Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?

[Pace]

Was flying last week in a twin from a south East Airport to a North West airport.
Filed IFR, FL 100 and at first all fine. Flew a SID and then was vectored with radar headings at FL100. First to the north east, then to the west and then to the south west.

Joked that at this rate we would be making a huge oval back to where we started. Complaining that we were going in the wrong direction we were given direct to destination and dumped south east of Brize with the message contact London Info 124.75.

We were now on top of an overcast (just) at FL100 with 100 nm plus to go and were offered a basic service :(

Below the aircraft there were multiple layers to a cloubase of around 2000 feet and fairly solid on the way down.

1715 and Brize were shut. Brize the superb radar service which was always open and needed by us guys in IMC outside CAS.They used to cover a lot of the mass of uncontrolled airspace to the North and west. Their services are sadly NO more.

Shawbury closed.

At 30 miles to destination (a small airfield) told London info of our descent intention. " Nothing known ahead" and given the regional.

Passing 6000 feet in cloud one solitary glider flashed past the wing in IMC on this windy cloudy day :( too close the worst nightmare in the russian roulette out of CAS with no radar cover.

This and the new ATC services is streamlining the system? or your now on your own outside CAS? Or are we even wanted in CAS? Beware we are forgotten in GA and its dangerous in the so called big sky.

Pace

[BEagle]

Are you going to submit a CHIRP?

I've found that either Coventry or Birmingham are very helpful - Coventry in particular once gave me an excellent RIS (as it was then) when the weather-guesser's forecast proved incorrect.

Brize is never 'closed', but with the RAF's commitments and manning levels of today, the level of service outside normal hours is limited by controller workload. What frequency did you call them on - did you get any answer at all?

[IO540]

Pace - was this an IFR flight filed via Eurocontrol, with London Control your first contact unit?

If so, you should not have been dumped out of CAS (and thus lost the LC service) unless you asked them to do this.

If however your destination is not in CAS (e.g. Biggin which is Class G) they obviously have to drop you out of CAS somewhere... the question is whether this was too early for you. OCAS airports don't have a STAR so a passage of Class G cannot be avoided.

Some pilots have been dropped out much too early, leaving them to fly OCAS under the LTMA at 2400ft, in IMC, with no radar service. The recommended action in this case is to file a report. LC is not supposed to do that.

[Mike Parsons]

What was the glider doing in IMC!?

[englishal]

Due to some crazy rules, gliders are allowed in IMC without the same sort regulation that powered aeroplanes have to have.

[Fuji Abound]

Yes, gliders are allowed in IMC.

I probably did a similiar journey last week, in similiar conditions at a similiar time.

Birmingham will indeed provide an excellent service. Brise never close and you still need to ask for a transit when their LARS is closed. Easy to be caught out with this.

The problem with trips OCAS, or being dumped, is maintaining above the cloud. Often you will be forced down by the base of CAS into IMC otherwise you obvioulsy stay on top until your destination and at least hope for some protection in their procedure or if letting down without a procedure through good knowledge of where any gliders might be.

My own view these days is to avoid IMC outside CAS unless there is no alternative. Coming home it was interesting to hear the CAT asking for plenty of heading changes to avoid weather whilst maintaining below the base and skirting around the heaviest down poors with the strikefinder doing its job.

The trouble with this country is increasingly everything seems to shut around 18-00 - you can forget getting much of a service from many of the LARS units up narth. I suppose the only good thing is most people also seem to stop flying around that time so the traffic load is also down.

Bring on the day when gliders are required to carry a transponder if flying in or near cloud - non transponder should be for VMC, well clear of cloud, - hat coat etc.

[IO540]

Transponders should be mandatory anyway, and definitely for IMC.

I suspect Pace's problem is the old business where London Control will absolutely not provide a service OCAS, even when they could in workload terms.

In general, gliders in IMC are not a problem because in mucky OVC006 kind of weather there is no lift. They are a problem in the higher cloudbases e.g. N of Brize, on warm summer days.

[kestrel539]

"They are a problem in the higher cloudbases e.g. N of Brize, on warm summer days. "

To whom? and why

[Cows getting bigger]

At FL100 you could have tried London Military for a middle airspace service (UK AIP ENR 1.6.4 refers). They're normally a very accommodating bunch of individuals.

[mm_flynn]

"They are a problem in the higher cloudbases e.g. N of Brize, on warm summer days. "

To whom? and why
Maybe to people operating in IMC (looking at gauges not out the window) not wishing to have glider bits in the propellers/turbines and lighter aircraft not wishing to plummet to the earth watching the glider pilot hit the silk?

[ShyTorque]

This and the new ATC services is streamlining the system? or your now on your own outside CAS? Or are we even wanted in CAS? Beware we are forgotten in GA and its dangerous in the so called big sky.


Pace, some of us have become concerned about the gradual decline in services OCAS for years. The LARS system now falls far below the standards of coverage originally provided, especially in view of the closure of some military units under the so-called "peace dividend". Having said that, we are now better off in the London area, thanks to the increased area of service provided by Farnboroughs North and East.

Brize is never 'closed', but with the RAF's commitments and manning levels of today, the level of service outside normal hours is limited by controller workload. What frequency did you call them on - did you get any answer at all?

Beagle, Brize LARS has recently been NOTAM'd as 0900 to 1700 only.

Q) EGTT/QSEAH/IV/B/E/000/095/5145N00135W060
FROM: 09/04/02 06:19 TO: PERM
E) BRIZE NORTON LOWER AIRSPACE RADAR ADVISORY SERVICE (LARS) AMEND
AVAILABILITY TO READ 0900-1700 WINTER (SUMMER 1 HR EARLIER)
AIP ENR 1-6-3-3 REFERS

Here's another retrograde step:

Q) EGTT/QSEAH/IV/B/E/000/095/5244N00038W030
FROM: 08/09/06 13:56 TO: 09/06/11 12:00 EST
E) COTTESMORE LARS HR MON-THU 0730-1700, FRI 0730-1130 OR UNTIL CEASE
FLYING AT COTTESMORE (EGXJ) OR WITTERING (EGXT) WHICHEVER IS LATER.

Fact is, more and more areas of UK are being left with no LARS coverage.

Time for all aircraft (including gliders) to be fitted with Mode C and all those above a certain size also with TCAS or similar?

Brise never close and you still need to ask for a transit when their LARS is closed. Easy to be caught out with this.


Not at FL60 though. ;)

[Pace]

suspect Pace's problem is the old business where London Control will absolutely not provide a service OCAS, even when they could in workload terms.

The glider confrontation was not the radar service problem as it happened on the limit of what would have been The Brize range and in the descent. I did the same flight in the morning and had both routes airways for most of the trip as planned.

I mentioned the glider confrontation to warn others to be aware of flying IMC out of radar cover and communication with other air users.The big sky is not always that big.

The evening return involved a lot of radar steers which turned me south west bound and way off track and the intended routing and then to be literally dumped for a basic service with London info on top of solid with 100 nm to go with a trip which was filed as an IFR and airways for 90% of the route was surprising.

London Mil will be the choice in future on this routing. I was not aware that there is still a service from Brize after 1700 since a couple of months ago?

Thanks for some of the info posted as its useful with all the changes and streamlining in the atc system at present.

Pace

[shortstripper]

If you are outside CAS you are on your own to a certain extent surely? If you want certain separation in IMC then stay within CAS.

Gliders have been allowed to cloud fly outside of CAS for many years and you should know that?

Not ment to sound inflammitory although reading it back it does sound that way. It's just that every now and then this comes up and the glider pilot is seen as the bad guy with everyone wanting to curtail his/her freedom. If you want the protection of CAS then surely you can stay within it. Outside it's open and long may it remain that way.

SS

PS ... Flippin "a" key keeps sticking! grrrrrrr

[Jumbo Driver]

PS ... Flippin "a" key keeps sticking! grrrrrrr

... and the "r" key, perhaps ...


JD
;)

[shortstripper]

Yep, that one too! :p

[Fuji Abound]

Not ment to sound inflammitory although reading it back it does sound that way. It's just that every now and then this comes up and the glider pilot is seen as the bad guy with everyone wanting to curtail his/her freedom. If you want the protection of CAS then surely you can stay within it. Outside it's open and long may it remain that way.

This implies everyone outside CAS is on an equal footing. They are not, and that is why I would disagree with you.

Gliders, generally operate in a area, and know what other gliders are operating in the same area,

Gliders often carry FLARM, a system unique to their own fraternity,

Glider pilots usually wear a chute,

Gliders are more difficult to see,

Gliders are poor primary radar targets.

Now I have nothing against gliders, but gliding often requires glider pilots place themselves in a position likely to be of greatest threat to other airspace users and in doing so they do nothing to ensure their conspicuity to other users - sorry chaps but if you are gliding in IMC or in an out of a broken cloud I think you are lacking in consideration for the powered users of the same airspace if you are not transponding.

I see no justifiable reason for gliders having any special priviliges; the sooner there is a mandatory requirment for gliders to carry transponders, unless they are clear of cloud in VMC, the better.

You are a hazard to everyone else and that is not fair!

[Pace]

Not ment to sound inflammitory although reading it back it does sound that way. It's just that every now and then this comes up and the glider pilot is seen as the bad guy with everyone wanting to curtail his/her freedom. If you want the protection of CAS then surely you can stay within it. Outside it's open and long may it remain that way.

SS

Not pointing a finger at gliders as they have as much right to fly.

There are unique hazards that gliders pose but thats another subject we can discuss which IMO puts a question mark on them flying IMC.

regretfully there are many locations in the UK where flight completely in CAS from takeoff to TD is impossible. Even with Airlines this is the case.

I posted a while back concerning LondonDerry where the approaches are procedural and there is no RAS yet many commercial flights operate into there out of CAS. The same goes for many other UK Locations.

With the restriction on operating hours on what we have relied on ie Military RAS the risks of collision in the Big Sky are inreasing and maybe we should all have transponders and Ticas flying in IMC out of CAS so we can look out for each other. As radar services decline so does our safety.

The big sky arguement is made for the small chance of collision but in this case we passed in no more than 50 metres of each other solid IMC.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

The big sky arguement is made for the small chance of collision but in this case we passed in no more than 50 metres of each other solid IMC.

Obvioulsy not that "solid" then. :}

[Pace]

Obvioulsy not that "solid" then.

Drive a car or land a plane in 200 metres of fog then 50 metres of fog.50 metres is fairly dense although not "cannot see the wingtip dense" :)
Fuji have sent you a PM

Pace

[shortstripper]

I can sympathise with what you are saying Pace. After all, until last week I hadn't flown a glider for nearly 20 years, and have done the IMC ... so I'm not just seeing it from the glider viewpoint. However, despite your near miss, I still think that you cannot expect a huge level of controlled separation outside CAS. There are no garauntees after all, and no implication of separation even between transponder equipped IFR craft (Not all TCAS are equal, even if you are so equipped).

I also think the title is misleading. It's not a "new danger" as it's been this way all of my 22 years of flying (with few "if any?" collisions between gliders and GA in IMC).

I'm not convinced by the "mke everyone have transponders and TCAS" argument, and think it would be the death of lot of grass roots type flyers. You might think that it would mean complete safety from risk, but I remain to be convinced!

SS

[Pace]

I can sympathise with what you are saying Pace. After all, until last week I hadn't flown a glider for nearly 20 years, and have done the IMC ... so I'm not just seeing it from the glider viewpoint. However, despite your near miss, I still think that you cannot expect a huge level of controlled separation outside CAS. There are no garauntees after all, and no implication of separation even between transponder equipped IFR craft (Not all TCAS are equal, even if you are so equipped).

Shortstripper

I have flown for 20 years and 4000 plus hours without a close glider encounter especially one in IMC.

Maybe a case of lighning not striking twice. I was tempted just to forget it but posted here and put in a report more to highlight the threat.

I am not saying it was the gliders fault or mine but probably a freak situation which happened.
Neither of us took evasive action and it could have equally been another light aircraft. It Just happened to be a Glider.

99% of glider sightings have been under the clouds. I have only ever seen a handful above and feel pretty secure in serious IMC or above clouds.

Would a powered aircraft be allowed to fly in clouds with the equiptment levels of a glider or the instrument training of the glider pilot?
Powered aircraft tend to fly levels to avoid meeting each other and travel in a straight line. Gliders dont and cant ! Could anything be done to improve that situation or do gliders live on grandfather privalages from times long past? its a tricky call.

A RAS does give a certain extra level of protection. The limited hours of Brize now removes a vital service covering a large area of UAS and that has to increase the risk of collision not just with gliders?

Pace

[shortstripper]

It's a hard one, and you'd think in this technological age we could come up with something practical, light and cheap to eliminate risk. Unfortunately I don't think TCAS is it! FLARM is good but not perfect. However, I think it's working on the right lines, unlike TCAS that seems heavy and "steam powered" in comparison.

SS

[S-Works]

Pace, Not wanting to be funny, be surely you must understand that there is an element of risk flying IFR OCAS? Your glider may have been close but it still proves that the big sky theory works and for you to have seen it then it can't have been completely IMC!

I am off the view that if I want proper separation when IFR then I fly in the airways. Sometimes this can give a more convoluted routing. There are not that many places where you can't fly airways to and certainly the routing you have described is easily done on the airways albeit at the cost of a little extra time.

You cant have both!!

[Pace]

There are not that many places where you can't fly airways to and certainly the routing you have described is easily done on the airways albeit at the cost of a little extra time.

Bose

This was a double trip ie I did both there and back in the morning with no problems and most of the trip airways.

The return was all radar headings which ended up sending me in a large oval south west not on my filed route.

I ended up down near compton. To stay airways from there would have required a routing to BCN and then north. Quite a long way especially as I had already made a tour of the UK keeping london control happy.

In future maybe London Mil if Brize are no longer playing :)

Pace

[IO540]

Pace

There is an element of risk in all flight at "GA levels".

OCAS, there could be somebody there, and gliders only just show on radar. I have flown close to huge h/a baloons and the Farnborough radar controller saw absolutely zilch. Statistically, the risk is very low - ~ 1 midair a year in the UK and most of them below 1000ft.

ICAS, there could also be somebody there - busting CAS. Let's face it, much GA "navigation" hangs on a shoestring. The risk is just lower but it's still there.

In IMC the risk is very low indeed. No IMC midairs in the UK since at least WW2.

CAT has a very low exposure (just as well, eh?) because they climb at a few thousand fpm and are quickly above the levels at which any stray GA will be found. The exposure from busting GA traffic is mostly on the descent, when on the glideslope.

In VMC, the best protection comes from altitude. At FL100 there is no casual GA, and anybody that high will know what they are doing. I have very very rarely even seen another aircraft on any airways flight, at around my level.

A radar service is worth something but not a lot because a lot of traffic (which I am sure does show up) is unreported.

But you must know all this already.

[Pace]

10540

Yes there is an element of risk in flying but as in all risky occupations we try to elimate those risks as far as possible.

Ie it doesnt matter whether you race cars, scuba dive or whatever there is a risk.
Scuba dive you dive with a buddy, you follow rules you have computers to calculate your nitrogen levels, you have two regulators should one fail etc.

Racing you have special fuel tanks, flameproof clothes, roll bars etc.

Aircraft dont fly too well if they hit each other and so we try to use all thats available to us to avoid that.

