

Yes it was VMC, we just both happened to be in nearly the same place of sky.
This triggered my interest in Flarm.

[Whirlygig]

Robin400, what type was it? I can have an educated guess :ok: :}. And a stab at the reg!

Cheers

Whirls

[Bravo73]

Robin400,

In this case, I don't think that FLARM would have helped you. As ShyTorque has already pointed out, CAA certification issues essentially preclude the installation of FLARM in G reg PT helicopters. So, even if you had FLARM, you wouldn't have recieved any traffic warning (seeing as FLARM boxes can only talk to other FLARM boxes.)

However, the helicopter would definetely have had a transponder installed (which, hopefully, was transmitting Mode C.) Condsidering that you were in a powered aircraft (I'm guessing some sort of Robin ;)), then a TAS or TCAS system would've given you a traffic warning.

[Robin400]

However, the helicopter would definetely have had a transponder installed (which, hopefully, was transmitting Mode C.) Condsidering that you were in a powered aircraft (I'm guessing some sort of Robin http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif), then a TAS or TCAS system would've given you a traffic warning.

Agree with you on that. :ok:

It is my choice that I fly in G class airspace but you have little option with your type of ops.

[Fitter2]

Bravo73

I am sure you (or ShyTorque) must be right about certification.

But since the CAA are now merely agents for EASA on certification issues, and many German and Austrian PT (and IMC rated) helicopters, EASA certified, have FLARM fitted I am puzzled why the difference.

I am not saying FLARM is THE answer, but it is a practical option for truly interoperable traffic awareness in the open FIR.

[Bravo73]

Fitter2,

I hope that you're right about the EASA certification. It would be great to have a low cost traffic alerting system fitted to all of the company aircraft.

But you seem to forget FLARM's (current) major achilles heel - it needs another FLARM box to 'talk' to. As another poster has already pointed out, until there is 'critical mass' and the majority of aircraft have FLARM fitted, then the system is of limited use. This isn't realistically going to happen unless it is mandated.

Which takes us back to transponders. You don't need me to tell you that the majority of (powered) aircraft already have these fitted. So it is reasonable to suggest that any traffic alerting system should use this current 'infrastructure' (for want of a better word.)


Also, do you accept my previous point that position reports given by aircraft wrt to VFR features are useless to other aircraft that are currently IMC?

[ProfChrisReed]

Whirligig is right about the apparent selfishness of this debate, though maybe wrong to be surprised about it. As I pointed out earlier, we all do a cost-benefit analysis, however imperfect, and use that to decide what we will do to avoid collision risks.

To put it simply, who in this discussion has installed any non-mandatory equipment in their aircraft which:

(a) benefits other airspace users more than it benefits them; and

(b) cost more than they reckon to be the benefit to them?

My guess would be exactly none, though I'm prepared to be corrected.

[mm_flynn]

The cost benefit is interesting. Assuming about 30k aircraft in the UK needing to install kit (LAAs, Micros, Gliders, and some Spam cans) and a rough £2500 cost (assuming a new unit, certified, and allowing for some aircraft to have considerable cost beyond basic) and say £100/year in inspections and maintenance costs ...

That gives an investment of £75 million pounds plus a running cost of £3m pa. And for that, the investor has to rely on the person he is going to have a collision with having invested further money in some additional technology, or being able to get a radar service (the existence of which doesn't appear to have prevented the recent Coventry collision) - So by no means a 100% reduction in risk. Based on past history of midairs they rarely involve aicraft fitted with TCAS or even Skywatch). At the apocryphal £1m/life, this doesn't seem to be a great investment proposal.

On the other hand, if everyone did have a transponder, then a lot of people would spring for some kind of proximity detector. And even better, if these transponders were allowed to radiate a GPS position (without being a major mod with the administrative cost associated with that!), then we would have a very slick system.

[ShyTorque]

Robin 400, I take it that you reported your Oulton Park Airprox because you should have if you believe the safety of your flight was compromised. That's what the system is for, not to allocate blame but to educate and hopefully increase future awareness.

It's an area I very seldom operate in and I have never done an airday at Oulton Park, and never landed there. If you read the context of my posts, my concerns are mainly about gliders flying in cloud - but you were presumably VFR / VMC in the VFR corridor, or close to it ?

I concur with B73, FLARM wouldn't alert you to the presence of helicopters but a TCAS equipped helicopter might have seen your transponder, which is a very good reason to use it with Mode C at all times, in accordance with CAA guidelines on the matter.

Rod1,

I fly an LAA aircraft into strips and small licensed airfields (all over the UK plus some of Europe). The chances of me colliding with an airliner are billions to one (I stay clear of ILS’s etc). The fractions of 1% of the traffic I am likely to hit that have ACAS are probably flying IFR. Likelihood of collision billions to one.

Rod, I agree that your chances of hitting an airliner is very small (so's mine, I also have TAS and Mode S transponder to assist lookout) BUT you operate in exactly the same band of airspace as VFR low level military turbo-props (Tucanos) flying at 240 kts, Police helicopters operating from the hover up to 140 kts anywhere in Class G and 160 kt corporate helicopters, such as the one I operate, flying to and from similar fields, small strips and back gardens, in worse weather conditions than you are allowed. From your comments above, I think you must be unaware that the great majority of the first two categories of aircraft I specifically mentioned, if not all of them, also have TCAS or TAS fitted and an increasingly large proportion of corporate twin helis have it fitted as standard from the factory.

Please do keep your transponder and mode C on if fitted, it most definitely helps keep all of us mutually safe in Class G. If I get an aircraft return on TCAS, it is most often well in advance of the human visual range (sometimes up to 25nms in ideal conditions) and I will do what I can to avoid you, often doing so without you even having been aware of my presence.

mmflyn,

In the case of the recent Coventry accident, from the details already in the public domain, I think it is more likely that aircraft did NOT have a radar service at the time of the collision, but we'll have to read the AAIB report.

[gpn01]

So, hoping to take a bit of heat out of the posts in the past few days...how many people flew today...and how many other aircraft/gliders/microlights/balloons did you see ?

[Rod1]

ShyTorque

You are not getting this.

“BUT you operate in exactly the same band of airspace as VFR low level military turbo-props (Tucanos) flying at 240 kts”

I get it, Tucanos, big, scary, dangerous, but they do not fly on Saturdays, so we can forget them and 99% of the rest of the RAF. If we were to consider them then we stay above 2500 feet, which I do anyway if I can, 3000 - 7000 ft is my preferred band.

“Police helicopters operating from the hover up to 140 kts anywhere in Class G”

How many in the whole of the UK? Not much of a risk is it compared with the 100 + locally based non-transponder machines around my area.

“such as the one I operate, flying to and from similar fields, small strips and back gardens, in worse weather conditions than you are allowed.”

So I will be on the ground tinkering and not bumping into you.

The chances of me having a mid air are quite small. Most of this threat is low level on take off and landing from my strip. I have modified my procedures to increase my lookout and I will invest in kit which will help this problem, but it MUST detect the majority, which is 80% not transponder equipped (in my case) and likely to remain so.

Outside of this the threat is not sufficient to worry, beyond continuing to improve my lookout. My mode C will remain switched on and I will keep adjusting the accuracy as required (remember it is an uncertified installation), but will I spend a years maintenance on a second hand unit if it fails, probably not. Would I support FLARM for everybody, yes, it is the only currently available tec, which can be fitted to the aircraft that are a threat to me.

A comment was made that the majority of powered aircraft have transponders. If we are talking aircraft which are fitted with a single piston engine, then this is not the case. The BMAA and LAA fleets alone equal the c of a SEP fleet and is growing fast, SEP c of a numbers are falling.

Rod1

[Bravo73]

A comment was made that the majority of powered aircraft have transponders. If we are talking aircraft which are fitted with a single piston engine, then this is not the case. The BMAA and LAA fleets alone equal the c of a SEP fleet and is growing fast, SEP c of a numbers are falling.

I wasn't. I was talking about all powered aircraft, whatever the size or flavour.

[englishal]

I get it, Tucanos, big, scary, dangerous, but they do not fly on Saturdays, so we can forget them and 99% of the rest of the RAF. If we were to consider them then we stay above 2500 feet, which I do anyway if I can, 3000 - 7000 ft is my preferred band.
A word of warning here.....The company I sometimes work for, and MANY others in the UK often reposition turbo-props and other aircraft VFR at any time of the week and we can quite easily be squashed down below the TMA at 200+ knots same as you, with or without a RIS/RAS. We will of course be transponding Mode S and will always try to get a radar service, but sometimes it just isn't possible......

[ShyTorque]

Rod1, You are not getting this

I think I do. What I hoped to imply was that other aircraft do fly in all weathers. Corporate helicopters and others don't just fly in bad weather during the week, obviously many customers / owners use them extensively at weekends.

It's quite easy to inadvertently under-estimate the number of aircraft in the air if relying on theories, hopes and lookout alone. Even the best eyesight and lookout technique in the best VMC conditions is far from infallible although some seem unwilling to believe this. One of the boffins from the Institute of Aviation Medicine used to travel around RAF bases in the 1980s and 90s giving an excellent presentation dedicated to the subject; it was sobering. Ten years of using ACAS systems (TCAS 1 and TAS in my case) has confirmed to me everything he said about the design limitations of human eyes in an aviation environment.

Electronic devices also have their limitations, so could never be used in isolation. A mandatory common system would help; it seems we aren't likely to get one in the short term, so we ought to do all else we can to educate ourselves and fly with consideration of the requirements of other airspace users.

[Fitter2]

Englishal:

Are the turbo-props etc. you fly IFR eqipped (and with IFR qualified crew), but choose to fly VFR in the open FIR?

If so, is that for economic or convenience?

[Pace]

Not Englishal but maybe I can help. Sometimes i position a Citation low level VFR around the London area below 2500 feet.