I was always taught that whatever you do thats risky to always have an "out" another plan if something goes wrong another door to take.

If you do anything without that out its Russian roulette.

I came very close to hitting a glider. The Gods were kind the trigger I pulled didnt hold the live bullit but it made me aware.

Of course we take risks many of us here including me fly in nearly all weather at all times of year and the reason I bothered to post this was to share my experience in this flight with others hopefully and statistically it will never happen again.

Pace

[scooter boy]

I have to agree with Fuji here.

Mandatory (mode C) transponder carriage for all traffic in IMC would definitely be a step forwards as far as maintaining separation is concerned.

It would be entirely fair for people to fly into cloud with no transponder if their only risk was collision with another non-transponding aircraft.

More than a little selfish to wipe out somebody who had invested in additional safety equipment I think.

For those of us who believe that while travelling in objects closing at several hundred miles per hour in poor viz it is good to maintain separation then there is TCAS.

Having flown with TCAS for a few years now I am convinced it has improved flight safety for me.

The one thing that is very annoying is when traffic is transponding mode A with no altitude and you get a spurious traffic alert (as I did yesterday over Filton in IMC) which looks a bit like this :bored: yellow dot. Believe me, there is nothing that makes you look outside the cockpit (and into the murk) more than hearing "traffic...traffic".

Low airway routings are simply not practical in the UK on any of the routes I regularly fly.

Coverage of IFR traffic OCAS is poor - I have also been dumped and told to "freecall XXXX" - no problem if VFR, but in proper IMC it is unwelcome extra workload.

SB

[Ivor_Novello]

A radar service is worth something but not a lot because a lot of traffic (which I am sure does show up) is unreported.

IO540
could you explain what you mean by that ? To me it sounds like you are suggesting that a radar controller would not report unknown traffic observed in the vicinity of an aircraft that is receiving a radar service ?

[IO540]

I don't know how this happens, but it happens quite a lot.

Maybe some planes are not so visible on radar?

I don't think the controller has an absolute obligation to call out every traffic within X miles. This is not like a radar controller doing an approach service who can get the sack if separation is lost.

[Fuji Abound]

Pace, Not wanting to be funny, be surely you must understand that there is an element of risk flying IFR OCAS? Your glider may have been close but it still proves that the big sky theory works and for you to have seen it then it can't have been completely IMC!

Bose – most unlike you, you seem confused. Either the big sky works or there is an element of risk? You have to make your mind up.

Look it is simple really.

We all know the evidence would suggest you can fly in IMC for a whole lifetime without TAS or TS and never have a collision.

However, just like the lottery ad says – one day, it could be youuuu.

Should we expect people to pay to eliminate and almost non existent risk?

That is the conundrum.

Many young men pay life assurance premiums. The risk of them dying young men is very small, but they feel it is worth while insurance.

For me the added cost to my flying of fitting a transponder is small – mode C being fine. With the current generation of compact transponders I am convinced they could be fitted to many gliders if they wished to do so. I accept that FLARM is ideally suited to gliders who realistically could not fit TAS and characteristically fly in close proximity to each other.

However if you share airspace where visual rules no longer work and therefore the only mechanism for avoiding each other is to keep your fingers crossed is it so unreasonable that I should expect you to fit the same technology that the rest of us use in these conditions.

You have an alternative – don’t fly in or near cloud unless you have a transponder because it could be youuuu and the thought of an entirely avoidable mid air horrify me.

[IO540]

I agree - transponders should be mandatory for all flight in IMC.

[Fuji Abound]

I don't know how this happens, but it happens quite a lot.

Another fascination with TAS is indeed how much traffic does not get called that is clearly evident on TAS - fortunately I have yet to have traffic not called, visible on TAS, that I would have hit.

Perhaps I have been very unlucky, but as I have said before I have had three near misses. In reality if I had done nothing the first would have undoubtedly missed me (althoung interestingly that one was in CAS and was the subject of Controller error, and an apology which I was happy not to take further), the second was OCAS and again I suspect would have been a miss (I wasnt the flying pilot, but the pilot never saw the aircraft until after we had taken avoiding action), but the third did unnerve me.

The other twin passed directly under me with minimal vertical seperation - I would guess no more than 50 feet. Unsurprisngly it all happened so quickly, it was almost surreal. However I found myself contemplating the reprecussions of even two light twins meeting at 200 knots. I still cant fully visualise how horrifying would be the moment of impact never mind the debri below.

I accept not relevant to this discussion as the instant above was in VMC, but the reuslt in IMC would be equally horrifying - and in both cases you would probably know very little about it!

[chrisN]

I commence my general remarks with a preamble: I am a glider pilot, I am not opposed to transponders for gliders under all circumstances, but I believe that they should be a voluntarily fit at present. They cannot be mandatory. The reasons are well rehearsed and I won’t repeat them in this post. But an anecdote, for those tempted to think they are a panacea: 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.

We could go on all day about differences in philosophy as to what is acceptable risk, and what is not, in somebody else's chosen field of aviation. I have long given up any hope of convincing power pilots about aspects of gliding that they don't involve themselves in. In the end, however, I do believe that the statistics are a fair reflection of the relative dangers. In the past four decades, I know of only two glider collisions in cloud, and probably two more, both fatal, at or close to cloud base when radio for separation was not being used. By contrast, instances of powered aircraft hitting the ground, and/or each other, are rather more numerous. I know where I think our dangers, and yours, seem to be greater.

It seems, however, to be a feature of the human condition to fear more a risk with elements beyond our own control than those we think we can avoid by our superior expertise.

What kills most in the power GA world? CFIT and loss of control in IMC?
This is from the CAA Safety Sense leaflet- Airmanship:

a. There is an average of one fatal GA accident a month in the United Kingdom.
b. The main fatal accident causes during the last 20 years have been:
• continued flight into bad weather, including impact with high ground and loss of control in IMC
• loss of control in visual met conditions, including stall/spin
• low aerobatics and low flying
• mid-air collisions (sometimes each pilot knew the other was there)
• runway too short for the aircraft’s weight or performance
• colliding with obstacles, perhaps being too low on the approach


What are people here most worried about? Collision with gliders.

I have seen two sorts of data. 1 – actual fatal collisions, glider-glider and glider-power. The former outnumber the latter by about 10 to 1. 2 – airprox data for GA/glider incidents. The vast majority are within or close to the gliding site circuit.

I don’t have data for power/power collisions (does anybody else?), but I believe there are more than the four power-glider collisions in the last 40 years, all in VMC:
----------------------

8 March 1981. (AAIB report 7/81). Blanik/PA28. The PA28 was doing an Overhead Join onto Cranwell Main. It flew into the glider which was being launched. 2 glider pilots killed.

--------------------

1984: A Rockwell Commander flew straight into the back of a glider flying straight, between thermals, that it caught up. The glider pilot was killed. The Rockwell and occupants survived. The only case I know of in the UK where it was not near a gliding club.
-------------------------------------
(Dunno the date, but years ago) Over Farnborough airfield between a glider from the Farnborough gliding club and a light aircraft from Blackbushe. The Astir pilot baled out and landed safely on the airfield. The power pilot flew back to Blackbushe with his pupil instead .
----------------------------------
May 1996 Grumman.

A Grumman light single flew into a Ka13 from behind, sliced the outboard couple of feet off the Ka13's wing tip with its' rudder. The Ka13 landed safely at its nearby base (Haddenham), the Grumman went into a spiral dive and struck the ground very steeply at about 200 knots, the single occupant was killed.

The collision happened in the open FIR, in good visibility, well clear of cloud. From the heading of the Grumman it seemed quite likely it was tracking towards a nearby VOR.
---------------------------------
(I have omitted one or two collisions between gliders and tugs operating from the same gliding site – they were nothing to do with IMC, and nothing to do with general GA/glider collision risks. I know of one that was fatal.)

Glider/power collisions in IMC are zero so far, for at least two probable reasons, IMHO.

One is the much rehearsed “big sky, little bullet”, as mentioned by others.

The other is that glider IMC flights are relatively few, and those few are almost all in summer cumulus (and of course only in Class G), not continuous stratus etc. which is what I suspect most often causes power to be in IMC.


With glider cloud flying at least we have a procedure that is usually sufficient to ensure that there are not two gliders in the same cloud at the same height at the same time. My personal opinion is that it is probably more effective than, e.g., the see and avoid manoeuvres, which aerobatic pilots (power and gliding), to name just one field, indulge in prior to such exercises.


Gliders that cloud fly normally call out on 130.4. It is not a legal requirement, but most conform. Power pilots could listen out on that, but I believe most don't. That is their choice. As I have written before, “ . . . if [power GA] wishes to fly in cloud . . . when gliders may be in cloud (i.e. on days of separated summer cumulus, not in stratus which we can’t get into), I recommend listening out on 130.4 before entering such cumulus clouds. Of course, you don't have to do, but in my view it would be advisable in those circumstances.”

Power in IFR in class G is taking that risk. They also take the risk of colliding with each other - there is no one frequency that all power without exception will be using in class G IMC, and there may be some non-radio power anyway (just as some cloud-flying gliders may be non-radio). That's how things developed here, and there is no significant accident rate from these causes - unlike VMC/VFR where there are more frequent collisions between G/G (about 1 fatal every year), G/P (one every 10 years) and P/P (something in between?).

If you are still reading this long missive, thanks for your patience. Finally, may I point out that the present discussion arose from a “miss” between two aircraft both entitled to be where they were. Last time I got involved in such a thread, about the perceived need by power pilots for gliders to carry transponders and/or not to fly in cloud anyway, was triggered by a collision between two powered aircraft, in VMC, at low level, and both in touch with ATC. It is typical that powered aircraft collide most often with each other and very rarely with gliders.

So, where are the real risks? I know what I think.

Best wishes for your safe flying – Chris N.

[edit - spelling corrected]

[ShyTorque]

To expect all IFR/IMC flights to use CAS is completely unrealistic and such a suggestion presumably comes from non instrument rated pilots.

IFR helicopters are routinely required to operate in IMC in transit of Class G. Most helicopter flights begin and terminate outside controlled airspace and often there is no CAS to utilise. I try to transit CAS where able, as I see a control service as an additional help to maintaining separation from other traffic. However, it doesn't always guarantee separation from gliders who can and will operate inside CAS without talking to the controlling ATC unit.

[chrisN]

ST, I understand why you feel strongly about this, but I do ask you to keep a sense of perspective. Yes, I expect a few gliders sometimes infringe CAS without speaking to ATC.

But not nearly as many as GA power pilots. Of 106 recorded infringements of Stansted CAS in 2008, none of those identified was a glider, two were balloons, and the rest were power or “unknown”. My conversations with NATS suggests that no “unknowns” in this case were gliders.

Do you have any countervailing statistics?

Regards – Chris N.

[Fuji Abound]

Like any other machine, they are not 100% reliable.

I think that is a pointless comment. Pacemakers arent 100% reliable but presumably you would want one - as matter stands transponders are the best mandated technology we have.



We could go on all day about differences in philosophy as to what is acceptable risk, and what is not, in somebody else's chosen field of aviation.


Your argument would be relevant were it not for the fact that your chosen and my chosen field of operation is the same field. If you wish to stay in your own field then I couldnt care less what you do - as it is you dont.


What kills most in the power GA world? CFIT and loss of control in IMC?


Now you have totally lost me. Malaria kills more people in Africa than Billhartzia - I know lets not bother doing any research on preventing people dieing of Billhartzia.


So, where are the real risks? I know what I think.



The risks are very small on that much we agree. The risk of CAT colliding in CAS if they were not fitted with TCAS is very small. However, a very few accidents were enough to persuade the authorities to mandate TCAS.

See and avoid in VMC has a chance - I can accept gliding in VMC without transponders. In IMC see and avoid has no chance.

I think it is totally selfish to be flying in IMC and do absolutely nothing to avoid collision other than keep your fingers crossed. Be in no doubt, if you are gliding in IMC without a transponder that is exactly what you are doing.

[scooter boy]

Thanks Chris,

To be fair I have seen a fair few TCAS returns from gliders while flying in the vicinity of gliding sites - all mode A though - none seem to have altitude encoding for some reason.
Are any figures available re: number of gliders with transponders fitted already?

So, could I request that while you're fitting the rest of the UK gliding fleet with mode-C transponders you also have every glider painted in dyno-rod dayglo orange please? ;) I agree that a degree of natural separation may be provided by most power pilots intentionally dodging the buildups of fair weather cumulus on a good gliding day (you glider guys are welcome to the bumps!)

"Gliders that cloud fly normally call out on 130.4. I recommend listening out on 130.4 before entering such cumulus clouds. Of course, you don't have to do, but in my view it would be advisable in those circumstances.”
Listening out on box 2 would be pretty impracticable. I know this would give a general alert (provided they were transmitting) but how would we know which cloud to avoid? - "I'm in the anvil shaped one 2 miles west of Stoke Poges" wouldn't be a great deal of use.

The sky is there for all of us to enjoy - not being visible to others is a bit like driving fast down a country lane at night with no lights on, if you wipe yourself out then that was down to a choice you made - if you have a head-on collision with somebody who had their headlights switched on and wipe them out then that is "causing death by dangerous driving".

Looking at the cases you cited the gliding fraternity usually come off worse from the various minglings of aluminium and fibreglass - so there is definitely an incentive there for you guys.
I am of the opinion that the more one flies in lower airspace, the more likely that the risk of a midair becomes. Having been up to London a couple of times in the last month the airspace under the LTMA seems to have become significantly busier all of a sudden. It is amazing how quickly the traffic density decreases once you are 30-40 miles out.

Q. how do you know which cloud (or bit of sky) is "hot" and which is not?
A. TCAS and a transponder (imperfect but the best we have at present)

SB

[ShyTorque]

ChrisN, Please just read again what I wrote here, not what you might have thought I might have written. I don't want to discuss again here what we have gone over in the past.

I posted here in response to the original concern about the lack of a LARS service, which increasingly affects all types of aircraft in Class G airspace.

I'm definitely not anti gliders and after thirty two years of flying for a living I feel I am fully aware of the level of risk they pose to me. As I'm sure I told you before, I began my flying in gliders some thirty eight years ago and I may well go back to it one day. The only thing I'm truly anti is a mid air collision. I fulfil my obligations regarding see and avoid to the best of my ability and have no issue in that respect or the rules of the air. I just can't help being irritated by the blinkered attitude of "We'll fly where we like, how we like, you must avoid us - and we've got parachutes, you haven't" brigade. Four 500mph helicopter rotor blades through the cockpit wouldn't leave a glider pilot, or any other, unscathed.

Powered aircraft very often do appear on someone's radar or if no radar service is available, they do also appear on TCAS. Of course they do enter CAS when not authorised, but we can see them far better than we can see gliders.

Gliders most often don't apear on radar and their pilots do routinely enter CAS, deliberately or not. I encountered a glider orbitting right on the centreline of a major UK airport only about three weeks ago, ATC were unaware of it inside the airspace and the routing they gave us was straight towards it. Another airport, Doncaster has recently published a NOTAM about gliders not being on frequency and in CAS but unknown to ATC.

The possibility of aircraft being required to operate without a useful radar service in the UK's open FIR in cloud is increasing as ATC units offer less of a service.

[IO540]

What % of glider pilots go into IMC?

[Cows getting bigger]

One problem with gliders is visibility. Not wanting to enter the transponder discussion, it would be nice if the had strobes.

[Pace]

What % of glider pilots go into IMC?

The one I met :)

Most stay under clouds but this one dispelled the theory of only dipping in and out of isolated cumulus lumps.

The cloud tops were FL90 and overcast with multiple layers below and a fair amount of mountain wave.

I think it is a fair comment to state that all aircraft flying in cloud regardless of type must be transponder equipt to mode C

Gliders have certain unique characteristics

Poor Radar returns

usually white and difficult to see

inability to maintain seperation levels in cloud

tend to stay orbiting in one area ie a fairly static target rather than a fast moving one

Minimal equiptment

Surely it must be the more experienced glider pilots in the expensive high performance gliders who need to be in clouds or at higher levels and they should like the rest of us have to meet the cost of having a transponder.

We all have a responsability to each other especially now as we appear to be more alone in IMC outside CAS. It is not just GA that operate in that airspace.

Hitting another aircraft may as one poster put it be equivalent of having the odds of winning the lottery. But then someone does win the lottery and I hope its not an airline.

Pace

[cats_five]

<snip>
Surely it must be the more experienced glider pilots in the expensive high performance gliders who need to be in clouds or at higher levels and they should like the rest of us have to meet the cost of having a transponder.
<snip>


As I understand it (I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong!), cloud flying in gliders has got less common as performance has improved. When you are flying an old wood glider with a low best L/D value you need to wring every last bit of height out of a climb (so that you might get to the next one), even when it goes into a cloud. With more modern glass ships (and I don't mean new exotic ones, Mary's Pegase has far better performance than a Skylark and the design is getting on for 30 years old) one fly a lot, lot futher from a given height hence on can make XC programs with climbs are taken to cloud base (or thereabouts) rather than up into the clouds.

It's also something that looks as if it may well change under EASA pilot licencing - there will have to be specific training to do it.

[belowradar]

Pace - Totally agree with your view on this, A midair will kill power and glider pilot without discrimination ! there are some purists who don't wan't to give up the right to fly imc in a glider and not carry a radio or talk to anyone ("no electric's dear boy !") - the glider equivelant of "skinny dipping"...or maybe they are just not aware of the danger they place themselves in when they fly IMC (although I doubt it because they must be experienced hands to be able to do that).

Common sense must dictate that skinny dipping whilst fun and exhilirating is also daft and potentially wreckless to self and others.

I have flown power and piston but both should be fun without threat of death due to others intransigence.

stay out of cloud or get a transponder / radar service:ok:

[chrisN]

I am replying mostly out of courtesy to those posing questions. I realise that some will be unmoved by anything I write.

SB, I know of no data re gliders with transponders. Very few, growing very slowly. No idea why some with only A, guess maybe they got some cheap ones discarded by power GA upgrading.

Can’t paint plastic gliders dayglo or anything else, except very limited areas – wingtips and top of fin, and only when permitted – sun heat softens the structure if it gets absorbed, and it is banned by certification.

Gliders in cloud are rare. Only a few days each year make it worth trying, and few of us do it even then. On the few occasions I cloud fly in East Anglia, I am often the only one. We don’t/can’t when ST and others mostly have to fly IMC, because under overcast conditions there is no lift to get us up there.

If you have a spare moment, monitor 103.4 – you will hear lots of chat, but almost none about being in cloud – so no gliders are up in them then. If/when we do, calls entering cloud should be with reference to distance and bearing from places marked on 1:500,000 chart, and they will rarely be in other than isolated cu when you can go round with power if it really worries you.

Pace, wave is different – yes, gliders can climb close to cloud in wave. Not usually in cloud, however, in my experience, except by mistake when it unexpectedly forms around one. I can’t comment usefully on what you saw.

IO, I don’t know the percentage, but from observation, listening out, and talking to others, I guess very low. I do 50-100 flights each year, about 50-60 hours typically in total, and probably only 20-40 minutes in cloud in that time. And I do more than most. Nobody else in my club (say 40 solo pilots) flies in cloud at all.

CGB, strobes of sufficient power are even more power hungry than transponders. I wish we had them, but know of no approved mods., and the technology is against it as a useful aid.

ST, I did read what you wrote. I understand why you fly IMC in class G. I do not think I will ever be there when you have to. I did not address LARS because it is a well known issue about which I can do nothing.

I do not defend anyone using CAS without ATC contact. I call ATC, and some others do. I don’t know figures. I do know that such data as exists indicates that gliders are not the main problem. I wish gliders were none of the problem. The BGA and its people like me never, ever, condone it. (Some are simply mistakes, just as some power infringements are. We are all human.) We try to educate pilots, and brief accordingly. I and others have helped trace known infringers and take action. Beyond that, I know no more of how to fix that, than I can fix all those power pilots like one who told me he “cloud dances” near a gliding club, and didn’t know gliders could go into cloud.

Chris N.

[Fuji Abound]

I am replying mostly out of courtesy to those posing questions. I realise that some will be unmoved by anything I write.

Not at all, your posts are very well informed and constitute a convincing case for not mandating the carriage of transponders by gliders in VMC. Whether the case is sufficiently persuasive is a debate for another day, but it is enough that the CAA were clearly persuaded for the time being.

I for one am certainly very grateful to you for opening my eyes about gliding. We would all be poorer were your activities restricted unnecesarily.

That said, I hold that in IMC you are a danger to every other user of the airspace; you seem convinced you are a special case.

Please tell me why those who wish to enter cloud cannot carry one of the new breed of compact transponders and turn the thing on when ever they enter cloud?

[Cows getting bigger]

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/download/file.php?avatar=1370_1229456779.jpg

This works quite well.

[chrisN]

Fuji, the reasons vary, as posted several times before.

The glider I flew most until 2005 (Ka6E, made 1968, bought very second hand, construction mostly wood/fabric) for 20+ years had no more panel space, no more battery space, and was already on the upper limit of max permissible weight. It had no approved scheme. Typical for older gliders of that era.

The glider I now fly (Lak 17A, built 2005, mostly carbon fibre) originally had no approved transponder installation scheme and only one battery barely sufficient for a long flight with normal instruments – I once finished a competition flight switching things off as voltage dropped from 12+ to about 7.

As I am not the tallest pilot (about 5’7”), I fly it with its adjustable seat back one notch forward, and have found a way to carry two more batteries behind it. Not every glider or pilot could accommodate this. I count them as removable portable equipment and so not needing EASA approval. I hope I am right.

The manufacturer has since obtained EASA certification for an approved transponder antenna installation, but included in the approval only 3 specific named transponders, of which at least two would not fit into my panel (which they made, fitting the instruments I asked for, and leaving one small hole for a transponder control unit such as Trig). Unfortunately, Trig is not one of the 3 approved units, so I still can’t fit it. I don’t know what I would have to do, or pay, to have another unit approved, and look to the CAA to make it easier. EASA has not helped in this – in the old days, the BGA could have approved it cheaply and easily..

Many new gliders now being made do have approved schemes. A number of slightly older ones have retrofit approved schemes. If they need a new panel, however, I think it is back to the approved mod issue.

My perception is that most owners are not fitting transponders because of a mixture of reasons – most don’t use CAS, most don’t cloud-fly, most know that glider/glider collisions (one fatality a year on average for the last 20 years, as well as the non-fatal ones) are far more likely than glider with anything else (4 in 40 years), and transponders won’t help those, whereas Flarm will. More are fitting Flarm, few transponders. Flarm is mandatory for continental flying near mountains, and for competitions in some parts of the world. It is cheap (ish - £500 or less) and addresses what people see as an issue. Flarm + transponder + PCAS just won’t fit in most gliders, and without PCAS, TXp is useless for glider/glider alerts. Flarm gives much more useful alerts – level, above, or below, and which direction, and only if on conflicting courses not just nearby (clever algorithm).

In the long term, I think Transponders + ADS-B or something like it might be an interoperable compromise – but I’m not holding my breath. It would probably be less useful in alerts than Flarm, unless a similar algorithm could be incorporated.

Any technical solution will be a long time being widely adopted, unless mandated – gliders last as long as powered aircraft, EASA changes are difficult and disproportionately expensive, and most people simply don’t see anything needing fixing. They spend their money on what are their priorities – doesn’t everybody?

Just saw CGB’s picture. Not EASA approved, I believe.

Chris N

[Cows getting bigger]

Chris, interesting. The RAF seem to think the scheme doesn't affect airworthiness so why the difference with EASA. Maybe another one for the Nimrod/C130/Chinook thread. :\

PS. I see that Cranfield did some trials at Bicester a few years back; I wonder if the results of the study were taken forward.

[ShyTorque]

The problem seems to be a lack of education in many cases. I'm not criticising any one group but suffice it to say that some think that the gaining of a basic aviation licence of any sort is all they need; no more need be learned. I've been in the profession since 1971 and hold the view that if I learned nothing new on a flight it's because I'd stopped trying to learn. I won't ever stop trying to learn; if I do I'll give it up.

One thing I have noticed in some pilots is a lack of awareness about the true numbers of airborne traffic in Class G in UK. Some obviously think that lookout is the answer to everyone's VFR issues. From experience, it certainly isn't; the RAF taught us that in our early training. About thirty years ago a study was carried out (by RAE Farnborough I think) and the reality of the inadequacies of the human eyesight in the aviation environment is frightening.

As someone who tries to gain an ATC radar service where appropriate and as a long term TCAS/TAS user, I'm amazed by the number of other pilots who just don't comply with the rules of the air with regard to collision avoidance. I put this down to a failure of lookout on their part because I'm sure no-one would deliberately fail to take the necessary and mandatory avoiding action on another aircraft but many do fail to do so. I'm sure I've failed to see a few in my time too, see the previous paragraph.

These very same pilots who don't look out properly under "see and avoid", have no on-board collision avoidance equipment and don't think it a good idea to seek an ATC service are probably the very same ones who don't believe there is a problem. They fail to see other aircraft around them and therefore in their ignorance believe the sky is less busy than it really is.

[gpn01]

As gliders can't always be fitted with TCAS/Transponder/battery consuming devices then we remain reliant on a good lookout/'big sky' theory. The problem with lookout though is that quite often closing speeds are very high - so why don't we simply mandate a lower max cruising speed in Class G? I'd like to propose 60kts as that's the speed that my glider flies most efficiently at. That'll buy us all far more time to see and avoid each other. Also makes a collision in cloud much more survivable, particularly if you're wearing a parachute (which I presume anybody flying in cloud OCAS does as a matter of course).

On a more serious note, I think ChrisN illustrates the wider issue very well - yes there is a small risk of collision but it's much much smaller than other risks.

[RatherBeFlying]

powerFlarm - FLARM und ADS-B (http://www.powerflarm.com) has been announced. Their website is still German only.

What I like is that you will get alerts for ADS-B (Mode S) equipped a/c as well as Flarm equipped a/c. Helicopters use them too for cable and glider avoidance in mountanous terrain.

Think of PowerFlarm as a dirt cheap TCAS that will also warn you about gliders, especially as CAT is going to Mode S.

[chrisN]

CGB, the conspicuity trials were written up at the time, and remarkably, showed no improvement and actually some worsening. Counter-intuitive, I know. The authors thought that perhaps the dayglo stripes acted more like camouflage breaking up the outline than aiding visual acquisition.

But in any case, as BGA Laws and Rules has it as a “recommended practice”:

RP25. It is possible that gliders may be rendered more conspicuous in certain conditions by applying large, bright coloured patches. As coloured surfaces absorb more heat and this can appreciably weaken the resin used in the construction of Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic and Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic gliders, it is strongly recommended that before applying colour in such cases, the guidance and advice of the glider manufacturer or the BGA Technical Committee is sought.

The only glider manuals I have seen mention it, limit paint to tips. It would be a brave inspector/BGA person to go against the manufacturer of an EASA glider, IMHO. Dunno about the RAF.

Chris N.

[mm_flynn]

powerFlarm - FLARM und ADS-B (http://www.powerflarm.com) has been announced. Their website is still German only.

A very interesting device. However, there are a couple of key issues with it
1 - EASA doesn't allow Mode-S elementary aircraft to couple the Mode-S and GPS to send position data on the ADS-B link, so detecting Mode-S aircraft with a cruise speed of less than 250 kts is going to be a challenge
2 - FLARM, due to its light weight and low power output is not detectable at significant range
3 - Gliders must be hit by Cat even less than they are by smaller powered aircraft, and even if you know the CAT is there, it is still the glider that needs to maneuver.

However, it does show what could be done with ADS-B and gives some confidence that in the coming years this issue will be resolved.

[ShyTorque]

What kills most in the power GA world? CFIT and loss of control in IMC?
This is from the CAA Safety Sense leaflet- Airmanship:

a. There is an average of one fatal GA accident a month in the United Kingdom.
b. The main fatal accident causes during the last 20 years have been:
• continued flight into bad weather, including impact with high ground and loss of control in IMC
• loss of control in visual met conditions, including stall/spin
• low aerobatics and low flying
• mid-air collisions (sometimes each pilot knew the other was there)
• runway too short for the aircraft’s weight or performance
• colliding with obstacles, perhaps being too low on the approach


Addressing these points:

Flight into bad weather.
Part of the IFR job, that's what we're discussing.
Impact with high ground and loss of control in IMC.
A PPL operating outside of his personal limitations, maybe. IR'd professional pilot in a passenger carrying transit in a fully equipped IFR aircraft? Unlikely.
Loss of control in VMC, including stall/spin.
Not in my aircraft, it's not a fixed wing so it can't stall or spin
Low aerobatics and low flying.
I do neither these days, I have no need and no intention.
Runway too short.
Helicopters don't use runways.
Colliding with obstacles, perhaps being too low on the approach.
Some risk, but a small one in the professional world.

That leaves the mid-air collision problem.
Do we just say "So be it, live with it", or should we do what we can to minimise the risk? I do my bit - it's my personal responsibility to my employer, my passengers, my family and to other pilots and theirs. It's very sad that others either underestimate the risk or are quite prepared to accept it and do nothing about it.

[IO540]

What we are seeing, ST, are the consequences of GA's war on transponders which goes back way before Mode S. Had Mode C been made mandatory say 10-15 years ago, the fuss would have died down by now.

[Rod1]

ShyTorque – “I do my bit.”

Do you have a portable FLARM?:ugh:

Rod1

[Pace]

Gliders in cloud are rare.

Chris N

You are a very diplomatic and good ambassador for the gliding fraternity.

If Gliders are so rare flying IMC and so few are involved in cloud flying, surely there would be little hardship to gliding to ban IMC flight to all but those that are equipt to be there safely?

We all have the same rights to use the Sky and do live together but then we should all be on a level playing field as far as what we can or cannot do.

There are many modern microlights and homebuilts which are very sophisticated and very well equipt. They are far better equipt to fly in cloud than most gliders but are banned from doing so by the powers that be.

No wonder there is a certain resentment when the powered fraternity see one rule for some and not for all not only in aircraft but the training required to cloud fly.

To say my aircraft isnt up to it so I should be allowed anyway would not be an arguemnt the homebuilders or other powered pilots could use.

Surely a small wind powered generator could supply power?

The government appear to be cutting back military RAS making us all more alone in the skies. More reason to keep an eye out for other traffic but that doesnt work in clouds.