Sometimes we fly IFR rules out of controlled airspace and then have to descend VFR to the airport. This is usually to save time and hence money on short trips of less than 100 nm where its not practical to fly airways or going across the country W to E or E to W using military corridors.

Typically you may fly at FL150/160 etc with someone like London Military and then descend with a lower level RS descending to keep below controlled airspace.

Often you may fly out of a smallish airfield where you climb and may travel some distance before entering the airways system and are then reliant on a radar service or leave an airway and descend out of controlled airspace to the destination airfield.

Usually when they realise that you are a Citation the radar service keeps a special eye on you as you are a lot faster.

But it is a worry in those situations and a non transponding glider in IMC would be a big concern. We have TCAS and radar controllers will usually pick up transponding aircraft but may miss non transponding aircraft or put them down to clutter.

That is why I say that if you are not equipt to be in cloud and carry equiptment to minimise the risk to the rest of us you should not be there as the MK1 eyeball is of no use in cloud.

I would love to know why the glider regulations stipulate a parachute in cloud ? Is this incase they collide with another aircraft or the pilots are not competant at instrument flying and may loose control? It is madness.

In the same way as you can not enter the airways sytem with a U/S transponder you should not be allowed to fly in cloud without a fully serviceable transponder. If we cannot eyeball eachother its russian roulette.
It will probably take a glider taking out a 737 before the CAA change their double standards

Pace

[Fitter2]

If we are to use the word 'madness', then I would suggest that to fly a fast aircraft outside controlled airspace to save money (as you claim is common) when IFR flight under segregation and control is available is equally worthy of that epithet.

A 737 full of passengers cutting corners through uncontrolled airspace to save money when using the airways sytem designed to ensure its safety, and then having a mid-air with anything legally entitled to be present would lay itself open to lawsuits that could bankrupt the company.

There are no double standards. There are separate standards for flight in controlled airspace, and flight outside controlled airspace.

Once again, the thread started about a different demonstrable risk with tragic results in VMC. Have you any suggestions to reduce that risk?

[mm_flynn]

That is why I say that if you are not equipt to be in cloud and carry equiptment to minimise the risk to the rest of us you should not be there as the MK1 eyeball is of no use in cloud.

I would love to know why the glider regulations stipulate a parachute in cloud ? Is this incase they collide with another aircraft or the pilots are not competant at instrument flying and may loose control? It is madness.
I think the glider/IMC focus is unreasonable. I don't think there has ever been a power/glider colision in cloud. Powered aircraft aren't required to have a transponder either - so we all to a certain extent may be engaged in russian roulette.

(on the other hand, the glider community seems to persistently ignore the fact that there are lots of high speed aircraft (particularly above 10000 feet) that have no possibility of avoiding an aircraft visually acquired at say a mile - that in most countries other than the UK ARE in controlled airspace, which is managed effectively the same as the UK Class G airspace above 10k and do have just as much right to be there - Do the math on a 350 knot closure - target spotted at 1 mile, 5 seconds to decide climb or descent and crank in a 2 G climb or zero G push over - and you get a bit more than 300 ft separation, 10 seconds to see it, think about the pax in a zero g push and all you have is glider spar sticking out of your window)

I am not a glider pilot (other than one enjoyable weekend), but I believe the parachute requirement can only exist due to the rellatively high risk of an unrecoverable loss of control. This can occur due to
1 - Airframe damange recovering from an unsual attitude
2 - Airframe damage due to a collision
3 - Being unable to recover from an unusual attitude.

Given the minimal attitude kit for a glider to be 'IMC' capable, there must be a reasonable number of loss of control incidents. The relatively slow speed and easy ability to detect uncoordinated flight, I suspect allows a much higher degree of recovery from typically fatal spam can IMC loss of control incidents - however, not such a high level that they don't peridoically (in the words of another poster) spin out the bottom of cloud - hence the need for the chute.

I suspect as well they have a high collision risk with each other (consistent with the statistics) due to several operating in cloud in close proximity (but at low speed).

I would love to see a practical and economic collision avoidance system and totally believe in the fallibility of the Mark I eyeball, but if we count up the number of helicopter and powered aircraft fatalities involving a glider in IMC it is going to be a number less than 1 - there are other areas worthy of the attention - like why we can't see each other in the circuit, like in the last year why operating in IMC seems to be a problem for both helos and fixed wing.

[Pace]

Fitter2

You obviously dont know what you are talking about! fly in a 737 on holiday out of humberside or inverness and your holiday jet is out of controlled airspace on a RAS service until it reaches the airway. And there are plenty of airports like those that handle heavies.

Or even worse fly RyanAir out of Londonderry in northern Ireland and I will leave it to you to guess why?

So I am sure Easyjet and RyanAir will be in for being sued

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

I have given some thought to this since I dropped out the discussion because the discussion seemed to have run its course.

Run its course it may, but two aspects nag me.

The fact of the matter is there are two collision avoidance systems in use which are not compatible. All other factors aside that makes no sense. An analogy. There was a time when bumpers on cars all varied in height. It made no sense. We saw fit to standardise the height so that most would line up with each other and have a chance of doing the job they were designed for. Just common sense.

Aviation is deadly serious about safety, and yet we perpetuate a system with this inherent incompatibility.

FLARM, transponders and TAS are incompatible.

Now it will appear that because I am from the powered fraternity I am biassed towards transponders - and perhaps I am. However I have to take into account the existing infra structure that supports transponders - I have nothing against FLARM in principle, but I cannot ignore that it is a system unlikely to be adopted by a European wide regulatory authority that is on a path to more widely mandate the use of transponders.

The second aspect that nags me, is the value of insisting all flying machines carry transponders. On the one hand the evidence is persuasive that the risk of collision is tiny. I cant think of any other safety initiative where the cost woild justify the lives potentially saved to a lesser extent.

However, I also cannot ignore the individuals responsibility. It is horrific to imagine being involved in a mid air particularly in cases were you have been the lucky one to survive and others die. I guess most of us would be left questioning whether we had done enough to avoid the collision. The cost of a mode C transponder is a few hundreds of pounds, the cost of a PCAS unit is even less if you want to be active in collision avoidance on your own account. This is relatively little for us as individuals to pay in order to take another step towards being satisfied we have taken every measure we reasonably can. In short the individual cost is insignificant compared with the results of a collision. It is the individual component that defies the simple cost return analysis.

We each talk about our rights - our freedom. We want to be free to glide without being under anyone’s control, we want to be free to route point to point without being directed around the circumference because that is the only way AT can accommodate us, we want to be free to access airports outside of CAS. In short we each want these freedoms for different reasons and we each believe we are entitled. However, with freedom comes responsibility. Responsibility to demonstrate we can manage the risk. That’s one reason why I will always try and get a RIS outside CAS, that is another reason why I will fly in IMC only if I really must and then for the shortest possible time, it’s a reason for investing in a CAS and mode S and it’s a reason for working hard on my look out so I maintain the best look out I can. Having done all of these things I cant manage the risk of running into a glider in IMC because I have no way of knowing it is there. I cant manage it because it would seem even if I had FLARM, most gliders don’t, and even if I listened out on glider frequencies the fact that a glider had entered IMC based on a point on my route of 300 nm with which I might not be familiar and then without any assurance of operating at a predetermined height the information would be of very little help to me. In fact if I could relate the information to my position, the information is effectively telling me even though I have as much right to be in the same airspace it is me that should b”“”&^ off because that airspace has been sterilised, it has been declared purple, because the captain of a glider says so.

In short I am uncomfortable because it seems to me a whole load of reasons are being given by those who want privileges unique from other users of the airspace, and worse, by users who believe that it is everyone else who should stay clear of the patch of sky they decide to occupy, without their being prepared to modify the way they go about their business one iota.

Sorry chaps, but it is for those reasons that I feel your case does not stack up. I respect your freedom as much as I hope you respect mine. However, I don’t respect your freedom to do absolutely nothing that would be effective in avoiding your colliding with me, or giving me the chance to avoid colliding with you.

You can of course do one very simple thing. Buy a PCAS. It weighs about as much as a matchbox. It runs for around 8 hours on two AA batteries. It will stay put with simple attachment through at least 6G of aeros (that is the most I have tried at any rate) and best of all it will cost you a couple of hundred quid and you don’t need to fit a transponder. At least you are talking my language - its not perfect but you will have a good chance of getting out of my way even if I have no idea you are there.

Tell me why you wouldn’t buy one of these? Please tell me why you wouldnt get all your mates to do so, and even mandate the carriage voluntarily for IMC ops? I’d really like you to take one small, simple and cheap step to talk my language.

(I hope I am correct that PCAS does not require a transponder on the aircraft to which it is fitted - being able to rely on its own in built altimiter - I must re read the manual).

[gpn01]

Hi Fuji, if PCAS provides an adequate compromise for all airspace participants then why isn't the CAA recommending its use instead of Mode-S ? If it really is low power, small, easy to use and within a reasonable price range then I agree it would be a good candidate for everybody to adopt. The only immediate thing that springs to mind is whether it contains flight vector calculations that take into consideration how each type of airspace user flies (thinking simply that in my glider it's rare for me to fly straight and level for any longer than about ten seconds as I'm constantly climbing, descending and changing heading). Would certainly be interested to understand more though.

[ProfChrisReed]

Fuji Abound wrote:

You can of course do one very simple thing. Buy a PCAS. It weighs about as much as a matchbox. It runs for around 8 hours on two AA batteries. It will stay put with simple attachment through at least 6G of aeros (that is the most I have tried at any rate) and best of all it will cost you a couple of hundred quid and you don’t need to fit a transponder. At least you are talking my language - its not perfect but you will have a good chance of getting out of my way even if I have no idea you are there.

This is potentially a very good suggestion. Unlike the fitting of transponders to gliders (which carries large costs - financial and operational - as explained above, with little benefit in return), this could meet my criteria, and I suspect those of others.

Questions:

1. Where can we find out more about the operating constraints (for example, I couldn't mount the thing horizontal, it would have to be at a 30 degree angle - does that still work?), installation issues and costs? any links to known good units?

2. Would I see any benefit VMC only? I don't currently fly in cloud or in controlled airspace. I can see a benefit of reducing collision risk in cloud which makes the cost worthwhile - would it really be much help in VMC? Anecdotes from those who use PCAS in VMC would be helpful, especially if any fly gliders.

Presumably you'd also urge PCAS on non-gliders who fly IMC without transponders - from another thread, that appears to include not only powered a/c but potentially balloons!

If PCAS really is a useful way of collision risk reduction for gliders in IMC, then the route to getting it mandated is via the BGA. Laws & Rules for Glider Pilots could be amended - these aren't legally binding, but if you are known to be flying outside them then your gliding club will take action (this is definitely the most effective enforcement mechanism). To convince them, reasoned argument of the sort which Fuji Abound has put forward, but more technically detailed, will be needed, as their expertise is very high.

[flybymike]

The magazine write ups and "road tests" I have seen on PCAS units appear to indicate that they are incredibly unreliable giving a multitude of spurious alerts ( usually from ones own transponder) . This would be a big issue for me for a system which would otherwise appear to be a cheap and cost effective solution to the problem, despite lack of accurate altitude or azimuth information

Just to go back to the point again about the fixation all the way through this thread about collisions in IMC, I repeat this is statistically by far the safest place to be if you want to avoid a GA collision outside CAS. There is in short, usually no bugger there. It is the low level VMC environment where the risk lies.

[robin]

In short the individual cost is insignificant compared with the results of a collision.

Unfortunately that is exactly the CAA's line on cost justification.

True the cost of a collision with a commercial airliner is measured in mega-bucks. But even the best kit hasn't stopped commercial jets hitting each other or the ground.

The Mode S consultation has continally foundered on the cost-benefit analysis question and the line from the CAA is 'isn't your life worth £1500?

This has been used to support the carriage of ELTs (not PLBs though) as well as Mode S. It is a classic politician's trick and should never be used by forumites.....:ugh:

The reality is that for some transponder-equipage can be around £5k upwards although usually it is about £3k, when fitting is easy. Add to that the cost of a useful TCAS, not the cheap ones, and we are talking a lot of bucks. For a lot of the Permit, BGA and BMAA fleet that equates to 40-75% of the cost of the aircraft itself. How often do you buy a piece of kit so relatively expensive - except perhaps an engine once every 10 years or so?

Added to that we are looking at a piece of kit that benefits other people, not necessarily the operator. Effectively, you may be asking for me to lash out cash that I can ill afford, on something that does me little or no good, so that some of you can tear through Class G with your eyes wide shut, relying on the voices in your head....

If I'm not going to fit a transponder, like large numbers of my colleagues, what possible use is TCAS/PCAS to me or anyone else, come to that?

[Fitter2]

There is probably a much higher degree of understanding of CAT operation among the general gliding fraternity than the reverse - a significant proportion of glider pilots are current or ex ATPLs, and we do talk to them.

If I believed cheap PCAS systems worked, (and they don't tell the other aircraft of your presence without transponder carriage, now mandated to be Mode S requiring much more than a couple of dry batteries) then I might consider one. The user reports I have seen are very equivocal.

We have been told that we are a danger to positioning aircraft flying VFR through a cloud that we might be in - which part of VISUAL don't I understand?

When we sometimes use cloud flying, it is normally to climb in isolated towering cumulus where the spacing between gives a high probability of not reaching the next one from cloudbase. Under these circumstances, why in the open FIR fly directly throough an isolated cloud if a minor route adjustment would avoid that?

There appears to be an attitude among some CAT drivers that they have a much greater right to open airspace than glider pilots, and this precludes the sort of reasoned discussion that might be useful; thank you FujiAbound for more reasonable contributions to the discussion. I apologise for being somewhat tongue in cheek provocative, but it seemed he best way of highlighting the lack of logic occasionally put form the CAT point of view.

[Pace]

>Added to that we are looking at a piece of kit that benefits other people, not necessarily the operator. Effectively, you may be asking for me to lash out cash that I can ill afford, on something that does me little or no good, so that some of you can tear through Class G with your eyes wide shut, relying on the voices in your head....<

Flying in good VMC in class G it would be better to have all aircraft equipt with transponders but we all know that everyone is flying around in that airspace in every type of flying machine available and hence do use MK1 eyeballs and maximum caution.

The other danger is where only one set of MK1 eyeballs are available ie where an aircraft is transitioning from IFR IMC flight to VFR VMC flight and that transition layer.

My total disagreement in this thread is where we cannot see each other ie in cloud where someone flying without the maximum level of available technology so we can know about each other is putting my life and my passenegers life at risk and no one has a right to do that.

Fitter2

There are rules for VFR VMC flying which are to remain clear of cloud horizontally and vertically with published distances to have between you and cloud.

Unless the aircraft and the pilot are equipt and licenced to be in cloud they should not be there.

I was amazed that the CAA say " Okay your a glider so these rules do not apply" that is the double standards.

Maybe its the CAA who should be sued when a 737 is brought down as you cannot blame a glider pilot for flying within the rulles the CAA stipulate but those rules are a mockery.

And yes for your information I am afraid its not only me who flies fast machinery outside of controlled airspace but Easyjet and RyanAir in their 737s and A320s so you are just as likely to hit them as me while playing in your clouds unannounced and unseen.

We do try and avoid large lumps of cumulous or towering cumulous as it gives a bumpy ride for passengers but often the density of cloud or combination of clouds or routing makes that unavoidable.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

If it really is low power, small, easy to use and within a reasonable price range then I agree it would be a good candidate for everybody to adopt.

Like any CAS it aims to tell you where the traffic is (in this case just range) and its relative altitude to you. I suspect it is very accurate in altitude less so in range. Personally when I used PCAS if I saw traffic at the same altitide I tired to ensure "seperation" by adjusting mine. I guess a glider could operate in the same way.

1. Where can we find out more about the operating constraints

Well worth a look at their web site. The manuals and technical information is there: Zaon Flight Systems - Home (http://www.zaon.aero/)

The magazine write ups and "road tests" I have seen on PCAS units appear to indicate that they are incredibly unreliable

Have you seen any recent write ups? I gather from one very well known UK distributor before the system was taken over by Zaon any number of units were returned because they didnt appear to work, now they never have any returns.

If I'm not going to fit a transponder, like large numbers of my colleagues, what possible use is TCAS/PCAS to me or anyone else, come to that?

I think I am correct that YOU dont need a transponder for PCAS to notify you of collision threats from other transpoding traffic. YOU can therefore attempt to avoid the collision.

I suspect that the vast majority of powered aircraft in IMC have a transponder, even if there is no legal requirment for them to do so.

This has been used to support the carriage of ELTs (not PLBs though) as well as Mode S. It is a classic politician's trick and should never be used by forumites.....

I am aware of your objection. Trick or not let me ask this. If you are en route in IMC for two hours can you honestly tell me the thought of bumping into another aircraft is not at the back of your mind. Personally, however remote the risk, in an ideal world I'd love to have a system that shows me any other traffic that is there.

My own experience with PCAS is it is well worth a look. I cant answer what the implications are of using it in an aircraft without a transponder althoug I dont think it makes a deal of difference. I can tell you in the 12 months or so I used PCAS I dont think I had a single spurious contact. Obvioulsy I cant be sure because I didnt see a lot of them but when I did they were sure there, and when I didnt, AT often reported the same traffic. When I get a chance I am going to run PCAS with Skywatch which I now use and see how the two compare.

[Rod1]

“There are rules for VFR VMC flying which are to remain clear of cloud horizontally and vertically with published distances to have between you and cloud.”

The most common part of the spectrum is less than 140kn, up to 3000 ft, in sight of the surface and clear of cloud. You will notice that there is no published distance between you and cloud in this case. Assuming cloud base is 3001 ft, you will get two bands of aircraft. One will be at 2000 ft (some people always fly at this level and for my sake long may they continue) the other band will be just below cloud base. I will be at 2700 ish…

The problem with this is if you are descending in IMC without a RIS both you and the VFR guys have very little change to see and avoid. There is a strong case for only doing this with a RIS, but this would be very restrictive at a weekend.

Edited to add;

“I suspect it is very accurate in altitude less so in range.”

It cannot be more accurate than the encoder info which is +/-200 ft. A Glider is unlikly to throw away 400 ft of hard won energy unless it is very sure there is a risk.

Rod1

[jxk]

Two aircraft approaching each other head on with their widgets singing and dancing - how does the conflict get resolved? In other words do they climb and descend or do both aircraft turn right and will the widget indicate what to do?

[NigelOnDraft]

Two aircraft approaching each other head on with their widgets singing and dancing - how does the conflict get resolved? In other words do they climb and descend or do both aircraft turn right and will the widget indicate what to do?WIth "full blown" TCAS - they systems "talk" and give mutually compatible avoidance actions in the vertixal plane only. With a TCAS v Mode C Xpdr just the TCAS equipped aircraft avoids, and hopes/assumes the Mode C traffic keeps his eyes (and ears) shut and maintains everything.

AFAIK, all other systems rely on "pilot" interpretation / decisions. Even the PCAS manufacturer states bearing accuracy as +-22degrees i.e. if it says it's directly ahead of you, it could be 22degrees left or right. When you avoid laterally by visual means, your eyes are very accurate in direction, and also in "trend" which is important in collision avoidance/ assessment. I cannot see how a "reliable" turn could be made on such information, so the vertical plane would seem, again "best".