Maybe legislation would be the only motivator to do something because as you said people are reluctant to do anything unless forced.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Do you have a portable FLARM?:ugh:

A fair point, but do you, and does every glider that enters cloud?

This discussion is about gliders in cloud - not about gliders in VMC.

From the comments on here from the glider community it would seem quite clear very few gliders fly in cloud - IMC operations are therefore nearly the preserve of powered aircraft. It is usual for the majority to set the rules; it would seem that us powered boys are unhappy about you lot playing by different rules in the clouds. Now I understand FLARM has some specific advantages that are well suited glider to glider, but again to me this smacks of writing the rules to suite yourself and your own minority community.

I understand some older gliders may have real problems fitting a transponder and powering it, but so have many home builts -which are banned from operating in IMC? Why should an exception be made for you?

If you want to operate in IMC fit a transponder, if not stay out of the clouds.

.. .. .. and if you really cant fit or power a transponder

well sadly there is a cost involved in aviation. I didnt want to fit a mode S unit. I couldnt fit an IFR GPS in one of the aircraft I owned. However I accept that technology moves ahead, and, when it comes to safety, so must I.

There should not be any element of flying that is a lottery. If I decide to fly in VMC I have got some chance of spotting another aircraft intent on colliding with me (it may not be perfect, but at least I can try to mitigate the risk). If I decide to fly with one engine it is almost certainly within my powers to land without causing anyone harm other than myself. However when you launch your glider in IMC there is absolutely nothing I can do to avoid hitting you - and to render useless by your actions my ability to conduct the flight safely seems very unfair. It seems even more unfair to expect me to operate airways when you are the minority user of the airspace.

Can you imagine cars on the road where the vast majority all have bumpers at the same height. One manufacturer says sod that, it will spoil the beautiful lines of our model if we conform, in fact we will not be able to fit the engine where best suites us. Now whenever one of these cars meets another car (and almost certainly the other car is part of the conforming population) it does a huge amount of damage - do we make an exception of that manufacturer, or do we expect them to conform?

[chrisN]

Pace, sorry to be pedantic, but you rolled two different things into one (perhaps because they are one, for rule-observing power pilots above 3000 feet).

1. Few gliders fly in cloud. When we do, we are usually out of the way of other things in cloud, owing to the altitudes/levels and locations concerned. Small number of events times small risk of encountering anything other than another glider = extremely low risk of encounters. Even so, it would not surprise me if one day the authorities mandate transponders for it. I would have had one by now if EASA etc. had not made it too difficult/expensive. I don’t know many glider pilots who take a similar view, however – but then I don’t know many who fly in cloud at all, these days. It was more prevalent when wooden, draggy, gliders were the norm, as Cats wrote earlier.

2. Flying in IMC, i.e. closer to cloud than 1000 ft vertically and 1.5km horizontally, we do all the time. It is fundamental to our means of locomotion. There will be an almighty battle if any one tries to stop that or mandate transponders for it. I understand EASA may have drafted something to that effect and negotiations are under way, but I am not in the loop.

For what its worth (not much – “history is bunk!”), the present exemptions predate my 39 years in gliding, but I gather that when the CAA or whoever after the war started to draw up legislation, cloud flying was then so fundamental to our means of locomotion, and caused no perceptible problems to other air users, that UK law became what it is and has stayed. Broadly speaking, we like to go up at or close to cloudbase, light GA tends to be at 1000-1500-2000 feet, hence usually below us when we go cross-country, and the heavier things, particularly CAT, tend to be higher. When its 8/8 and cloudbase is 1000 feet, we do circuits at our sites and don’t go cross country.

Chris N.

[Rod1]

Could I make an alternative suggestion? All powered aircraft that are IFR certified have a transponder. A portable PCAS receiver costs about £350, will run on two AA batteries for 6 hours and would fit in any cockpit. If the gliding community equipped with this and the powered people who worry about this get FLARM, then we can all miss each other with no huge outlay on either side. Remember only 1% of PPL’s have an IR, so this is a very small minority on both sides.

Rod1

[bjornhall]

This discussion is about gliders in cloud - not about gliders in VMC.

And there is an interesting angle... Gliders on a collision course are only marginally easier to spot in VMC than in IMC, but tremendously more common in VMC... Seems then the easiest risk minimizing strategy is to seek out IMC when at all possible...?

[Fitter2]

1 - EASA doesn't allow Mode-S elementary aircraft to couple the Mode-S and GPS to send position data on the ADS-B link, so detecting Mode-S aircraft with a cruise speed of less than 250 kts is going to be a challenge

Technically incorrect. EASA permit input of non-certified GPS to 1090-ES capable Transponders including those limited to sub 175kts/15000ft. If connected and information is transmitted in the extended squitter, they may not include the integrity information which allows the information to be used for traffic separation.

If you want more chapter and verse, I recommend contacting TRIG.

[Pace]

Remember only 1% of PPL’s have an IR, so this is a very small minority on both sides.

Rod1

That may or may not be the case but PPL IRs are not the only ones flying in IMC out of CAS.
There are IMCR holders CPL IR holders ATPL holders and everything from light singles to 737s flying IMC out of CAS.

Flying IMC in cloud is a hostile invironment which requires a minimum aircraft capability and pilots trained to a required level.

Flying IFR we have to trust each other to fly to a certain standard and accuracy.

Flying in IMC is not a playground.

I believe that if the aircraft is not suitably equipt and the pilot not suitably trained then they have no right to be there and risk others no matter how small that risk is regarded.

Some could even argue (not me) that as gliders cannot fly quadrantal rules and at a constant altitude level that they should not be there regardless! but surely the minimum should be a strobe and transponder C.

I dont know a lot about FLARM but was under the impression that it was near useless on anything but the slowest aircraft and had very poor range?

Pace

[shortstripper]

ChrisN is far more elliquent than I and puts the case for gliders extremely well; but as usual those who only see things from their veiwpoint simply set his points to one side and insist on trying to spend their way out of danger at the expense of us "lesser" types.

ST,

Most of the time I find your aurguments balanced and sensible. However, I find the below quote to be pretty presumptuous and seeks to lump all who disagree with you into the category you describe (even if you do highlight the "probably").
These very same pilots who don't look out properly under "see and avoid", have no on-board collision avoidance equipment and don't think it a good idea to seek an ATC service are probably the very same ones who don't believe there is a problem. They fail to see other aircraft around them and therefore in their ignorance believe the sky is less busy than it really is. Personally, I do all I can to be "visible" and keep good spatial awareness of those around me, but I do this within the limits of my budget or a/c type. I'm also very well aware of the problem.

You also seem to seek to elevate professional pilots to a status of immunity over the most common causes of "death by flying" that we humble amatuers succumb too ... ???? I think statistics would prove you wrong!

Hitting a glider in IMC is a tiny tiny risk in comparison to the others mentioned. Yes it IS a risk ... but just taking off in most aircraft probably presents a higher one! Why should the right to use natures energy be denied to glider pilots just to wrap those who seek to control all risk in cotton wool? If a good, light and cheap system was available then fine ... as yet there isn't one! When there is I'll be the first in line to buy one.

By the way, I often see aircraft whizzing along at a couple of thousand feet and blasting through cloud outside CAS. How safe is that?

SS

[scooter boy]

Shortstripper, I think that ShyTorque (like me) sees blips on his TCAS all day long - many of which may not have been called by ATC.

Flying regularly with and without it in different aircraft I can assure you that when I am not fortunate enough to have it I miss at least half of the traffic. In busy airspace the system is often displaying the (maximum) 10 most proximate (transponding) aircraft within a 12 mile radius. When the blips start to take over the screen I just zoom in to the 2 mile radius view and focus on avoiding the closest.

Not having mode C selected or flying with the transponder off is just a waste of time. Locating yourself in 2 dimensions (rather than 3) causes more hassle for the rest of us. You could be causing proximity alerts for all sorts of other traffic.

So if you have it, please leave mode C on at all times, even in the circuit.

The mark 1 eyeball is absolutely no substitute for TCAS + eyeball.

Personally I don't think that safety should ever be compromised by intransigence to change or civil liberty type arguments.
The sky is busy and getting busier, any safety improvement should be embraced IMHO.

SB

[mary meagher]

Pace, I'm sorry you got frightened by a glider in IMC outside controlled air space. However, that is an extremely rare occurrence.

ESPECIALLY COMPARED WITH the number of times we glider pilots get frightened by power pilots with their noses in the cockpits, not looking out at all at all. And the number of times our gliding sites are infringed by light aircraft and helicopters. In fact we had to file an airprox this weekend, as a BIG BLACK HELICOPTER on his way to Wellesborne passed at 500 feet above airfield level directly over our winch operation, which typically dangles a braided steel cable from the glider at l400' down to the ground. Not to mention the other 3 gliders soaring over the airfield above the helicopter who also observed the idiot. Wellesborne tower told him to phone us, he did, and apologised that he had been looking at his GPS map at the time, too bad he couldn't read it!

Over time, it may cheer you to know that most gliders collide with each other and not with you GA chaps (crowded thermals, you know). The only midair between a glider and a GA aircraft I am aware of in 25 years of paying attention to accident reports was in VMC. The K13 glider landed safely, despite losing a foot and a half of wing. The power plane, which had hit the glider from behind, unfortunately did not.

All your FLARM, TCAS, gadgets and controllers still do not absolve the pilot of the duty to see and avoid.

[shortstripper]

Sorry ... I'm a civil liberties freak! ;)

SS

[Fuji Abound]

All your FLARM, TCAS, gadgets and controllers still do not absolve the pilot of the duty to see and avoid.


Good luck in cloud - which is the point of the discussion.


ESPECIALLY COMPARED WITH the number of times we glider pilots get frightened by power pilots with their noses in the cockpits


That is OK then, we scare you, so you may as well scare us.

but as usual those who only see things from their veiwpoint simply set his points to one side and insist on trying to spend their way out of danger at the expense of us "lesser" types.

If you lot (the few of you that apparently fly in IMC) would answer the question why you should do so without following the same rules as everyone else that operate in IMC you might gain a little more credability.

I think gliders should be banned flying in IMC without a transponder. I think this is an issue we should take up with the CAA representing as it does an unacceptable compromise to every other users safety.

[ShyTorque]

Firstly, again I point out that I posted about the decreasing availablity of LARS services in UK.

Do you have a portable FLARM?

Rod1,

No. I would need to get it certified for use in our IFR aircraft which complies with CAA regulations for Public Transport. ChrisN has convinced me that I don't need one because hardly any gliders fly in cloud. Many other aircraft do
and IFR certified aircraft carry the minimum equipment, which includes a transponder with Mode C.

Shortstripper,

You also seem to seek to elevate professional pilots to a status of immunity over the most common causes of "death by flying" that we humble amatuers succumb too ... ???? I think statistics would prove you wrong!

I disagree, none of us is immune (but where are those statistics?). Rather than trying "elevate" professional pilots doing my type of operation, I pointed out facts.

I fly IFR helicopters for a living. Therefore:

I cannot have an accident due to aerobatics or low flying because I don't do aerobatics, or fly at low level. A few years ago risks affecting myself were different because I was required to do SEP (and Jet) aeros myself and also to teach them to others. I also used to be required to fly at very low level and again to teach others to do that, also at night (during my earlier years as a military pilot and instructor).

I cannot have an accident because of a runway that is too short because my aircraft doesn't need a runway for takeoff and landing.

I'm unlikely to stall / spin my aircraft because helicopters don't do either.

I'm unlikely to lose control of my aircraft just because I fly in bad weather and enter cloud - it's a requirement of my job to be competent in that respect and the aircraft is fully equipped for IFR /IMC operations.

I do encounter other risks not mentioned in this thread but irrelevant to the discussion. I do my best to quantify and minimise those risks, too.

The spread of opinions here goes to show that pilots are stubborn, self opinionated buggers (myself included) and some issues can probably only be resolved by CAA action.

[Pace]

All your FLARM, TCAS, gadgets and controllers still do not absolve the pilot of the duty to see and avoid.

Mary

See and avoid was a flash in the gloom.
But hey I could have been the first twin to take out a glider IMC but as none of you fly IMC whats the fuss about loosing that privalage UNLESS you have strobes and mode C ?

Interesting question? is a powered glider illegal with the engine on but legal with the engine off with a non IMCR pilot at the controls when IMC? I can see the insurance claim engine off we pay up engine on we dont :)

Pace

[Mark1234]

Couple of thoughts (ex-UK glider pilot and power pilot):

On Transponders - Are we presupposing that all the outside CAS IFR occurs in areas that are subject to radar surveilance, thus making the transponder useful?

That may be a daft question, but in my locale, there's vast tracts of class G that aren't covered by radar. Given that only a small percentage of GA IFR aircraft have any form of TCAS, transponders would seem to add very little in that situation in most cases. (appologies if that's irrelevant to the situation being discussed).

What we do out here however, is have area frequencies, on which everyone (gliders included) should be listening, and generally make broadcasts of our intentions - such as tracking from x to y at z thousand feet, eta y such and such a time. Not perfect, but does aid situational awareness.

On gliders in IMC - Don't forget that technically the glider is in IMC (or at least not in VMC), when it is close to the clouds - if you limit gliders to VMC without a slew of kit, and whatever is required to power it, you also limit them (technically) to remaining 1000ft and 1500m clear of cloud etc. Now I'm not sure that many glider pilots cloud fly that often (I for one would not care to for many reasons, including not wanting to finish up wearing a light twin or similar), however having to maintain VMC cloud separations (particularly 1000ft under) would present a major headache. Especially with typical UK cloudbases; perhaps a reason to defend IMC rights so vigorously.

[Rod1]

Ok I will have one last go as I am not getting my point across.

Most Gliders fly at the weekend when there is limited radar services OCAS.

There is a very small risk of collision with powered aircraft.

If we force all gliders in cloud to fit a Transponder or stay out then the small number of TCAS equipped aircraft can see the gliders, but the club IMCR pilot with no TCAS will still hit them.

If the Gliders take a PCAS box with them they will get to “see” all transponder equipped aircraft within 5 miles. This box is powered by two AA batteries, lasts 6 hours and is the size of a mobile phone. The glider pilot can then avoid the power pilot on the 1 occasion in 40 years when the two would hit.

This has the advantage that everyone can keep flying as now, no huge campaign has to be launched at the CAA, and we would all be safer!

Rod1
(ex glider pilot / current power pilot with mode c and traffic)

[Pace]

Mark

At least someone who is flying IMC and IFR OCAS has the choice and option to icrease their safety by having some form of TICAS.

Lack of LARS is part of the title of the thread which is the decrease in opening times of military RAS and a lack of interest in giving RAS by many Civil units.

This is putting safe seperation in the hands of the pilots.

You mentioned communication which is also very important as is flying correct quadrantal levels to give further seperation.

Ticas can give a false sense of security unless all aircraft flying IMC are transponder equipt that is why it is important that flying in IMC should have a legal requirement for a fully functional transponder.

As for gliders not complying with VFR limits? That is something most of us power pilots accept. Those Gliders tend to stay around glider sites and are usually seen on a good day around the base of clouds especially around the mating season..

We have the ability to stay on top where you rarely meet gliders. By having a ban on in cloud flying by gliders without a transponder C would also mean that aircraft could pass glider sites in IMC and with a decent vertical seperation knowing NO gliders would be there without the potential to be seen on TICAS.