NoD

[Pace]

Rod1

Have printed these details off. How a Glider with non IFR equiptment and not even a minimum of an IMC rating can legally fly in cloud puzzles me. One rule for all of us another for gliders :-)


>Weather minima for VFR flight outside Controlled Airspace (Classes F and G Airspace)
(a) At and above FL 100
8km flight visibility
1500 m horizontally from cloud
1000ft vertically from cloud.
(b) Below FL 100
5
5km flight visibility
1500 m horizontally from cloud
1000ft vertically from cloud.
(c) At or below 3000ft
As in (b) above or:
for fixed wing aircraft:
5 km flight visibility
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
for fixed wing aircraft operating at 140kt or less:
1500 m flight visibility
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
for helicopters operating at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
Speed Limitations
Below FL100, an airspace speed limit of 250kt applies. In addition, this limit may be lower when published in procedures or when required
by ATC.<

Pace

[Robin400]

Zaon appears to be a mode "C" receiver. It requires the conflicting traffic to be transponder equipped.

[BackPacker]

Zaon appears to be a mode "C" receiver. It requires the conflicting traffic to be transponder equipped.

Not just that. It also needs somebody else to provide the interrogation trigger. So either a TCAS equipped plane nearby, or within 100-150 miles of a ground-based radar. Or something like that.

So it won't work in the middle of nowhere, but over there it's not very likely you bump into someone.

[NigelOnDraft]

How a Glider with non IFR equiptment and not even a minimum of an IMC rating can legally fly in cloud puzzles me.I posted the rules for a Glider to fly "in cloud" above? I am not sure of the problem? What relevance do powered aircraft "equipment" "qualifications" and "rules" have to gliders?

Their rules are delegated to, and determined by, the BGA, and what is the problem for that? And how/why does it affect you (and I). None of the IFR "equipment" (e.g. AI) we (powered pilots) require, or rules we operate to (IMC rating), outside CAS appear to be relevant to collision avoidance... which to me seems the only way it might affect other users. With the appropriate equipment and qualification, we powered aircraft can also fly in IMC without a Xpdr and without talking to anyone... which seems a level playing field?

NoD

[Fuji Abound]

Zaon appears to be a mode "C" receiver. It requires the conflicting traffic to be transponder equipped.

Correct. It is only useful for avoiding powered aircraft (or I guess a few gliders with transponders). I suspect there are few powered aircraft that would fly in IMC without a transponder.

Two aircraft approaching each other head on with their widgets singing and dancing - how does the conflict get resolved? In other words do they climb and descend or do both aircraft turn right and will the widget indicate what to do?

With a system such as PCAS as NoD says it would be folish to rely on a heading change to avoid traffic unless you could see the trafic or it was at a reasonable range and its range didnt start to converge again after the heading change. In fact with the basic version it only gives you a range, not a bearing. Adjusting to ensure vertical seperation is more reliable. At GA speeds there is a awful lot of time between systems like PCAS spotting the traffic and your adjusting your height / range to avoid whilst monitoring to see if the other pilot is taking the same action. I suppose you could get into a feed back loop where the other pilot reciprocated everything you did but I have yet to see this happen.

A Glider is unlikly to throw away 400 ft of hard won energy unless it is very sure there is a risk.

Ah yes, but guess how much energy you are going to throw away when you hit me. :)

Forgive me but I sense a reluctance on the part of the glider community to do anything proactive. Fair enough if you feel the risk just doesnt warrant it - I cant defeat that argument other than by repeating that personally I feel a lot more comfortable in cloud knowing that I have something on which to "rely" other than keeping my fingers crossed.

From this thread it would appear that less than 5% of the gliding community have taken up FLARM. How could I in good faith invest in that sytem when almost not a single powered aircraft is going to have the system and only 5% of gliders have bothered to fit it? In the alternative I'd bet that 95% of powered aircraft in IMC have a transponder.

[Rod1]

I have no direct experience of PCAS, most of the people I know who have tried it were not impressed, but maybe the new units are better. With this in mind I have some basic questions;

If the unit requires radar to activate the transponder in order to see the target, then I assume it will not work at low level – say up to 2000 ft ish in a normal environment?

Assuming I am flying straight at another aircraft with mode c, at 2500 ft, what sort of range would I typically pick up the other contact?

I did seriously consider a unit some months ago, which is why I estimated the non transponder traffic in my local area and decided it was a non starter.

Rod1

[Pace]

NigelOnDraft

Why the rules should be determined by the BGA an organisation that has its own interests at heart and not all of us puzzles me.

That would be like the PFA setting its own rules and stating that homebuilts can fly in IMC conditions which they cannot. Yet most Homebuilt aircraft are more capable of IMC flight than gliders.

The CAA should be the regulatory authority which should lay out regulations to protect us all in an even handed way.

Realistically if you are flying solid IMC and ask for radar and when asked to squak say you do not have a transponder you will get raised eyebrows.
There can be very few aircraft who fly solid IMC and are irresponsable enough to do so without a transponder.

This whole thread started because of a tragic collision between two aircraft one a complex twin and the other a light aircraft.
The question was where are the risks and how can those risks be minimised.

The above accident happened in VMC but it is likely that the complex twin commander with poor and obstructed visibility from his twin did not see the light aircraft. Couple that with the fact that he thought he was on an approach and had his head in the cockpit sorting charts and configuring the aircraft and its easy to see how such an accident could occur.

That stresses the fact that all we can do is to be extra vigilant in VMC for other aircraft.

But IMC is a different matter because the idea of keeping a good lookout becomes irrelevant and hence I personally would have regulations which stipulate a transponder for all IMC flight and basic IMC flight training for those who enter IMC conditions.

Pace

[Fitter2]

You are way out of date.

EASA are the authority - the CAA act as their local agents.

A number of ways have been suggested in earlier posts to minmise risk for all concerned; a blanket demand that other aircraft fit equipment that is impractical for the aircraft concerned, or cease operating in a normal manner is not really making any useful contribution to the discussion.

[john delafield]

Flarm (short for Flight Alarm) is becoming popular in the UK but has a long way to go to match the UK`s share of the 11,000 or so now used, mainly in Europe and Australia The product is licensed to be made by other than Flarm Technology GmbH of Switzerland and so you will find different versions around; but the important thing is that they all use the same algorithms and are interoperable with each other.

The situation in the UK that the CAA has a policy of no objection and we are now waiting for Ofcom to issue its approval, for its use of 868.2 MHz, a licence free band in Europe, and this is expected any day.

I admit to a commercial interest in Flarm as the UKs main vendor but it is a reality, it does work and at around £500 incl VAT for a fully portable system it might just help avoid that near miss frightening you or worse as it gives a warning out to a range of mile or 2 and helps you to look in the right direction and take the appropriate action. Made originally to enable glider pilots to avoid hitting each other when flying in the Alps its usefulness has now been recognised as far wider. Of note, it contains a database of obstructions (currently Alpine cables and masts) but it could easily be loaded with a regional database of TV masts, high tension wires, and the like. This could be of interest to helicopter operators.......

I`ll publish more info once Ofcom has issue formal approval. Meanwhile, there is info on www.Flarm.com (http://www.Flarm.com) and www.lXavionics.co.uk (http://www.lXavionics.co.uk)

John Delafield
LX avionics Ltd

[Fuji Abound]

Assuming I am flying straight at another aircraft with mode c, at 2500 ft, what sort of range would I typically pick up the other contact?

Your own height has very little to do with it - other than to the extent of the limitations in the PCAS user manual - which is well worth a read and on the link I gave.

As long as the other aircrafts transponder is being interogated by either a ground based radar or an airborn system (such as Sywatch or TCAS) PCAS will read the squitter. That means that cover for most of the UK is pretty solid.

You will be warned of the traffic at over 5 nm. At 5 nm at typical GA v glider speeds head on you will have over 2 minutes to deal with the conflict.

I suspect when you hear the usual - limited radar service due to range and / or radar clutter that does not mean the response of PCAS will be reduced unless there is terrain between you and the radar head.

[flybymike]

Just a couple of points of academic pedantry.
I think the commander of the twin was a "she" not a "he"

Basic PPL without an instrument qualification at less than 140 knots is limited to minimum 3k vis outside CAS (UK ANO license restriction, not VFR rules) and 5k insideCAS

[gpn01]

"Forgive me but I sense a reluctance on the part of the glider community to do anything proactive"

That's untrue. The gliding community, thanks to the effective safety management by the BGA (who have had the delegated responsibility from the CAA for gliding) has an excellent safety record. I can't remember the numbers off-hand, but the total number of fatailities annually is fewer than ten p.a. (and that's as a result of all forms of accident, not just people colliding) Anybody know how many fatailities p.a. other sectors of the UK aviation community incur ?

One of the things that the community does proactively is to ensure that changes are proportionate and realistic and of benefit to avaition in general. There's a major issue when trying to reduce risk that what seems obvious and beneficial to one sector can be harmful to others. That's why it's important to ensure that any proposals are workable and don't inadvertantly increase the risk of an accident.

If there was a way in which installing a single, common, alerting device which would be usable and reliable within the confines of all GA operators, then I'm sure we'd all support it. The problem currently appears to be twofold - (1) Different sectors are using different methodologies and (b) the CAA is supporting only one 'solution' as being 'approved'. Until we can have a single approved, workable, method then we're going to have to continue embracing see and be seen, use controlled airspace for those who have the platform to use it and accept an element of risk. We need to strive to continue reducing risk but it's never going to be removed 100% and, as iterated above, you need to be careful of unitended consequences of changing something to be "safer" when it in fact makes it more dangerous.

[Rod1]

So if we assume I am meeting myself coming the other way;

I am flying along and I get an indication that there is an aircraft 5 nm ahead. I have about 70 sec before the bang. What the system is telling me is that an aircraft is in a cone 400 ft by 22 deg p/s by 5nm? Is the 5 nm accurate or +/- something?