As to gliders not having the ability to fly quadrantal levels? maybe thats something we will have to live with but a lack of transponder is NOT something we should have to live with.


Pace

[Fitter2]

The emphasis of the thread (and several others before) is on gliders, and the cry is 'make them spend their money so I feel safer'.

Gliders fly in cloud normally only in fairly isolated towering cumulus, with substantial areas of VMC at the same altitude; why fly through these clouds when a minor change in track will remain clear if you feel unsafe? As has been pointed out before, monitoring 130.4 will also indicate the presence (or otherwise) of cloud flying gliders.

A much greater risk is military fast jets (unequipped with compatible transponders) who penetrate cloud in the open IFR under a much wider range of met. conditions and are often not in contact with the unit you may be using for information. They decline to fit such equipment due to 'budgetary considerations' and their budget is much bigger than mine. And an encounter with them is much more likely to spoil your day.

To fly IMC in the open FIR is a choice; to demand that all others comply with a set of rules that they choose (not the CAA) at considerable cost to others to reduce a minute statistical risk is in my view unreasonable. Of course, if you want to start a fund to pay for the equipping of other sircraft to make you feel comfortable, feel free.

[Pace]

Fitter2

So in your opinion I can go out buy a sophisticated and far better IFR equipt microlight or home built and cloud fly without an IMCR?

I am sure the CAA would agree with you. One rule for some another rule for others. Tell your views to the 737 captain flying IFR / IMC OCAS with 100 odd pax on board.

and no they dont just fly in isolated lumps of cu

Pace

[Final 3 Greens]

To those in the gliding community, I see a parallel with the shooting community.

In the 70s and early 80s, I engaged in target pistol shooting, which was a reputable hobby, with members probably similar to glider pilots in their enthusiasm, commitment and generally decent nature.

I stopped shooting when I move to London, as I didn't feel happy keeping a potentially lethal weapon in a flat, in an area of high burglary.

Some years year, the Dunblane incident lead to legislation making owning a pistol illegal.

With hindsight, we could have done more in our sport to protect society and we chose not to.

It could happen to your sport.

If I were a glider pilot, I would be looking for ways to voluntarily make your hobby safer.

Cloud flying without a rating and the right kit may be a privilege you like to defned, but come the tragic day when it causes a very serious incident, you may rue your collective views.

[Fitter2]

Fitter2

So in your opinion I can go out buy a sophisticated and far better IFR equipt microlight or home built and cloud fly without an IMCR?

I am sure the CAA would agree with you. One rule for some another rule for others. Tell your views to the 737 captain flying IFR / IMC OCAS with 100 odd pax on board.

and no they dont just fly in isolated lumps of cu

Pace

Morning Pace

I knew I could count on a knee jerk reply, before you had read what I said.

None of the above - You fly using the privileges of your licence according to the rules.

I never suggested the 737s fly only in isolated cu - I said that gliders do. And if a LoCo CAT encountered a mil. fast jet OCAS, then I suggest the 737 would be as culpable as the fast jet.

There are vast tracts of CAS, defined in the days when navigation was much less accurate, to protect CAT. To make greater profits, (or reduce losses) CAT wants to use the rest of the air as well. In the process, increasing rules to protect fare-paying passengers will reduce risk to you, at no cost to you but at a cost to me.

Please explain the economic logic of your argument?

F2

[Pace]

F2

It appears to be a presumption by some that OCAS is the sole playground of GA.

A free for all piece of airspace populated by light aircraft which we all have a god given right to enjoy.

This is far from the truth. a typical example is LondonDerry I have flow there in twins and jets.

Leaving BEL you are OCAS with military radar. There is no radar at Londonderry so the instrument approaches are procedural.

Flying in there you can be stacked in the hold communicating with ATC, relying on the professionalism of the crew of the other aircraft for where they are and their spacing and they in turn can see you on their TICAS.

I have been in there solid IMC holding with a 737 above and a commuter turboprop below.

To the side of Londonderry is a gliding site. all the airspace toward BEL is OCAS with only the military radar available to give these aircraft traffic info.

This is Londonderry but there are many locations like this around the UK.

Far from being a playground for us GA fraternity to squabble and fight over there are much more serious implications of flying in IMC OCAS than some imagine.

Secondly I believe in one rule for all not pressure group rule and friends in high places turning a blind eye to certain sectors of aviation while expecting more capable sectors in aviation to adhere to stricter regulations at our costs.

It is more a case of you lot being brought into line with what we have to adhere to and already pay for.

Pace

[PPRuNe Radar]

To the side of Londonderry is a gliding site. all the airspace toward BEL is OCAS with only the military radar available to give these aircraft traffic info.


It's not essential to the debate, but which military radar unit is this ?

[PAPI-74]

They should be squawking and talking to someone. That practice is far from safe and expecting them to comply with common sense is not too much to ask - and not in breach of their human rights to go wherever they bloody well like as usual.
eg. 3 miles on the centre line of an ILS to a small regional. Yes you are outside CAS but Christ, how stupid...:mad::ugh:

[steveking]

Very interesting debate, as a contrast I am doing the IMCR at the moment and I fly a very well equipped RV6 but even when I have the IMCR I will not be able to go into cloud even with mode S VOR GPS etc.

One thought if I did need to decend through cloud I could turn the engine off and then I would be gliding, All OK :-)

Not having a go at the glider pilots, we all have to operate by the rules but does seem a little unfair.

Steve

[Midland Transport]

To be dropped out of the airways 100nm from your destination is very unusual where was your destination?. If going to the North East Newcastle and Teeside you are dropped out of the airways early Gasko normally (think that is right from memory) but the airports will give u a basic or conflict service OCAS. I think that any aircraft flying in IMC should have a transponder and most responsible glider pilots will agree with that in my experience. That must have been very scary and shows that any further reduction in Services will result one day in a disaster. I will always try and use London Mil in those conditions as another post said they are very helpful but are unlikely to pick up a glider!.

[Pace]

My apologies (Scottish not mil) but for those who think OCAS is the domain of light GA look at the approach plates and read an incident report with an A320 then you may see who else is sharing the clouds with you. Not an A320 glider incident but a good idea of operations with large CAT OCAS

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/sup/EG_SUP_2009_13_en.pdf

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Airbus%20A320,%20EI-DIJ%2001-07.pdf

[Pace]

Mid Trans

Have sent you a PM

[mary meagher]

That's a good one, Pace! Is that vessel under sail, or under power with the mainsheet hauled in?

As has been said before, most glider pilots prefer NOT to fly IMC. If I ever bother to renew my Instrument Rating, I would rather like a full panel and all the bells and whistles as well, meanwhile I certainly stay out of cloud.

Those who do enter cloud are nearly always airline pilots! An awful lot of airline pilots enjoy real flying on their days off. Well used to instrument flying, and no doubt using whatever help one can get in the open airspace from any radar operation still functioning. As soon as TCAS makes sense, no doubt it will be adopted by these chaps.

Motor gliders, or turbos, whether self-launching or sustaining, well, if they can afford that sort of equipment, and TCAS did any good, it should be a requirement, so there.

But.....whether any LARS operator could make sense of a gaggle of 15 or 20 gliders in a single thermal (all separated of course and looking out with eyes on stalks) I very much doubt.

There will be about 20 gliding competitions this summer in the UK. All will be NOTAMed. you do read NOTAMS, don't you? Tasks will be set each soarable day, up to 500 kilometers in distance. So gliders not always hovering over gliding sites.

If you acquaint yourself with what the probable weather conditions are going to be and convection is likely, if you are flying power, why not disport yourself above all that nasty turbulence and fly on top? ( Helps if you lean the Lycoming....... )

[Pace]

Mary

I find it amazing :) Firstly Hardly anyone in the gliding world flies into IMC, Then its only into isolated bit of cumulus and now its Airline pilots? Next it will be only astronauts ? If so why do you all defend the practice as if the whole future of gliding depends on it.

You have had privalages and excemptions that the rest of us do not enjoy.
The Guy who posted above about his RV6 kitted out with all the bells and whistles and a soon to be had IMCR is not allowed to do what you do.

Another poster talked of the gun laws and a tragic event forcing massive changes on the Gun clubs. I hope it doesnt take a tragic event to do so with gliding.

Pace

[gpn01]

Mary
You have had privalages and excemptions that the rest of us do not enjoy.
The Guy who posted above about his RV6 kitted out with all the bells and whistles and a soon to be had IMCR is not allowed to do what you do.
Pace

Actually the RV6 pilot can....In order to legally comply he simply needs to change a piece of equipment....namely his RV6, and swap it for a glider.

[BackPacker]

Suddenly the Europa with Motorglider wings starts to make a whole lot of sense...

[mad_jock]

To be fair PACE with the limited exposure to gliding that I have it is the Pro Pilots who are quite happy to go IMC in gliders.

It might be because they really arn't bothered about going onto instruments. Even the very experienced plain gliding instructors will shy away from it unless they have to ie come down through a layer.

Get a serving Mil pilot or commercial pilot who instructs gliding on their days off they just use what ever clouds they can to get lift. They will happily spin down through it, poke into doing loops etc.

I would agree with Mary that the majority of glider pilots don't as a habit fly in IMC because it scares the **** out of most of them.

[Fitter2]

Afternoon Pace

Your posts always read as though (a) you responded to the previous one without thinking and (b) have steam coming out of your ears. Both false impressions, no doubt.

The following statements, which I believe to be true, are all mutually compatible.

The majority of glider pilots do not fly in cloud.

Many glider pilots sometimes fly in cloud.

Many glider pilots are also current (or retired) ATPLs, and many (possibly a majority) of those sometimes fly in cloud in gliders and consider it perfectly safe.

We live in a moderately free society, and advocating the removal of someone else's rights or privileges is likely to reduce others' sympathy when ones own rights are summarily removed.

The risk to IMC aircraft OCAS is higher from military aircraft than from gliders.

More heat than light has been shed upon the subject of the thread so far.

[Cows getting bigger]

Agree with PP Radar - which military radar? do you mean Aldergrove Approach? If so, this is most certainly civilian.

Fitter, please explain your comment about military fast jets (unequipped with compatible transponders) The mil either have Mode C (which is to be switched on at al times) or Mode s on later models. Both versions will happily satisfy the plethora of devices we can fit to our aircraft. Furthermore, mil regulations require them to talk to an ATC or ASACS agency if they enter IMC; something not required for civil aircraft.

[Fly-by-Wife]

A powered pilot, flying VFR and without an IMC or IR, is not allowed to enter cloud, and is actually supposed to remain 1000 feet vertically from cloud.

Glider pilots, on the other hand, ARE allowed to fly within this 1000 foot band without any special equipment or enhanced rating or training - it is crucial to their ability to gain worthwhile lift and thus sustain lengthy flights.

It would be utterly unreasonable to impose the same VFR vertical separation of 1000 feet from cloud on the gliding community that powered pilots are required to observe.

However, it doesn't seem unreasonable to require that ANY aircraft intending to operate within cloud or above a cloud layer - powered or glider - should carry some form of transponder or device to help avoid collisions.

Glider pilots could then continue to operate UP TO the cloud base, while remaining clear of cloud, without having to carry a transponder - and this would, from the comments made on this thread, appear to be the overwhelming majority of pilots.

It would - as others have said - be a point very much in the gliding community's favour if they self-regulated in this way, which might go a long way towards preventing the mandatory carriage of transponders on ALL gliders, or a blanket ban on cloud flying (or an increase in separation from cloud) for ALL gliders. Better perhaps to make a small concession on a point that affects the minority rather than curtail the privileges for the majority.

To clarify - I am referring to operating OCAS!

FBW

[ShyTorque]

Fitter 2,

There are vast tracts of CAS, defined in the days when navigation was much less accurate, to protect CAT. To make greater profits, (or reduce losses) CAT wants to use the rest of the air as well. In the process, increasing rules to protect fare-paying passengers will reduce risk to you, at no cost to you but at a cost to me.

I have to reply by saying a statement like that shows a lack of understanding of who and what is flying around the UK's Class G airspace, especially in view of Pace's original post of what happened to him. Some of us would be happy to fly more inside CAS but have no chance of taking advantage of it for their flight. As a helicopter pilot I'm obliged to pick up my passengers from a back garden or field location and simply get on with it - no chance of a written flight plan or being fitted into CAS; that isn't the nature of the job. Even if I could be accommodated in airways at no notice, I could not go there for either aircraft icing limitations or passenger comfort.

Perhaps you are unaware that smaller business jets are required to fly in Class G (and can fly up to the legal limit of 250 kts) because they increasingly cannot be fitted into the airways system? This is essentially what happened to Pace, hence his post here.

Would folk prefer to think of these relatively high speed aircraft flying below cloud and radar cover, say at 2,000 feet, dodging light aircraft, microlights and gliders, or would you think they might be better off somewhat higher, OCAS but IMC, operating under a (radar) traffic service? It should be obvious where they are most likely to be. The LARS network was designed with these aircraft (and the increasing number of 150 kts plus IFR corporate helicopters) in mind.

It's probably only a matter of time before a mid air collision takes place in cloud. Under the present system, it is quite possible that a passenger aircraft, flying IMC with a full set of IFR equipment, plus TCAS, and in contact with a radar unit, collides with a hitherto unseen aircraft not carrying any conspicuity equipment and in not in contact with an ATC unit. Where do you think subsequent retribution and regulation are likely to fall hardest?

I know where I'd put my money.

One possible answer, I'm afraid, is more CAS at lower flight levels, which would cut down the airspace available for everyone else to enjoy.

[bjornhall]

Gliders take the cloud on the left, other aircraft take the cloud on the right. How hard can this possibly be?! :ooh:

Where I fly (Sweden), large areas of restricted airspace are set aside for soaring in clouds, in the most ideal soaring locations of the country, from 5,000 ft to FL195, during the summer season. Everyone else has to fly around it when the area is used for soaring. Works perfectly, and I hear no complaints.

The British way of mixing everyone in the same cloud seems rather irresponsible IMO, not because the risk is big, but because it is left solely up to chance. On the other hand, demanding that gliders are fitted with all sorts of horribly expensive electronic gizmos only to reduce (not remove!) a 0.nothing risk of collision, can hardly be taken seriously?!

Much better then if powered aircraft are not mixed with IMC gliders at all.

[shortstripper]

FBW,

Your answer makes a lot of sense and is a lot more diplomatic than Pace who seems hell bent on banning gliders from getting anywhere near cloud! One problem though, is that not all cloud on convective days have the same base. I've been at the base of one cloud, only to find I'm halfway up another nearby! As you say, to stop glider pilots from using up the 1000' vertical distance would effectively kill the sport, so they simply cannot keep to VFR rules and operate. IFR traffic boring through cloud outside CAS still risk bumping into others and not just gliders. To think otherwise is just, well ... unwise!

SS

[mary meagher]

Pace, I have just had another look at your first transmission on this thread. A question occurs to me: did you file an airmiss? if not, why not?

The chaps who follow these things up are very resourceful. It is always educational to read their comprehensive reports. I am wondering if it was a motor glider in some form in that unlikely place or somebody sliding back to Dunstable after a day in the wave over the Black Mountains. . . . . .

Probably not an astronaut, though UFO's are spotted from time to time......