I think Height would be important, as ground based radar will not see you much below 2000 ft. However if TCAS is also illuminating the transponder this may not be important?

Pace

I have not been an active glider pilot for many years but your understanding is very poor. To fly in cloud you need to be assessed and signed off by your CFI, this is a very safe system as the club system is much more safety focused than the non club based power environment. You must have a p/s and a radio, and appropriate instrumentation for your training / aircraft. In anything other than an ultra modern machine you will have airbrakes which can stop you exceeding vne, and if your machine is ripped apart by the CB (yes, some glider pilots do fly into CB’s), or you hit something, you can step outside. My experience of glider pilots is that they take safety and airmanship extremely seriously, and the CFI of a gliding club has total control on what happens on and around his airfield. You are not even allowed to rig a glider without his permission.

I apologize if the above is out of date, but I would think very little will have changed.

Rod1

[Pace]

>Until we can have a single approved, workable, method then we're going to have to continue embracing see and be seen, use controlled airspace for those who have the platform to use it and accept an element of risk.<

GPN01

I dont have a problem with see and be seen when we are both in a position to see each other ie reasonable VMC clear and away from cloud.

In 20 years of flying I have seen hundreds of gliders around the base of clouds at 2-3000 feet but only one above 10000 feet and that was over the Alps infact I cannot remember seeing a glider above clouds at all as the Alpine one was near the mountain face and in good VMC.

Eagles and large birds of prey yes but they have excellent eyesight and avoiding techniques :-)

So we are talking about potential risk. While it is great for fast IFR traffic to operate from take off to touchdown in controlled airspace even the airlines are forced to operate out of controlled airspace for portions of their flight at certain airports.

So there is "potential" for a midair with a passenger carrying 737 especially if radar do not pick up a non transponding Glider in a lump of cloud.

The result of such a disaster would be massive and speedy changes in regulations faster than we could write our objections in these forums then there would be no choice.

The potential is there and it is a game of Russian roulette until the unthinkable happens.

Pace

[gpn01]

Pace, there are risks in every aspect of our lives and there's no point hypothesising about what could happen - If we did that we wouldn't get out of bed each morning. Yes, there's a risk (albeit tiny) that an airliner could collide with a microlight, glider, light aircraft, helicopter or whatever. Looking at the CAA's own data though suggests an area of much greater risk:

On 22/08/1985 a Boeing 737 suffered an uncontained engine failure and fire on take-off from Manchester - 55 fatalities
On 08/01/1989 a Boeing 737 crashed on approach to East Midlands after suffering engine problems - 47 fatalities
On 25/02/1994 a Viscount crashed following problems with engine and airframe icing near Uttoxeter - 1 fatality
On 12/01/1999 a Fokker F27 crashed into a house in Guernsey - 2 fatalities
On 14/09/1999 a Boeing 757 departed runway at Geirona, Spain following heavy landing in severe rainstorm and fuselage broke into three pieces - 1 fatality
On 02/05/2000 a Learjet caught fire on landing at Lyon, France after suffering engine problems - 2 fatalities
On 25/05/2000 a Shorts SD330 was struck by the wing of a MD80 that was taking off from Paris, France - 1 fatality
On 27/02/2001 a Shorts SD360 ditched in the Firth of Forth, UK following a double engine flameout - 2 fatalities.

(Aviation Safety Statistics | SRG Safety Plan | Safety Regulation (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=978&pagetype=90&pageid=6277))

Looks to me like we need to stop airliners from using engines as they're clearly a major contributor to accidents!

Every time we fly we are taking a risk - engine failure, pilot incapacitation, structural failure, collision, etc. All we can do is to take sensible, considered, precautions.

It's always sobering to read the Airprox reports (latest is at http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/ukabbk19.pdf). If I'm reading this correctly, more than 50% of airproxes occurred within controlled airspace, so don't assume that talking to somebody removes all risks!

[Fitter2]

In 48 years of gliding I have seen dozens of gliders above cloud. Maybe I was keeping a good lookout...........

I can't see, however, what that contributes to the discussion.

[tdbristol]

I have a Zaon PCAS unit which I find works very well . It is the more expensive one which gives approximate heading of the other aircraft, relative altitude and altitude trend, and audible warning in the headset and display flash when there is a 'threat'.
Clearly it only picks up transponder equipped aircraft but does mode C, S and A (no height on A of course). As there is good SSR coverage across the UK I have not found any obvious areas where it does not give a return for transponding aircraft.

Saturday near Norwich the viz was very poor and cloud base lunchtime just below 2,000ft. When about 10 miles from the airfield the PCAS went off. It first indicated an aircraft at 0.5nm distance from me then 0.3nm, 300ft below and climbing, to my rear left quadrant. As I was IFR climbing through 2,500ft and in IMC I could not see the other aircraft. I turned directly away and levelled for a speed increase: the PCAS soon indicated an increasing distance. Shortly afterwards I heard the other pilot give a position report, so I know it was not a spurious alert.
PCAS isn't perfect, and it is unlikely that we would have hit each other, but I never saw him and I doubt that he ever saw me, but having the PCAS allowed me to take easy action to avoid getting closer than I would have liked.
I have had a fair number of other like examples (perhaps a 1/2 dozen) in the past 15 months flying with the unit; so from my experience I am in favour of 'the more transponders the better' and of using PCAS.
Yes, it won't do everything and won't give 100% protection (but nothing would) but it is a useful aid.

[englishal]

If so, is that for economic or convenience?
Yep.....Both.

[RatherBeFlying]

All the heavy iron spends most of its time in Class ABC airspace for which the price of admission is at least a Mode C xpdr which allows the TCAS units to detect the small stuff.

Perhaps a Zaon PCAS would be accepted as an alternate means of compliance so that the small stuff can get out of the way.

Recreational GA and gliders generally operate in Class DEG and Flarm works very well for them at a very reasonable price.

Seeing as how light a/c are required to fit Mode C to operate in Class ABC, it's only fair to require the heavies to fit Flarm if they operate in class DEG;)

[Fuji Abound]

Seeing as how light a/c are required to fit Mode C to operate in Class ABC, it's only fair to require the heavies to fit Flarm if they operate in class DEG

I accept the smiley but it has already been commented on here that only around 5% of gliders have FLARM - is this really so?

No one is going to take FLARM seriously if this is the real extent of the up take - why would they given this system is totally reliant on both users having FLARM installed?

[englishal]

I wonder how many people have a PCAS type thing? It would certainly increase the uptake if PCAS and FLARM were integrated somehow....

I'm going to get a Zaon box when I'm in the states in a couple of weeks. Seems a reasonable investment and *might* be a lifesaver - though hope it never comes close.

[Rod1]

Having spent some time researching FLARM I would not rule it out yet. The system has only been around for a short time but it has huge take-up in parts of Europe and the BGA has been running tests on it, which appears to have gone very well. It is possible that the take up in the UK will increase dramatically over the next 12 months.

FLARM is available as a very small, light, portable unit with very low power requirements (or an all singing all dancing panel mount). It is the only option for the majority of flying machines in the UK which cannot fit Transponders. If the BGA push this and get the support of the BMAA then it could make a difference. There is also a version specifically for helicopters.

Rod1

[Robin400]

The latest info I have, sales of the Flarm unit are now over 11,000 units.

We are all looking to improve safety for all, my vote goes to the Flarm system, capable of being fitted into flying machines with limited power supplies and payload.

Using a barometric and GPS based altitude processor, the error will be much less than a transponder based sytems with the possible errors on the static pressure line. Mode C is +/- 200ft.

I am sure Flarm design teams are working hard on certification so our colleagues with more sopisticated aircraft can install such a system at a low cost.

[NigelOnDraft]

Pace... Why the rules should be determined by the BGA an organisation that has its own interests at heart and not all of us puzzles me.Ask the CAA or EASA or whoever ;) However, the CAA (EASA?) still have oversight, so if the BGA do somehting barking mad, I am sure they will be overruled :ooh:

The CAA should be the regulatory authority which should lay out regulations to protect us all in an even handed way.They do... they just delegate some/all to the BGA, LAA, BMAA or whatever...

Realistically if you are flying solid IMC and ask for radar and when asked to squak say you do not have a transponder you will get raised eyebrows.
There can be very few aircraft who fly solid IMC and are irresponsable enough to do so without a transponder.You are now moving from the "rules" to what is typical / sensible in your opinion :suspect: Please can you confirm (I may be wrong?) that:

Under the BGA rules, which upset you so much, a glider can fly IMC without a Xpdr and without talking to a radar service.
Under the CAA/EASA rules, a powered aircraft can fly IMC without a Xpdr and without talking to a radar service.

This whole thread started because of a tragic collision between two aircraft one a complex twin and the other a light aircraft.
The question was where are the risks and how can those risks be minimised.
Disagree... This thread was started to deliberately move away from Coventry, which is under AAIB investigation, and there should be no speculation / conclusions until the AAIB report or AAIB issue earlier recommendaitons. IMHO ;)

But IMC is a different matter because the idea of keeping a good lookout becomes irrelevant and hence I personally would have regulations which stipulate a transponder for all IMC flight and basic IMC flight training for those who enter IMC conditions.OK - and I trust you expressed in detail those opinions to the CAA consulation which finished in May? But please bear in mind you are criticising the glider community for something which solely contradicts your opinions, and which I believe is actually allowable by powered aircraft. What part of IMC training is relevant to collision avoidance? And would be applicable to the glider pilot over and above whatever training the BGA enforce?

I have learnt a lot from this thread, and it's predecessor ;) But knee jerk reactions and finger pointing do not work IMHO. "We", parts of the GA community have fought off compulsory Xpdrs for some time, using risk v cost arguments, and who pays v who benefits. It will take some convincing evidence to reverse all that :eek:

NoD

[BackPacker]

Under the CAA/EASA rules, a powered aircraft can fly IMC without a Xpdr and without talking to a radar service.

Don't be so sure. I have not read the 600+ page document describing the EASA proposal for FCL but from the summary I understand that both the IMC rating (for power) and the Cloud Flying rating (for gliders) will go away.

And I would not be surprised if further European harmonization will eventually mean that flight in IMC requires an IFR flight plan, an IR rating, controlled airspace and an IFR capable aircraft. Including a transponder. This is already the case (or, as far as mode S is concerned, happening soon) on mainland Europe. Why would the UK not follow suit under EASA, which is after all a European organization?

[NigelOnDraft]

BackPacker... All might be true, and welcome to some. However, my post(s) concerned today's situation for all...

From my pov, flight in IMC requires an IFR flight plan, an IR rating, controlled airspace and an IFR capable aircraft. Including a transponderhas some logic to it, and would not affect me. However, I am sure others will have their own opinions ;) as can be seen by the IMC Rating campaign... and the previous Mode S / Xpdr battle :ooh:

NoD

[BackPacker]

Nigel, you asked about EASA rules. They don't come into force yet.

AFAIK, under current legislation (ANO), you are right.

[David Roberts]

I'll chip in again with a few facts.

1. The BGA has self regulated UK gliding - very successfully I might add - since 1948 (or so). It has not operated under delegation from the CAA or it predecessor the MAT. Technically UK gliding has been 'outside regulation' except for compliance with the ANO, radio regulations and airspace regulations. Hang gliding and para gliding - a different governing body - is also unregulated but subject to the same compliance framework, ANO etc.
2. That is now changing (for gliding) with the advent of EASA, without any safety case put forward by the European 'system' to justify regulatory capture in 2002
3. Class G airspace is 'uncontrolled'. That's where glider pilots fly in cloud, sometimes. Not in controlled airspace.
4. The long term fatal accident rate in UK gliding is c.3 p.a. Of course, when comparing accident rates it is statistically sensible to measure the rate by reference to activity levels. Which for UK gliding is relatively easy because it is a club-based activity with recording of launches and hours. Not so easy with power flying to collect the activity stats. That's why making comparisons is difficult. I spent some time last year (with others from the UK, including the DfT) on an ECAC committee looking at the question of compiling GA stats on a consistent basis across the EU, and not just accident stats.
5. As I quoted in an earlier posting, I can recall only 4 power / glider mid-airs over something like 30+ years. All were in VFR conditions. I cannot recall any power / glider collisions in cloud over this period, though of course I may be wrong. And maybe one or two glider / glider mid-airs in non VMC in that time -one a few years ago involving one of the sport's most experienced cross country pilots, near his base club.
6. The EASA Licensing NPA does not include an IMC power-flying rating or glider cloud flying qualification in the sub ICAO LPL, though there is the inherited JAA IFR in the ICAO compliant licence proposals. The lack of IMC rating because there is no equivalent in the rest of Europe. But EASA is establishing a working group this autumn to consider this and is reportedly keen to have such a rating. The cloud flying qualification was recommended by the EASA sub group under the chairmanship of a senior Belgrano official, endorsed by the group I sit on, but the higher level FCL working group, with a majority of 'JAR thinkers' on it, took it out because they thought it was a back door route to an IFR for touring motor gliders (the proposed glider pilot licences would include a TMG rating but it was never suggested or intended that the cloud flying qualification was designed to be available for the TMG rating). The FCL group did not even consider the case of 'pure glider' pilots. I can tell you, that has to be reinstated because otherwise gliding will be taking a huge backward step. I am confident it will be resolved.

[NigelOnDraft]

Nigel, you asked about EASA rules. They don't come into force yet.Thanks for that... my Under the CAA/EASA rules, references were in response to You are way out of date.

EASA are the authority - the CAA act as their local agents.I don't have a clue about "who" makes the rules right now... just have a rough idea of the rules :(

NoD

[Single Spey]

How to minimise risk in Class G airspace? Fundamentally, I think that it is up to each individual pilot to decide what level of risk his flight entails and whether he accepts that risk based on the equippage of his aircraft/glider/microlight and if he decides to make use of RIS/RAS/FIS, whetehr operating IFR or VFR, IMC or VMC. If a pilot believes that see and be seen is sufficient for him as anindividual then OK. However, I also consider that we all have some responsibility to other airspace users that expensive technology is not going to resolve. Systems such as FLARM, TCAS etc may be useful to a community that decides to voluntarily adopt them, but do not meet the responsibility we should all have to the total airspace user community. The user community most at risk who have no individual responsibility would seem to be the fare paying passengers flying into places like Humberside, Inverness etc which are outside the normal controlled airspace structure. More CAS should not be the answer.
My proposal would be that all airports involved in commercial operations that are outside CAS would be required as part of their licence to have primary radar and NATS en-route would be mandated to provide primary coverage linking the airport cover to the controlled airspace system. Then instead of mandatory transponder equippage the CAA should mandate that all air vehicles should have a minimum radar cross section such that they can be seen on primary radar. This may require the fitting of reflectors etc onto gliders, microlights but in my opinion ought to be a low-cost, low-technology, no-power solution. This will provide a guaranteed surveillance environment such that ATC can provide active separation to those aircraft that require it, whilst other users are free to operate as they wish. Who pays? Equipping aircraft etc the owner, operator. For the ATC services - the commercial operators who gain the benefit from reduced risk. As a result we can all operate exactly as we do now, accepting wahtever level of risk we wish, but have the knowledge that we have allowed other airspace users to reduce their risk by use of a third party - ATC - where they feel it is appropriate.

[Fuji Abound]

Single Spey

Some very good points.

Sadly NATS dont give away anything.

I recall an airfield in exactly the situation you outline where I chatted to the guys in AT. Although they had a radar head of their own for various reasons it made sense to have a NATS feed. NATS agreed - £100K per annumn plus installation.

If you go to Calais you will find a radar feed in the tower. It is provided free. It "protects" the IA at an airfield where there is almost no commercial traffic and certainly no scheduled traffic.

IMO the CAA should require NATS to provide a radar feed to any airport with an instrument approach.

Yachts have for years fitted radar reflectors. They are cheap and easy to fit. I guess the cost would be equally small for gliders and micro lights. I agree this would greatly enhance there transparency to ground based radar.

[IO540]

Please note the CAA cannot support in any way a product which is not a certified installed item - they have no authority over such.

Expecting the CAA to back say FLARM (a non certified product designed for mostly DIY installations, usually in the "portable" class) is a bit like expecting ATC to give you a clearance in Class G.

The only way to push a product like FLARM in the current UK regime would be appropriate publicity in all the various places, plus pilot shops selling it cheaply.

[Pace]

>OK - and I trust you expressed in detail those opinions to the CAA consulation which finished in May? But please bear in mind you are criticising the glider community for something which solely contradicts your opinions, and which I believe is actually allowable by powered aircraft. What part of IMC training is relevant to collision avoidance? And would be applicable to the glider pilot over and above whatever training the BGA enforce?<

NigelOnDraft

I am not criticising the glider community one bit but I am critical of any situation which allows two aircraft to be in IMC conditions where they have no possible way of knowing whether they are both going to collide.

Normally there are rules to avoid such a conflict ie flying quadrantel levels so that if you have one aircraft going in a particular direction he / she has seperation from another aircraft going in another direction.

But no with gliders they cannot maintain a level whilst IMC so that safety rule is out of the window.

While in class G airspace we try to use a radar service so that again flying blind someone else can point out a possible conflict and avoid it for you.

Not so with gliders as they use some obscure glider frequency who no one else listens to.

As for training to flying in cloud it is not just about being able to scan instruments and manouver accurately in cloud but it is also about being situationally aware and being in a position to know where your aircraft is but communicating that to others. Others who are equally blind having the confidence that you are where you should be and to the tolerances as laid out in IFR flying.

Not so with gliders as they can be anywhere in cloud to no tolerances whatsoever. If you cannot see this arguement then I dont know what to say other than by exercising your rights to freedom you are not flying to the standards and tolerances expected in IMC flight and as such are endangering the lives of others.

I am only talking about flight in IMC conditions where the rule of SEE AND BE SEEN do not exist.

If you cannot be seen in other ways ie radar or flying to standards and levels that the rest of us are supposed to then you shouldnt be there.

I dont care if your a balloon, microlight, glider, twin or Jet.

And no IFR traffic often operates in other airspace other than ABC including 737s and A320s

Mid-Air Collision of Glider and Jet near Reno: ASG-29 vs. Hawker XP800 (by Jeremy Zawodny) (http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html)

This accident wasnt even in IMC imagine the repercussions of a 737 in cloud and then we would all find controlled airspace almost everywhere.

[Fitter2]

Pace

When you set the tolerances and standards, then you may expect others to respect them. Until then, you are responsible for operating safely with the existing situation, at risk levels you are prepared to accept.

Others have stated they are content to fly fast aircraft in IMC in the open FIR for reasons of cost and convenience, although flight under full control and segregation is available. Their choice.

Glider pilots in IMC are aware of their position very accurately, as otherwise they would risk infringing controlled airspace. They do communicate with others who are the greatest risk to themselves, and that communication is on a known and published frequency (although apparently you were unaware of that).

Before continuing to pursue what appears to be an obsession with clearly limited knowledge of the facts, please find out what you are talking about, as the gliding community on its part does.

[englishal]

Glider pilots in IMC are aware of their position very accurately, as otherwise they would risk infringing controlled airspace. They do communicate with others who are the greatest risk to themselves, and that communication is on a known and published frequency (although apparently you were unaware of that).