[Rod1]

“A powered pilot, flying VFR and without an IMC or IR, is not allowed to enter cloud, and is actually supposed to remain 1000 feet vertically from cloud.”

No, he can fly very close to a cloud provided he is < 140kn <3000ft and ISOTS.

“Glider pilots, on the other hand, ARE allowed to fly within this 1000 foot band without any special equipment or enhanced rating or training - it is crucial to their ability to gain worthwhile lift and thus sustain lengthy flights.”

No, Glider pilots are trained and signed off at each stage. If you are cleared for local soaring, then you have been trained, tested and passed as safe. The Glider probably qualifies as “special equipment”:ugh:

Rod1

[Pace]

Pace, I have just had another look at your first transmission on this thread. A question occurs to me: did you file an airmiss? if not, why not?

Mary

The answer to your question is yes. May I also add that in 20+ years this has not happened before and prob a case of lightning not striking twice.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Many glider pilots are also current (or retired) ATPLs, and many (possibly a majority) of those sometimes fly in cloud in gliders and consider it perfectly safe.

Bizarre. It is as if an ATPL protects you from something in a cloud you cant see. Well good luck, clealry ATPL glider pilots are indeed sky Gods because I suspect they will need God on their side when they meet another aircraft in a cloud.


The risk to IMC aircraft OCAS is higher from military aircraft than from gliders.


Oh goodie, that makes me feel a lot safer.

What absolute nonesense.

But.....whether any LARS operator could make sense of a gaggle of 15 or 20 gliders in a single thermal (all separated of course and looking out with eyes on stalks) I very much doubt.


They dont need to. All the LARS operator needs to do is report the traffic as a gaggle and allow the rest of us to steer around the gaggle. I think both the LARS pilot and the rest of us have the intelligence to work out it is a gaggle of pilots in IMC.

Where I fly (Sweden), large areas of restricted airspace are set aside for soaring in clouds

Not a bad idea for a change. I guess the area could be reported cold as well to free up the airspace to other users. Whether gliders can be trusted to stay in their own patch judging by this thread is however doubtful.

I am a great believer in hanging on to priviliges we already have. Indeed I am a staunch supporter of the IMC rating. However, I have to weigh up the evidence, not as a glider pilot or as a powered pilot but on the basis of whether or not it is reasonable to permit gliders to do something no one else can. I have seen nothing here to support it being reasonable - just emotional arguments.

Look chaps when a twin collides with a glider in IMC two, three or even eight people are going to be dead. If we are really unlucky the collision might involve CAT and the death toll will be even greater. I have a feeling your "priviliges" will disappear over night and maybe a few other priviliges with it - I suspect your fraternity might wish you had better regulated yourselves, God forbid you ever need reminding.

[On Glide]

Pace, are you certain it actually was a glider? Identifying another aircraft, in cloud at a reasonable closing speed when not expecting to see it, strikes me as being rather difficult. File an airmiss and let the facts speak for themselves.

OG

[IO540]

Re the comment about gliders having to be white, today I got within ~ 200ft of a very dark one, so this statement is definitely not universally true. And the dark ones are much more visible.

Sad as ever to observe the vast majority of targets reported by "Traffic Service" to be quite obviously non-transponding. Never spotted even one of them visually, and there were two of us. It would be interesting to research the correlation one day; I suspect the vast majority of non-TX traffic flies below 2000ft and probably lower still, and almost 100% of traffic above about 4000ft is Mode C. Not sure how this could be researched since most of the traffic cannot be spotted visually anyway.

[cats_five]

Re the comment about gliders having to be white, today I got within ~ 200ft of a very dark one, so this statement is definitely not universally true. And the dark ones are much more visible.
<snip>

If it was a glider it wasn't a modern plastic one - believe me, they are all white. There are a few red noses and wingtips, but most of the ship is white.

[Pace]

Pace, are you certain it actually was a glider? Talked with him on radio so yes am sure it was a glider

Pace

[powerless]

Could I make an alternative suggestion? All powered aircraft that are IFR certified have a transponder. A portable PCAS receiver costs about £350, will run on two AA batteries for 6 hours and would fit in any cockpit. If the gliding community equipped with this and the powered people who worry about this get FLARM, then we can all miss each other with no huge outlay on either side. Remember only 1% of PPL’s have an IR, so this is a very small minority on both sides.

Rod1


Do you have any experience of these low cost PCAS units? As a glider pilot who only flies club aircraft this would seem a sensible addition to assist in spotting power aircraft. I don't cloud fly but even in VMC sometimes am surprised how late I see another aircraft.

[Rod1]

Yes I have been flying with one for about 25 hours now. It works very well and is an excellent reminder if an in cockpit task has distracted you. It beeps when anything gets too close and you can set your own parameters. It will monitor the nearest 10 targets. It runs on 2 AA batteries, which last 4 – 6 hours depending on the brightness of the display. I use rechargeables, which are recommended in the owners handbook.

Rod1

[powerless]

Thanks Rod1, I guess you use a headset so will have to see what the best solution for the audio in a glider will be.

[Fuji Abound]

PCAS beeps very loudly to "annouce" a target and does NOT need a headset although you can connect PCAS to a headset.

[M609]

As to the benefits of see and avoid, two gliders had a midair at Starmoen/ENHN less then one hour ago. (Both pilots OK, did the parachute letdown....)

I´m allways a bit vary when flying a SEP into that strip, too many glass firbre planks skidding about.

Sky clear/unlimited vis in this part of the world today.

[liam548]

Yes I have been flying with one for about 25 hours now. It works very well and is an excellent reminder if an in cockpit task has distracted you. It beeps when anything gets too close and you can set your own parameters. It will monitor the nearest 10 targets. It runs on 2 AA batteries, which last 4 – 6 hours depending on the brightness of the display. I use rechargeables, which are recommended in the owners handbook.

Rod1

which model have you got Rod1?

Liam

[Fuji Abound]

He has got the less expensive version.

Advantages:

Own power supply - 2 self contained AA batteries,

Very small, about the size of two match boxes - fits jsut about anywhere,

Bright display.

Disadvantages

No directional information

I didnt find the absence of direction a problem, and the unit is great if you fly different aircraft.

My mate has made up a battery pack for the other version (and very well it works) and Zaon also sell a pack so that is an alternative to have a power supply point in the aircraft.

I have one I am going to sell.

[cats_five]

As to the benefits of see and avoid, two gliders had a midair at Starmoen/ENHN less then one hour ago. (Both pilots OK, did the parachute letdown....)

If you look back through this thread (and probably others) you will find it said that the greatest threat to a glider is another glider...

[Pace]

If you look back through this thread (and probably others) you will find it said that the greatest threat to a glider is another glider...

Can I expand that buy saying the greatest threat to ANY aircraft is ANY unseen aircraft in close proximity.

Put 15 gliders in a restricted piece of airspace in close proximity to each other and their chances of collision has to be substantially higher.

The Mark 1 eyeball is the best option of avoiding another aircraft.

Remove the MK1 eyeball to avoid collisions ie in IMC and you have to rely on other methods for the blind pilot and seperation from other aircraft. Remove those and you are in the lap of the Gods and in a game of Russian roulette.


Pace

[IO540]

The Mark 1 eyeball is the best option of avoiding another aircraft.

The Mark 1 eyeball is the best non-technological option of avoiding another aircraft. It is however pretty useless because an aircraft on a genuine collision trajectory will be a stationary point in your field of view (assuming straight line trajectories for both).

Gliders maneuver around so should be more visible, which is probably why there has not yet been a glider-GA midair, whereas GA-GA is about 1 per year.

The reason I haven't bought TCAS (£10k+) yet is because all but one UK midairs I know of happened below 1000ft (one at 1800ft), the vast majority of such low level traffic is nontransponding (such is totally obvious from flying under a radar service), and I never fly that low except when taking off or landing.

[Johnm]

I fly regularly in IMC OCAS, usinf radar services and the quadrantal rule as far aspossible. The biggest problem is being forced down to to 3000 ft or lower in the Southeast to stay below OCAS.

In practice if the weather is that bad there is little non transponding traffic and that includes gliders 'cos there's not likely to be much lift.

However the glider hazard on days with patchy Cu based IMC is one I shall now be more wary of!

[Rod1]

Fuji Abound’s experience with PCAS match mine.

I got the unit for two reasons;

An aircraft from my strip was hit up the back by a turboprop doing 160kn just over a year ago (at 1400ft AGL). It turns out he was avoiding a micro and turned into the path of the other aircraft, all in marginal VMC.

My local international airport, whilst not part of the LARS system, used to give a very good FIS with traffic. With the advent of the BS service this has stopped.

As a result of both the above I got the PCAS box. The huge flaw is it will not detect non transponding traffic. In my case I tour at 120 – 138kn, so 99.99% of the things which can hit me up the back will have a transponder. Secondly, I have to get out of and into my strip. It is impossible to maintain a full lookout whilst joining and landing, and the PCAS gives a degree of protection as I pass through the 2000 – 500 ft “danger band”.

As Fuji mentioned, the lack of direction info is not really an issue. The unit tells you range altitude relative to you and altitude trend. This is all you need to make a difference to your chances.

If FLARM takes off in the gliding world, I will also add this. There are no certification issues, as it can be configured as a battery powered removable box and it is a much better choice than a Transponder on its own for Glider / Glider or Glider / GA conflicts, which represents the big risk.

Rod1

[chrisN]

Does PCAS work as Rod describes, if you have no transponder yourself? How does it do altitude comparison? (I understand that range is estimated by signal strength; please correct me if that is not so).

Chris N.

[Rod1]

“Does PCAS work as Rod describes, if you have no transponder yourself?”

Yes, it uses its own altitude sensor if you do not have your own, so no Transponder or encoder required in your aircraft. This is why it appears to offer a solution to the Glider / IMC conflict, as the non transponding glider will “see” the Transponder equipped aircraft at 5nm.

I tested the range by some messing about one evening with another transponder aircraft and some GPS fixes indicated it is very good.

Rod1

[cats_five]

The Mark 1 eyeball is the best non-technological option of avoiding another aircraft. It is however pretty useless because an aircraft on a genuine collision trajectory will be a stationary point in your field of view (assuming straight line trajectories for both).

Gliders maneuver around so should be more visible, which is probably why there has not yet been a glider-GA midair, whereas GA-GA is about 1 per year.

It's true that a glider thermalling is circling, and by looking in the right places (under Cu) it's often possible to see them from a long way away, especially if the sun is in the right place to reflect of their wings during part of the turn.

However they also fly along wave bars, often at 80 knots IAS or more, and also along cloud streets if they find a line of energy or are flying from one thermal to the next.

[Pace]

As a result of both the above I got the PCAS box. The huge flaw is it will not detect non transponding traffic. In my case I tour at 120 – 138kn, so 99.99% of the things which can hit me up the back will have a transponder.

There is a negative to all these detection systems whether PICAS or TICAS and that is that they can make you more lax in looking out or more confident that there is nothing around you because it doesnt show up on the TICAS.

That is fine if all aircraft are transponding but they can give a false sense of security if they are not.

See and be seen is the number one in VMC with these units as a safeguard a backup.

In cloud its a different matter I would support a legal requirement for working transponders on aircraft cloud flying regardless of type. As especially TICAS becomes more standard in use such legislation would make pilot interpretated detection of other aircraft in cloud much more reliable.

Surely gliders could fit a 3 inch Fan generator to supply power for transponders?

Anything we use must be a standard across the board in aviation to give any level of reliability?

Pace

[cats_five]

Surely gliders could fit a 3 inch Fan generator to supply power for transponders?

Where? And given EASA, how?

[chrisN]

Rod, thanks. In that case, I might get one. At least that way if some GA or CAT ventures near I cloud I am in on the rare occasions that I do it, I can give way to them even if they can’t respond, and won’t listen on 130.4.

I know from experience that any calls I make to ATC are often ineffective for conflict avoidance – between Ridgewell (Stansted CTA if you like) and Lakenheath, various traffic are on Essex radar, London info, Farnborough North, Lakenheath, Cambridge, or even Wattisham. (At least one of the Stansted infringements was tracked because the GA pilot shortly after squawked a Cambridge code so NATS could then trace him and find that their “deemed” vertical separation had been non-existent. Another was working Wattisham. I also heard a near conflict between a Cambridge ILS inbound and an out-of- Lakenheath late handover on the ILS, so ATC won’t always stop conflicts whoever you talk to – the collision near you last year showed it can fail even with the same ATC unit in touch with both. There is no universal panacea, and nothing is totally human-proof.)

I do have a concern with yet another electronic unit. With very limited space in my cockpit, everything is close together, and I can only sensibly use the small PCAS if at all. I already have some problems with suspected interference between proximity of radio signals of GPS logger, Flarm, and whatever else is switched on. It would be an experiment, at my expense, to see if adding a PCAS between the others would cause more disruption. If it did, I suppose I would have to choose between the ones most likely to be useful at any given point.

Chris N.

[Rod1]

chrisN

If you are based near me you can borrow my unit and try it. The settings I use may not be perfect for you but it would give you an idea. Alternatively, HM may sell you one on sale or return.

Pace

“Anything we use must be a standard across the board in aviation to give any level of reliability?”

Good luck with that. Let us know when you arrange the fist meeting with god and send us an update. You can try and force transponders on all but it will take a very long time or a huge leap in tec. PCAS would reduce the risk today, from very small, to almost non existent.

Rod1

[chrisN]

Rod, that is really kind – I would like to take you up on it. I can get to your area without too much trouble.

Similarly, you can try my Flarm if you wish – There are few Flarm-equipped gliders in East Anglia, and there may be more you can detect in your area. I really got it in anticipation of growth, and to show commitment, not with much hope of immediate use to me except when visiting busier gliding clubs and areas.

Chris N.

[Rod1]

Chris

PM me your contact details and we will see what we can arrange.

My guess is that if the Gliding world fitted this kind of kit it would come under much less pressure to conform to the Transponder straightjacket. Universal FLARM would also help you.

Rod1

[AC-DC]

Pace
I have heard about a similar case where a pilot returning from the continent to a S.E airfield. ATC wanted to drop him at DVR, he refused to leave CAS and told them that an IFR F.P was filed and accepted to fly in CAS all the way home. They had no other option but to keep looking after him.

[tommoutrie]

I flew with FLARM for the first time in the Black Forest on Saturday and was so impressed with it I am going to buy a unit and stick it in the cockpit of the CJ when i'm at work. I regularly fly outside controlled airspace (and I do monitor 130.4 and even make traffic calls on it if it looks like a good cloud flying day) and I think that its likely that modern plastic with pilots that cloud fly will have FLARM. The areas that there is most often conflict for me are around Oxford and Farnborough (close to Lasham) and up the pennines when its waving. The wave flying in cloud rarely happens in IMC - I know of people who have done it in Scotland in the wave boxes and its reasonably common to make descents through cloud following high altitude wave flights.

No single group of aircraft own the sky so gliders, light aircraft, GA jets, big jets, balloons, hang-gliders, and even that bloke with jets on his ankles just have to learn about each others activities and cope with them. When I exit controlled airspace I look out of the window (Pace I'm guessing it wasn't anything like solid IMC or you wouldn't have seen the glider at all) and having FLARM in the cockpit will probably help although the TA it gives may not work too well as the algorithm probably won't appreciate the speed of our little jets. I'll let you know when I've tried it.

Maybe more jet users of open airspace should have a go in a glider..

[belowradar]

I would imagine that a response to ATC such as "UNABLE" would be appropriate (Unable due safety concern of flying OCA IMC without a full and proper service)

[cats_five]

I am confused as to what some folks are talking about.

From the CAA's website:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/VFR_Guide_03_09.pdf

(sorry there is a cute diagram somewhere but I can't find it)

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
5km flight visibility
1500 m horizontally from cloud
1000ft vertically from cloud.
(c) At or below 3000ft
As in (b) above or:

for any aircraft:
5 km flight visibility
Clear of cloud and with the surface in sight or

for an aircraft, other than a helicopter, operating at 140kt or less:
1500 m flight visibility
Clear of cloud and with the surface in sight or

for helicopters:
1500m horizontally from cloud
Clear of cloud, with the surface in sight and in a flight visibility of at least 1500m

So, without flying in clouds, gliders do fly closer to clouds than GA can under VFR, at all flight levels above 3000ft and for all kinds of flying - thermal, wave & ridge soaring. (I concede that not much ridge soaring is done above 3000ft!)

My confusion is that 'flying in clouds' seems to be being used as a shorthand for 'not in VFR' when clearly (according to the CAA) the two are different. Do other people have the same confusion?

[Pace]

You can try and force transponders on all but it will take a very long time or a huge leap in tec. PCAS would reduce the risk today, from very small, to almost non existent.

Rod1

All I am trying to force is a discussion.

There is a lot I do not know about gliders, their capability, how they operaten etc.


As power pilots we are expected to have a minimum of an IMCR to fly clouds.

Many pilots own very sophisticated well equipt aircraft which are microlights or homebuilts.

Fly them in cloud and the CAA will throw the book at them. Would you allow them to fly IMC in this fair world ?

I have flown for over 20 years and 4000 hrs and have never had a glider encounter in IMC. I fully accept the chances of having a near collision in clouds is very small and will probably never happen again in my life time.

I posted it here as a discussion point. It was very tempting to just forget it ever happened and say nothing.

The encounter was the culmination of an unsatifactory IFR trip where it was apparent that RAS that was previously available is no longer available.

This highlighted the fact that for those who do cloud fly, fly IMC it is more becoming the case that we are going to have to rely on our own seperation from each other.

WE CANNOT RELY ON VMC SEE AND BE SEEN in IMC. So any IFR IMC flight OCAS will be a game of chance russian roulette.

I do not know how reliable all these other systems are but we do need ONE reliable system to suit us all.

Hopefully there never will be a serious collision with any aircraft not equipt to be in IMC. If there ever is a collision especially with CAT then rules will be forced on us like they were with the gun laws.The media would have a field day when they discovered what is allowed at present should such a tragedy ever occur.

I do not hold the glider pilot any more responsible for what happened between us than me and the aircraft could easely have been any flying machine.

The incident highlighted a real threat which I posted here for discussion.

That on the whole has generated a total reluctance by some to discuss at all and even personal abuse for even having dared to raise it as a discussion feature.

I do not know how effective FLARM is? PICAS sounds interesting but whatever with the decline in RAS especially military we are in the future going to have to rely more and more on our own seperation.

Pace

[cats_five]

There is a lot I do not know about gliders, their capability, how they operate etc.
<snip>
Pace

Surely the most effective way to find out would be to go and do some glider flying, rather than discuss it on the Internet?

[Pace]

Cats Five

It may surprise you but gliding would appeal to me but I am far from alone in the power world in not understanding glider operations yet we are the same family and share the same sky.

Pace

[cats_five]

Since you reckon gliding would appeal to you and you know you know very little about glider operation, surely that strengthens my suggestion? The biggest problem is that you would need taking on some XC flying to really appreciate what goes on - the ab initio flying is about learning to fly the glider and land it, first time, every time. And launch failures... (the point comes at which Eventualies of are no longer 'you have control')

[Fuji Abound]

There is a lot I do not know about gliders


and


Surely the most effective way to find out would be to go and do some glider flying


Not being funny, but what's to know me boy?

Flying machines (be they powered, gliders, bird men, or even birds) dont mix well in cloud - it really isnt complicated!

[Fitter2]

Not being funny, but what's to know me boy?

Flying machines (be they powered, gliders, bird men, or even birds) dont mix well in cloud - it really isnt complicated!


Well, to know a bit more might prevent silly suggestions, like put a ram-air turbine on them to provide power. A quick sum indicates that would increase the drag on my toy by 80% for the power to rum a transponder.

1:55 reduced to 1:30 - like the glider I used to fly 30 years ago.

I suppose you might say competition aerobatics, or air racing, or seaplane operations, or soaring parachutes are just flying machines. Remind me to stand well clear when the nearest sky-god sets about any of these things with no knowledge other than 'they are just flying machines'.

[Pace]

Well, to know a bit more might prevent silly suggestions, like put a ram-air turbine on them to provide power

Fitter 2 just as good as your lack of knowledge about military operations in IMC which was an equally silly statement.

But hey we could all do with knowledge you included.

The fact is Gliders are allowed to operate blind in cloud and in a way no powered aircraft is allowed to do.

That creates a risk no matter how small which we are expected to accept in the name of your fun and freedom.

Pace

[ProfChrisReed]

Flying machines (be they powered, gliders, bird men, or even birds) dont mix well in cloud - it really isnt complicated!

The complicated part is keeping us all apart. So far on this thread we've come across the following:

1. Keep out, it's my cloud. Not acceptable to whoever it's being said to.

2. All to have transponders. Not achievable for most gliders (inadequate power supply, no approved mods, disproportionate cost) and for some powered a/c which legally fly IMC at present.

3. All to have FLARM. Almost certainly not workable for fast GA and CAT because algorithms presume slower speeds, plus short range. Also, power has similar fitting issues (other than power supply) to gliders under (2).

4. ATC to keep us all safe. No, because RAS not sufficiently available, different providers used for same airspace, gliders don't detect well, radar coverage is not universal, some gliders and power non-radio.

5. Common radio frequency for IMC with regular position reporting. No because there ain't one, and if there were those with single radio working ATC can't monitor it.

6. PCAS for non-transponder-equipped aircraft in IMC. This might work, if those with transponders trust the non-transponder pilots to get out of the way, and if ChrisN can get it to work in harmony with the other gizmos in his cockpit - I await the report with interest, and would probably invest myself even though I've ceased trying to fly my glider in cloud.

7. Fingers crossed all round. The current system, which has worked so far but no-one feels 100% comfortable with.

If I haven't missed anything, there's no point discussing 1-5 any further because they are not achievable.

Pace, how would 6 seem to you? I can't believe the glider wouldn't have scurried out of your way if the option works.

Having said all that, the biggest problem with 6 is that it only works as a voluntary system. If it were mandated by the CAA, then all PCAS systems would need to be certified, probably switched on at all times (power supply again), approved mods devised for fitting + annual testing (disproportionate cost), etc. At which point, PCAS becomes another transponder, at least so far as gliders are concerned.

Option 6 could be made mandatory in practice for gliders by a BGA edict, but that wouldn't catch the non-transponding power in IMC.

Are we getting anywhere?

[Fuji Abound]

2. All to have transponders. Not achievable for most gliders (inadequate power supply, no approved mods, disproportionate cost) and for some powered a/c which legally fly IMC at present.

No one has yet explained why gliders are a special case.

I know it has always been that way - but the world moves on. Pilots (other than glider pilots) can no longer fly in IMC without either an IMCr or IR - once the rating didnt exist and pilots could do what they liked.

The world does move on. I would suggest gliders should not be allowed in cloud without a transponder. Transponders can be fitted. Some older gliders would not be able to fit them and they would have to remain outside cloud.

I see no good reason why gliders should be the exception to the vast majority.

I would suggest that in time the law will change.

[shortstripper]

No one has yet explained why gliders are a special case.

The world does move on. I would suggest gliders should not be allowed in cloud without a transponder. Transponders can be fitted. Some older gliders would not be able to fit them and they would have to remain outside cloud.



I think they have, but I get the destinct feeling that you're not listening!

If you ruled gliders out of IMC then they could not operate!

IMC and being in cloud or not, is subjective. The rules have to be objective and so the two don't mix. To remain VMC means clear of cloud below 3000' or 1000' away from it above. Gliders, even if not within cloud will still fall foul of IMC rules if they climb to cloud base but do not enter. How do you legislate without either making a special case for gliders, or destroying the sport altogether? OK, we could say they must not enter cloud, but as I said in an earlier post ... the base of clouds can differ, even if that were to be the rule.

You come up with a workable, non biased solution and you'll have my respect!

SS

[Pace]

If you ruled gliders out of IMC then they could not operate!

Shortstripper

The big arguement put up was that it is rare for a glider pilot to fly IMC A handful of ATPLs I think was claimed earlier in the thread :) I am an ATP but I cannot see how that would help me in IMC with an aircraft that had no radio, no nav aids, minimal instrumentation and no transponder and a glider is allowed to fly in IMC in that state.

Flying around cloud bases is a different matter as most pilots expect gliders to be there and usually fly on top to avoid or stay high in IMC until clear of areas where gliders are expected to be.

As those who are in serious IMC are in such a small minority and are probably in expensive high performance gliders they have a duty as we do to come up with a solution which reduces the risk on all of us.

Picas while not showing you to us would allow you to know about us and at least give you the chance to avoid us.

Flying is an expensive past time for all of us powered or not. We as the powered fraternity are expected and regulated to comply at cost to us if we want to fly IMC not so the glider fraternity.

At least Prof Chris Reed put up a reasoned arguement and for those who want to fly IMC.
PICAS while not as universal as a Transponder would go someway in at least showing a degree of willingness to do something by that very small minority who seriously cloud fly.

Pace

[bjornhall]

Are we getting anywhere?

Not really, no. The problem has been solved elsewhere, why is it so hopeless to solve it in Britain?

[cats_five]

Where has it been solved and how? What was the effect on gliding, GA, helicopters, microlights and so on?

[shortstripper]

Pace,

I would love for there to be an easy answer by means of a universal avoidance system, be it FLARM or transponder based. The trouble is that at the moment there isn't. To ban gliders from cloud is difficult to do unless it widely impacts the sport. Yes it's true that few fly in true IMC, but as I asked earlier, how do you legally define between IMC and cloud flying? Also there are times when a glider may have intended to remain clear but has had to fly through cloud to descend (wave flying?).

It's years since I flew gliders, but I did occasionally cloud fly. I also once climbed up the sunny side of cumulous to a few hundred feet above its base whilst staying out of it. It was fairly near a gliding site, so perhaps I was relatively safe, but having seen SEP's fly straight over glider sites at circuit height ... who knows?

I suppose the only sensible way in the meantime is for any glider flying through or in cloud to be in contact with ATC. That way, at lest any IMC aircraft can be warned. In the original scenario, I don't know the answers, but it certainly shows up the failings of flying IMC outside of CAS.

I know flying is expensive, but it shouldn't have to be priced to a point that excludes all but the very rich. I know the aurgument for reducing chances of a middair is complelling. I for one, would not relish the idea of being killed that way, but you still have to weigh up the odds. I think overhead joins present a far far higher risk, but nobody is jumping up and down about them! I'd hate to see all but the richest glider pilots banned from entering cloud. Maybe it will come, but be careful what freedoms you cry out to ban, one of these days it might be one of yours? Old argument I know, but where do you end with the idea of banning all that is not 100% safe?

SS

[Pace]

Shortstripper

Firstly I dont have anything against gliders and stress I brought this up as a discussion point only.

You brought up a sensible point which is that gliders while flying in IMC should be in contact with the ATC unit that would be used by the majority flying IMC in that area. They can then listen out for positions of IMC aircraft and make regular position and level block reports.

Using glider frequencies is not going to help us as its likely we will be busy on the ATC unit covering that area and cannot be locked onto a glider frequency. Communication is vital for seperation but we must all be communicating. Maybe a rule stating that all gliders operating at 4000 feet and above should change from the glider frequency might help.

Picas above 4000 feet would also be of use. Other than flying under CAS its not hard for powered IMC aircraft to fly above 4000 and cruise above the majority of gliders. In my case i was coming down from FL100 but even in this case I held 6000 feet till clear of the gliding site. At some point even we have to come down but shoul know of other aircraft in IMC in that descent.

Pace

[scooter boy]

Radio reportage of glider positions and block heights would be about as user friendly as the current NOTAM system - i:e lots of effort in for not much sense out.

In real IMC (or VMC for that matter) the best presentation of conflicting traffic is on a TCAS screen. We can instantly see the position (and preferably level) of any conflicting traffic with minimal distraction.

As Pace stated there is way too much other stuff going on for us to have the chart out looking for crinkly bottom farmstrip or some other obscure VRP.

Remember that if we are flying powered aircraft in IMC we are probably going somewhere and thus we are probably in completely unfamiliar airspace and the local VRPs mean very little to us without a lot of time consuming map reading.

Shortstripper - the financial arguments do not cut any sway. If you can afford to fly you can afford a transponder.
I am not asking you to fit TCAS (which is an expensive item, but one which I place at a far lesser value than that of my own life), just a plain old mode C transponder.

Please fit a transponder (preferably mode C as a minimum) if you plan to be in the clouds - it keeps us all safer.

SB

[Fuji Abound]

As will have been apparent I am with Scooter Boy.

Not only do you paint a dreadful primary radar target, you congregate in groups presenting a far greater risk of collision, you do not obey the normal rules for flying in cloud, and your pilots are not rated to be there in the first place (in the conventional sense). On top of all that you want to be made a special case, and you think I am being unreasonable. :confused:

[shortstripper]

I love the "you" bit. Many on here are both power AND glider pilots :rolleyes:

I'm a current PPL, have done the IMC, and have decided to go back to gliding after a 20 year break. I can see both sides of the argument. However, glider pilots don't want to be made a special case ... they already are!

Come up with a good system (that will fit, has low consumption, doesn't fry balls or cost more than the a/c itself) and I'm sure we'd all happily fit one. In the meantime we can do is use radio, ATC and try to be as conspicuous as practical.

I'm sure you, Pace, SB ect, will, from now on be jumping up and down and doing everything you can to bring the terribly "dangerous" gliding fraternity into line with your idea of what constitutes "safe", or is it controlled? "We" or rather "they" can at present fly in cloud without an IMC or IR rating and have done for a long long time (certainly since before you or I took to the skies). You see no way to compromise, simply repeat what you've already said, and so to be honest are getting quite boring! :ugh:

SS

[belowradar]

Shortstripper

I too have flown power and glider and enjoyed both

I don't however want to die just because somebody wants to fly IMC in cloud without a transponder.

So - for the very small minority of glider pilots who fly in cloud (not bothered about those who are close to the cloud base ), why not just say stay out or get a transponder.

I know that you can get decent lift without entering cloud.

[Fitter2]

I know that you can get decent lift without entering cloud.


An example: UK open class nationals, 2007. Task included a leg Banbury to Pendock (the other side of the Severn Valley) and return via Buckingham. From the edge of the Cotswolds was flat grey thin 4-5/8 overcast, base about 3,800 ASL, probably maritime air. Climbing to 6,200 in the last cumulus on the Cotswold edge (calling on 130.4 at regular intervals while in cloud) allowed a glide across to the waypoint, GPS fix there and return to the convection on the cotswolds just over 800ft above the ground. Not possible withpout a cloud climb.