Before continuing to pursue what appears to be an obsession with clearly limited knowledge of the facts, please find out what you are talking about, as the gliding community on its part does.
That is fine, but it seems to be that gliders only communicate with other gliders. I am by no means anti glider - but when I fly in IMC I make all possible attempts to let other airspace users know where I am, by using a RIS. Gliders talk to each other on one frequency, which "we" may not be listening to as we have Com1 dialled into a RIS and Com2 on 121.5 or the next enroute frequency.

My advice to a cloud flying glider would be at a minimum to dial into the nearest LARS controller and ask for a RIS or report your position using a FIS. That way GA traffic with the same controller has a cat-in-hells chance of avoiding you and you the GA traffic. If the worst ever happens - a glider hits an airbus - you can bet that things will change for the worse for everyone.

[Pace]

Fitter2

I suggest you educate yourself on other users of airspace other than gliders which seems to be your obsession as your knowledge of IFR traffic and airspace and who uses that airspace is sadly lacking as demonstrated in your earlier posts and that in itself worries me should I ever meet you in the air.

Yes I dont know a lot about gliding but certain things I have learnt here worry me

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Glider pilots in IMC are aware of their position very accurately, as otherwise they would risk infringing controlled airspace. They do communicate with others who are the greatest risk to themselves, and that communication is on a known and published frequency (although apparently you were unaware of that).

I profess I don’t fully understand the sense of security that appears to derive from the use of the radio.

1. The reality is many powered aircraft do not have two radios. Their radio is therefore not going to be tuned to the glider frequency. Even if they do have two radios it may not be convenient to have box 2 always tuned to the glider frequency.

2. Isnt there a shared responsibility? In the same way you are asking powered aircraft to listen out on the glider frequency, shouldn’t we expect gliders to listen out on the local frequency. For example if I was operating near Bembridge more than likely I would be listening out for other traffic reports on the Bembridge frequency.

3. How do your position reports work exactly? You are a solo cross country glider for discussion, how often do you report your position, what do you do when you change altitude, which presumably you do frequently, and how do you exactly report your position.

4. Subject to your reply to 3 how do you expect powered traffic to interpolate your position reports? Have regard that we might well be on a 100 nm leg and not necessarily familiar with many of the land marks along the leg.

This debate has to understand the issues from both parties perspective otherwise it ends up becoming polarised into I’m right, you are wrong.

It is no good arguing that every powered aircraft should know precisely where every glider is when it enters IMC any more or less than every powered aircraft should know where every other powered aircraft is.

The fact of the matter is we have evolved a set of rules applicable to open FIR that were intended to enable everyone to “enjoy” the airspace and yet do so as safely as possible. The rules I suspect come from an era when transponders, FLARM, radar etc were the exception not the norm. For that reason we relied on see and avoid. However, we realised that for see and avoid to work the traffic shouldn’t be moving too quickly, so we introduced a speed cap. For operations in IMC we recognised see and avoid had no chance so we introduced some rules to try and separate the traffic based on height and direction. We also have some “rules” concerned with sound airmanship such as what we do when following line features, joining the circuit or crossing an IAP. I suspect we recognised that gliders often could not comply with these rules so we notified everyone of their areas of activity. For example I guess gliders ignore the line feature rules - if you are soaring along a ridge line, you are not interested in which side the line feature is relative to you, only where the thermals are relative to you.

I think since these basic rules were introduced a few things have changed. The traffic has got faster. Gliders are able to travel much further afield. More aircraft and gliders are willing to fly in IMC. In an effort to deal with these changes we have sort to introduce other means of separating traffic which are not solely reliant on see and avoid.

Its no good complaining about Citations flying into Bembridge because all that achieves is a polarisation of the debate. The Citation pilot may argue in exactly the same way as you that he doesn’t want you pi%%ing around in his airspace in your micky mouse glider as much as you wish he bu&&ered off to Gatwick and caught the bus from there.

The debate must focus on whether the existing arrangements are adequate given the changes I have mentioned in the way the airspace is used and if they are not what we ALL can do to improve the situation.

[Parsnip]

glider pilots who play about in IMC and only speak to one another are similar to cyclists who use the main dual carraigeway in the rush hour in lieu of the red cycle lane ...............mad

[Pace]

>That is fine, but it seems to be that gliders only communicate with other gliders. I am by no means anti glider - but when I fly in IMC I make all possible attempts to let other airspace users know where I am, by using a RIS. Gliders talk to each other on one frequency, which "we" may not be listening to as we have Com1 dialled into a RIS and Com2 on 121.5 or the next enroute frequency. <

Englishal

Very valid point! we respect each other flying IMC in G airspace. I am flying N/W at FL85 you are flying S/E at FL75 we are both on radar transponding and talking to a radar controller and both flying blind in IMC.

The Glider should at least talk to the radar controller but what would that call be? " Glider XYZ operating above the village of somewhere or probably within a five mile radius. I am presently passing through FL90 descending as I have no lift. I may be at FL70 or anywahere in between. There again if I get some lift I maybe back up at FL90 or higher your guess is as good as mine. As I dont have a transponder like the other guys you wont have a clue what level I am at anyway so hope you dont hit me. Pull the trigger enough times and maybe you might"

What is the point of the rest of us flying quadrantle rules to give each other seperation with that in mind?

Pace

[gpn01]

If I could maintain height, speed and heading for more than ten seconds in a glider I'd be very happy indeed :-)

[Rod1]

The Gliders in IMC debate has been going on for many years. I started flying power in 1991 and remember the debate back then. Those that choose to fly in IMC are qualified and know the risks (both power and non power). In many respects the glider pilots honour the threat better than GA. A Glider pilot has a good chance of surviving a mid air, most GA pilots do not.

I regularly see Notams about gliding events. Perhaps it is worth adding to the Notam that large numbers of gliders may be IMC in the areas mentioned. Mr squeasyjet would then have to take the threat more seriously and might decide to use CAS.

Rod1

[Pace]

>I regularly see Notams about gliding events. Perhaps it is worth adding to the Notam that large numbers of gliders may be IMC in the areas mentioned. Mr squeasyjet would then have to take the threat more seriously and might decide to use CAS.<

Rod1

A few years ago a glider was allowed to cross an airway ie CAS while the IMC rated Pilot was not. Is that still the case?

Pace

[Fitter2]

It is over 10 years since the permission for gliders to cross airways in VMC was withdrawn (although I do not believe there had ever been an airprox reported).

I have reviewed my comments, and cannot find any indication that I do not understand how power IMC traffic operates.

I am very aware of the areas of open FIR close to regional airports used for climbout to controlled airspace, and while it might not be illegal to fly a glider in IMC there it would not be sensible.

I also know a substantial number of current ATPL holders, some whom have a day job flying an Airbus, and who regularly cloud fly in gliders when appropriate and in their view safe. I suspect they consider themselves neither mad nor ignorant, although they are probably too sensible to enter this discussion.

[Fuji Abound]

So in my last post (which due to its length) a question I asked may have been missed.

Could one of our glider pilots please set out exactly how the blind calls work.

What is the position report you give,

Do you say anything about the block altitude you will be working within,

How often do you make the calls when on route and how often do you up date your position,

If you are out of sight of the surface do you base your position on a moving map or do you use some other method.

[Fitter2]

In VMC regular position calls are not given - if we all did that for each change of heading (we follow the energy in the air) then any general frequency would be swamped on a reasonable soaring day.

In IMC a call is given before entering cloud giving:

- Callsign
- 'Entering cloud at' a position relative to a prominent named feature on the 1:500,000 chart
- Height ASL.

Subsequently calls are given about every 500 ft change in height, more frequently if two gliders are sharing the same cloud to maintain vertical separation.

A further 'clear of cloud' call is given when in VMC.

Regarding listening watch, gliders have only one COM radio, and in IMC the highest risk is from another glider, and so the common glider cloud flying frequency (130.400) is used. I suspect using another flight information area frequency would not be welcome, and given the areas where several different possible frequencies exist, no guarantee that two gliders wishing to use the same cloud would find themselves on the same frequency.

[Skycop]

The earlier suggestion that glider pilots give a call to the appropriate ATC Radar unit, so they can warn other pilots of their presence, and then change back to "the cloud flying" frequency, appears to have been ignored.

Not sure why this, perhaps someone could enlighten the rest of us if glider pilots are capable of doing this. If so is there an objection to helping out everyone else in this small way?

[Fitter2]

For example, approching cloudbase at 3,800 asl 8 nautical mile W of Salisbury. (It's a weekend and Boscombe are not operating). Which appropriate frequency?

[Skycop]

Fitter2, are you a qualified pilot (your profile gives no clue)?

Aircraft routeing south of Salisbury Plain, for example from the Cardiff area, would call Bournemouth and/or Southampton.

[Fitter2]

My point. There are least two frequencies. Not counting Salisbury Military, if a NOTAMED exercise is being coordinated.

And a deeper look into some of my posts (available on my published profile) would give further information regarding my flying (and other)background. If that's relevant to a discussion of the facts

[Skycop]

How do you think other traffic gets by, on a daily basis?

Call one of them; if unsure, call the unit you are closest to. ATCOs of adjacent units do talk to each other and pass information by landline. Sometimes they are even co-located. If an ATCO thinks you would be better off passing your message to someone else, he will tell you.

Surely all glider pilots are taught this from an early age? It's pretty basic stuff.

[Fuji Abound]

Fitter2

Thank you.

Can you give me an idea how much cloud flying takes place (maybe a guestimate of the number of pilots who would fly in cloud on a good soaring day) and how long a glider will typically spend in cloud.

How common are long cross country flights in an out of cloud?

I am actually really grateful to understand better how the cross country aspect of glider flight works - I know very little about it, and without an understanding I dont see how we can properly discuss how we might make such operations safer (if at at all possible).

[ProfChrisReed]

Skycop wrote:

Call one of them; if unsure, call the unit you are closest to ... Surely all glider pilots are taught this from an early age? It's pretty basic stuff.

This demonstrates the huge gulf of understanding between powered and glider pilots. From a gliding perspective this is not basic stuff, and ATC radio communication is not taught at all.

Why?

First, ATC is completely irrelevant for the majority of glider flights. We cannot use Class A airspace because we cannot comply with ATC instructions (if only I could "Climb to .." whenever I felt like it!). Class D is in theory usable, but in practice it's hard to get access in a glider, so I'm told. What this means is that almost all flights are planned to avoid controlled airspace.

Second, a FIS/RIS/RAS is also pretty useless to me. I almost never fly in straight lines for more than a few seconds, so being informed of traffic 5 miles away heading in my direction is unlikely to be of interest - by the time it arrives I'll be somewhere else, and I don't know where that will be. This means I need to rely on seeing traffic to avoid it - radio won't help. The mental workload in flying a glider is too high to try to build a mental picture of what is happening outside my field of view, as I'm constantly (every few seconds) revising my course and speed to find the best air to fly in.

Third, I don't have an RT licence - it doesn't come automatically with the glider "licence", unlike powered PPLs/NPPLs - and I can't justify the time to obtain one (effectively following what I believe is an AFIS (correct acronym?) syllabus which is 90% irrelevant to any use I might make). Thus I'm confined to the gliding frequencies and 121.5.

The main reason I frequent this site is to find more about what other users of the same airspace do. One benefit of this thread is that some airspace users now have a little better idea about what gliders do.

If you think this is a frightening gap in the training of glider pilots, just consider for a second the scary gap in IMC training for power that this thread has revealed.

There are a number of pilots who have posted here who previously flew IMC in class G under three erroneous beliefs:

a. Gliders aren't allowed at all;

b. Other aircraft aren't allowed if not transponding;

c. All IMC flight in class G are in receipt of some kind of radar service.

None of these are true. How good was their training?

[englishal]

You say RIS is useless to ME what about the other poor bugger coming your way at 200kts in IMC? It might be very useful to both of you! Why is it always about the glider? "I don't want to fit a transponder", "I don't have the power for a transponder","Why should I do an RT exam", "An RIS is of no use to me"...etc....

Ok, so what do YOU suggest we do? Carry on as we are ignoring the facts? Fit FLARM? Fit transponders? Ban gliders from IMC? What?

Secondly, RT licences don't come free, we all have to pass the exam. you could do it in half a day if you chose. In fact you could probably rock up at the local flying club and sit the exam, walk straight into the examiner and do the practical. All you would need to do is read the book first.

[ProfChrisReed]

Fuji Abound,

Cloud flying in gliders is comparatively rare. Most of the time a glider makes better progress by staying below cloud base. It tends to be used for three purposes: to cross large gaps where there is no lift (e.g. where a heavy shower has temporarily killed off thermic activity) or possibly to climb over the top of isolated clumps of airspace like Mildenhall/Lakenheath, (more likely) to get home at the end of an XC flight when the cumulus are far apart, or to let down through cloud after climbing in wave. On a five hour flight I'd expect to spend no more than 15 mins or so in cloud, and that on maybe one flight in ten. I think this is pretty typical, but those who actually do fly cloud may be able to add to my examples.

On a good soaring day I'd predict fewer than 100 gliders taking cloud climbs over the whole of the UK, so maybe 1500 minutes of cloud flying in total, but this is based on no more than gut feeling. If there's good, regularly spaced cumulus I'd be surprised if anyone were cloud flying except to practice.

[Fitter2]

Skycop

You ask what glider pilots are told (pretty basic stuff).

Same as us power pilots:

Aviate, navigate, communicate (in that order).

The difference when I don't have a constant source of guaranteed energy, is that a higher proportion of my time is spent on the first priority. In my case, that is prioritising and minimising risk.

If you are seriously concerned at a minimal risk, occurring in predictable conditions (isolated towering cumulus that you almost certainly don't have to fly through), then listening briefly on a known frequency will reassure you. If you want further reassurance, then investing £400 in a FLARM will guarantee you won't bump into me, and probably not into a growing number, soon a majority, of cross-country glider pilots.

If you want to complain about another sector of the aviation movement, instead of analysing the relative risks (study the accident staistics in your own aviation sector), then carry on, but please don't expect me to respect your logic (or lack of).

[Skycop]

Fitter2, I asked a question. In response, you asked ME a question without answering mine. I assumed you didn't know the answer and told you a solution. I was surprised that you didn't know an answer. But you claim I'm complaining? Why decry out of hand a suggestion that would possibly help all of us keep a little safer?

The R/T exam is NOT inherent in the PPL, the theory has to be learned and there is a practical exam, in a little booth, listening to a tape.

It has already been pointed out that portable electronic equipment such as FLARM cannot be fitted to a public transport IFR aircraft without legal certification, costing very many thousands of pounds.

By the way, I have listened on the glider cloud flying frequency; I made a point of doing so for a while after it was mentioned some time ago, whenever I saw gliders near the cloudbase in good thermal lift conditions and never heard anything. That might have been because no-one in radio range was in cloud, or it might have meant I missed the one call which might have been relevant to my flight. Either way, it didn't reassure me, rather the opposite. Unfortunately I cannot tie up either radio for long because I need to use them for other mandatory purposes, such as gaining ATC clearance to CAS and obtaining ATIS broadcasts and speaking to minor airfields when flying nearby.

Have you or your colleagues ever called an ATC unit when flying a glider, though? I've heard one glider pilot do it recently (on Luton, 129.55, presumably out of Dunstable Downs) and greatly appreciated his good airmanship.

Do you seriously think I've NOT, as a professional pilot, studied relevant accident statistics? Why do you think I'm contributing to this thread? For what it's worth, I was previously the flight safety officer for a government aviation department (a joint fixed wing and rotary wing search and rescue unit but we also flew heads of state and the British Royal Family). The monthly rotary wing safety topic bulletins went out of my office compiled and signed by myself.

[robin]

This thread seems to be deteriorating into glider vs IR traffic

Could I just say that there is no guarantee that any of the powered fraternity, of which I am one, are talking to the same radio service.

Recently I spoke to a CAA safety bod who had told me that when flying between Cornwall and Elstree he was always talking to a radar service.

I do the same from time to time and at weekends I have a choice between London Information or the local airfields, such as Old Sarum or Compton Abbas. So if I am talking to them, and the other guy is talking to London Information, how do we know where anyone is. Similarly, between Elstree and Wycombe who is on what frequency?

This is exactly the same as those of you whinging about glider pilots on their cloud flying frequency whilst you are on an ATC radar service (if you can get one)

[Robin400]

It has already been pointed out that portable electronic equipment such as FLARM cannot be fitted to a public transport IFR aircraft without legal certification, costing very many thousands of pounds.


You obviously fly a very expensive and sophisticated helicopter that has no means of protecting you and your passengers from risk of collision.

Legal certification of equipment such of Flarm is required to overcome this situation.

I gather that helicopters in Europe are so equipped.

[mm_flynn]

Pace,

You seem quite concerned about a threat that has never yet happened (that is a glider/power collision in IMC), do you worry about meteor showers as well? More seriously, In real life the amount of traffic in IMC above the TA and OCAS is pretty small, the real collision risks are in circuits, around approaches, in low narrow gaps around controlled airspace and below 1500 feet - (in VMC because that is when there are significant numbers of aircraft in the sky!) and in these circumstances there is nothing in the ANO Instrument Flying Rules that helps with collision avoidance. As a powered pilot, I don't need a transponder, am often talking with someone who couldn't see it anyhow (a FISO or an Approach Controller), and don't have a quadrantal to fly at (being below the TA). Being originally trained oversees, I have always found this regulatory structure uncomfortable, but it is life in the UK -

My experience of RIS is that on a poor day it is easy to get, as you are the only one on the frequency, on a nice day (with isolated cumulus a glider might be in) everyone is looking for a service and the LARS providers are going to struggle with a bunch of gliders making contact for a service (which Isn't going to make the controllers life better or his ability to provide a service to the powered community any more reliable - 'I am gliding at various altitudes and headings depending on how the lift is, not transponder equipped' - doesn't seem to be a very useful radio call - and from a glider's perspective telling ATC he is IMC or VMC doesn't really matter as the stats say he has a chance of being hit VMC but never yet been hit IMC).

[Fitter2]

Skycop

you asked the question:

Ok, so what do YOU suggest we do? Carry on as we are ignoring the facts? Fit FLARM? Fit transponders? Ban gliders from IMC? What?

I answered:

If you are seriously concerned at a minimal risk, occurring in predictable conditions (isolated towering cumulus that you almost certainly don't have to fly through), then listening briefly on a known frequency will reassure you. If you want further reassurance, then investing £400 in a FLARM will guarantee you won't bump into me, and probably not into a growing number, soon a majority, of cross-country glider pilots.

What is the question you claim I asked you - I can't find it in my response.

[Skycop]

This thread seems to be deteriorating into glider vs IR traffic


Not in my book, it's not. Nor should we let it.

Robin, Aircraft able to see and avoid under VFR and in VMC isn't really the same situation at all.

In IMC "see" obviously cannot apply and there lies a problem. Pilots of powered aircraft must give way to gliders but if gliders can't be seen because they are in IMC (and according to Prof Chris Reed above, unable to think further than they can see), how can this be done? We all need a mutually compatible system to ensure separation.

If public opinion is swayed because of an accident (and the usual media frenzy), it will undoubtedly mean less freedom for aviation in Class G.

Fitter2,
Skycop

you asked the question:

Ok, so what do YOU suggest we do? Carry on as we are ignoring the facts? Fit FLARM? Fit transponders? Ban gliders from IMC? What?


I did not ask that question, you need to re-read the posts because you have confused me with another contributor.