When EASA make it prctical to fit a transponder without trebling the cost of the basic unit, I might start investigating how to fit one legally although there is no panel space to fit it, and insufficient power to run it.

Meanwhile, I propose to carry on occasionally climbing in isolated Cu, advertising my presence on 130.4 and hoping that IFR pilots who can comfortably make a minor diversion from track will be sensible (as I see it).

[cats_five]

<snip>
So - for the very small minority of glider pilots who fly in cloud (not bothered about those who are close to the cloud base ), why not just say stay out or get a transponder.
<snip>


You refering to intentional or unintentional cloud flying? With the best will in the world we can all suddenly find the gaps closing up, especially when wave flying.

[Fuji Abound]

Shortstripper

I am sorry to bore you.

However, there are times for not compromising.

Those few gliders that fly in cloud are asking the rest of us to cross our fingers and hope when it comes to meeting a glider in cloud, while the rest of us take measures to avoid collision.

We may not like it any more than you, but transponders are the only game in town that is common to the vast majority of those that fly in cloud. Unfortunately the system only works as long as we all agree on the same one.

You know I cant come up with a better system, any more than you - other than the one we have. Defending your position on that basis is not convincing. You could however mandate the fitting of transponders. There are some very small transponders available and I am sure the issues of powering them could be solved - if there was a will to do so.

Indeed you have always had these priviliges, but so have the MPs always had their expenses. It is a dangerous game to rely on precedent when everyone else is playing the game by a different set of rules.

Oh, and it is not a matter of them and us - in fact quite the reverse, we all share the same sky, I love to see gliders up, but I really dont want to find one inside a cloud. :)

I really wish I could come up with something better - but equally I really hope it does not take a collision in IMC to change the rules because I reckon my guess is pretty good about the way the rules would change - and I dont think you will like the outcome.

[bjornhall]

Where has it been solved and how? What was the effect on gliding, GA, helicopters, microlights and so on?

Well, consider for a second how it is done here in Sweden. The key differences, as far as I understand, is 1) a totally different level of ATC service, with radar service available to everyone all the time, 2) no problem at all obtaining clearance through controlled airspace, meaning you can usually spend most of the time within controlled airspace, and 3) separating gliders and other aircraft by designating large areas of airspace for the primary or exlusive use by gliders. Rather than providing immediate, tactical separation the way powered IFR flights are handled, separation is provided by other aircraft completely avoiding gliding areas.

A. For IFR flight in Class G airspace above the higher of 5,000 ft MSL/3,000 ft AGL, as well as within a TIA/TIZ or above a TIA, a flight plan must be submitted and two-way communication with ATC will be required. This allows ATC to provide information to other IFR traffic about areas where IFR soaring is taking place, allowing that traffic to avoid those areas. Transponder is not required.

B. IFR flight in Class C airspace, including in the CTA (i.e., everywhere above FL95), can be done without transponder in designated areas. This is handled by direct, local communication between the local soaring community and the terminal and area control centers. Gliders are given certain agreed sectors where they can fly IFR without transponder, and other IFR traffic is routed around those areas. The sectors are located so they are away from the commonly used IFR routes (SID/STAR etc), and conveniently placed for gliders (in close proximity to the prime gliding airfields).

C. Large areas of restricted airspace is set aside for soaring in clouds. Other traffic is only given permission to pass through those areas in VMC.

D. "Contact IMC" (i.e., IMC with the ground in sight, meaning climbing up to the cloud base) is allowed in Class G airspace up to FL95, and also within designated areas of TMA/CTR. This is a weakness; descending out of a cloud, you could come across a glider 10 ft below the cloud base. Not a problem for CAT though, as their approaches always take place in controlled airspace.

What this means in practice is that gliders have very good opportunities for contact IMC and IFR flying, whereas powered IFR aircraft know what areas are free of IFR gliders and can choose to avoid contaminated areas. It also means IFR and IMC gliders can not go wherever they want (unless they fit a transponder, in which case they just follow the normal rules), while powered aircraft might have to take a sometimes lengthy detour if they want to avoid the gliding areas. It also offers no protection in Class G airspace below 5,000 ft, which might be problematic for the helicopters?

Incidentally, this works very well for VFR as well. Cloud base permitting, I always choose to climb into the TMA wherever therre is one, in order to get information on sectors where soaring is taking place.

[M609]

There is no way the Swedish system would be implemented any time soon in the UK.

Some reasons:

1.The UK has a totally different ATM system, there are often more then one unit responsible for one pice of airspace. (Unlike Sweden) It´s funded at a pice-by-pice basis, not like LFV in Sweden that can fund everything from one big budget.

2. It´s doubtful if the soaring community would get the same airspace access today in Sweden, given that Thomas Allard head of ATM in LFV is even worse then NATS with regards to "you play, you pay".

3. Sweden has HUGE expanses of airspace between the east coast and the border with Norway. Allmost no TFC IFR below say FL250. Even a Swedish ATCO I went to college with once called it "a desert". It´s very quiet even by Norwegian standards.

4. I hazard to guess that 95% of all powered aircraft in Sweden have a Mode C/S transponder, easy to accomodate in the busy-ish airspace on the east coast and Göteborg/Skåne.


For someone working or flying in a integrated airspace structure like Norway/Sweden/Finland, it´s hard to appreciate the rather fragmented UK system.

M609
.....with an old swedish ATCO license somewhere....

[Riverboat]

There are a few things a bit odd about your report, Pace. I am not saying you are making anything up, but it is strange that:

1) You filed IFR for a flight to the North West at FL 100. You should have filed at FL105 or FL085. This would have significantly reduced the risk of your hitting another aircraft.

2) You state that you were "on top". In that case you were probably VMC, and during that phase of flight you should have been keeping a sharp eye out as per any VFR or uncontrolled flight. If you had, there wasn't much risk of collision in this phase.

3) If you were passing close to Brize and Shawbury, and were heading north-west you could have asked to join CA near Liverpool and undertaken your descent in CA, as presumably you were not that far from the Manchester Control Area? It might have required you to fly 15-20 miles further to achieve this, but at least you would have been safe in descent.

4) I don't think you could have been "dumped" by Air Traffic if you had effectively asked for a direct track to your destination. You presumably came out of CA east of Brize, which would be just about where you should have expected to have left CA. If you have an IR, why didn't you stay inside CA (as another responder has suggested?) If you don't have an IR, I suggest you get one if you are going to be flying inside CA, especially if it is Class A!

Was the twin over 2000kg AUW? If so, you would have paid en route (IRC) charges for the flight. If it was 2000kg or less, you would not be paying IRC, and in those circumstances, I don't think you can grumble about there not being any radar available to you in uncontrolled airspace, as the provision of radar costs money!

You state there was a glider at 6000 ft when there was also layers of cloud down to 2000 ft. It was windy. This would be quite an unusual occurrence as gliders don't normally operate between layers (not much lift between layers for a start), or above layered cloud, or in windy conditions.

So, your report does seem a bit flakey!

RB

[Pace]

There are a few things a bit odd about your report, Pace. I am not saying you are making anything up, but it is strange that:

1) You filed IFR for a flight to the North West at FL 100. You should have filed at FL105 or FL085. This would have significantly reduced the risk of your hitting another aircraft.

Riverboat you do NOT file airways out of Southend at quadrantal levels IFR!

The report is factual the incident has been filed with my personal details and the flight details to the relevant authorities.
I notice you do not print your name and address here as it is an anonymous forum and neither do I. Anyone who wants further details can PM me and will be happy to respond when I know who I am talking to.

Frankly I resent your implications that I am some sort of liar I notice on your public profile here you are an ATP well so am I so PM me if you want a more detail.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

I don't think you can grumble about there not being any radar available to you in uncontrolled airspace, as the provision of radar costs money!


Ah yes, that would be the money invested by the tax payer who owns 49% of NATS then. Since I pay tax that includes me and presumably includes you as well. I suppose the taxpayer shouldnt expect anything for their investment really, never mind the fuel duty we pay - which of course I hate to mention. :)

What we should do is sell off our share in NATS and exempt Avgas from duty to level up the playing fields with CAT (who pay no duty on fuel). What we should also do is open up more upper airspace to GA so they can burn a whole load less fuel. Then we can ask GA to pay for en route radar - which I suspect they will be more than happy to do - having rather a load of change left over I suspect. :) :)

[Droopystop]

Just out of interest as someone who is relatively new to TCAS, how good is the system at resolving collision avoidance of something in a very tight orbit? Or indeed multiple contacts in a very tight orbit?

[Cows getting bigger]

TCAS works in the vertical plane only. Consequently it is more interested in whether the conflicting aircraft (ie in the TCAS equipped aircraft's flightpath) is climbing or descending.

[gpn01]

TCAS works in the vertical plane only. Consequently it is more interested in whether the conflicting aircraft (ie in the TCAS equipped aircraft's flightpath) is climbing or descending.

How would that work in a TCAS equipped glider given that they're climbing one moment, descending the next and rarely maintain anything constant for more than a second or so?

[Pace]

Traffic Collision Avoidance System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCAS)

Gives a pretty good description of TICAS and how it works

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

On a point of order you will find very few GA aircraft fitted with TCAS - but far more fitted with TAS.

TAS displays the target relative to you and its climb or descend trend but does not provide a RA.

I have no idea the relevance of the earlier comment that TCAS only works in the vertical plane, unless this is a reference to RAs.

Skyforce is probably the most common system in GA used by both Avidyne and Garmin in their glass cockpits.

Skyforce tracks up to 50 targets at any one time so is more than capable of providing enough information to avoid a group of gliders - if only they were transponding!

If you are interested in hearing more about the system this is a useful introduction: TAS600 Series Demonstration (http://www.avidyne.com/products/tas600/demo/index.html)

I suspect the long term future is ADS-B, and I suspect gliders will eventually be required to carry ADS-B regardless - and not before time. How long it takes EASA to committ to ADS-B remains to be seen given their infatuation with mode S. Skyforce is already able to track both ADS-B and mode S/C targets.

For all those operators who complain about the weight have a look at something like the Trig

http://www.trig-avionics.com/library/tt31brochure.pdf

the whole units weighs in at 3lb, just a little more than a bag of sugar. I suppose most of us could lose that amount from around our waist if we wanted too. :)

The unit uses between 0,2A and 0.4A hardly a massive power consumption.

As importantly the unit supports ADS-B should that come to pass.

Of course there is also the T21 - but I guess either the cost (£1,500), the weight 500g, the size, a pack of cards is still too much for some.

TRIG Avionics has introduced a new lightweight Mode S transponder. The TT21 transponder system meets all the Mode S transponder requirements but weighs less than 500 grams.

With an ultra-compact front panel controller and a small transponder block the new TT21 will squeeze into any aircraft. Ideal for light sport and microlight aircraft, as well as conventional light aircraft where there is not much panel space, the TT21 low power design means that it can also run on batteries for gliders and balloons.

The TT21 is a two part system – the front panel controller features an LCD display and conventional controls, and incorporates an altitude encoder, whilst the remote transponder box contains the power supply and the receiver/transmitter. The rear box is not much larger than a pack of cards, and can be mounted anywhere convenient in the aircraft.

Despite the small size the TT21 nominal power output for reply pulses is 130 Watts, and it even supports ADS-B out using 1090MHz extended squitters, which means that it offers a path to future ADS-B based surveillance.

The TT21 will initially be certified in Europe and the USA. The TT21 will be available in February 2009, and is expected to retail for around £1,295 / €1,620 (plus taxes).

[cats_five]

<snip>

Of course there is also the TT21 - but I guess either the cost (£1,500), the weight 500g, the size, a pack of cards is still too much for some.

<snip>


I suspect you are indirectly refering to gliders in your statement above...

The URL for the TT21 brochure is:
http://www.trig-avionics.com/library/tt21brochure.pdf

And yes, it is light and uses less power than earlier options, though it might still not be a workeable solution where the power comes from 2, 7AH batteries which might be very cold. I've also not looked to see if it can be used at the higher levels often used during a wave flight.

As to cost, the cost of the transponder itself is just the starting point. The total cost is much, much more than the cost of the transponder. Many gliders have a panel that is full, so adding another panel-fit instrument would mean a new panel having to be made, all existing instruments refitted and/or replaced with smaller version. In effect an almost total rewire of the glider. The cost would be considerable, and AFAIK replacement instruments would have to be EASA-released items which again increases the costs.

I did the sums over a year ago for my glider and it came then (with a much stronger UK pound) to almost £5,000. The hull value of the glider is in the region of £12K, and at my club that is an above average value - we have a lot of gliders worth considerably less than the cost of fitting a transponder.

It's also not just gliders that have issues - see the draft LAA response:

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/Consultation/ModeS%20Sub%20Docs/LAA%20Draft%20Mode%20S%20Consultation%20Response.pdf

[Rod1]

Just to clarify;

“It's also not just gliders that have issues - see the draft LAA response:”

No LAA aircraft flying in IMC in the UK and the LAA attempts to get this restriction lifted involve the permit aircraft being fully equipped with mode s etc.

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

And yes, it is light and uses less power than earlier options, though it might still not be a workeable solution where the power comes from 2, 7AH batteries which might be very cold.


but the unit can be placed in standby when VFR.


I've also not looked to see if it can be used at the higher levels often used during a wave flight.



How high?


I did the sums over a year ago for my glider and it came then (with a much stronger UK pound) to almost £5,000.


Cost is of course a consideration. However, I see little reason why all new gliders should not be compelled to make provision for a transponder. Are they?


There may be no good reason why the transponder needs to be fitted to the panel at all. I see little need for a glider to squawk anything other than 7000, or perhaps more ideally, to be assigned a code that all gliders would use much as we have a dedicated code when flying aeros. In this event the unit could be positioned any where convenient, turned on before the flight and the appropriate code selected. In other words select and forget perhaps with nothing more than a simple warning LED placed on the panel to indicate the batteries where exhausted.

I appreciate this would require a change in legislation, however this is the sort of proactive response I would wish to see from the glider fraternity rather than what appears to be their hell bent approach on finding every possible reason for doing absolutely nothing.

In fact I bet if the glider community wished to work along side a company such as TRIG and the CAA it would not be long before an acceptable solution could be found, that was cost realistic, and met your concerns about fitting and power supply. After all there would be a reasonable market for any manufacturer(s) particularly if it was agreed it would be a fleet wide fit.

[cats_five]

How high?

Go check the gliding wave boxes on a chart. Up to FL245 I believe, certainly up to FL195.



Cost is of course a consideration. However, I see little reason why all new gliders should not be compelled to make provision for a transponder. Are they?

Like most people in gliding a new glider is way out of my price bracket (and aspirations) so I have no idea, but their numbers are a mere drop in the ocean compared to the existing fleet. I fly at one of the largest clubs in the UK and there has been one brand new glider late last year, and one over three years ago. For most of us a decent second-hand glider is just the ticket - acceptable performance, easier to repair than the latest models built in exotic materials, and a huge amount cheaper. It might also depend on what you mean by 'make provision'. Leave room in the panel? Have enough battery power (whatever 'enough' is)?

<snip>

I appreciate this would require a change in legislation

So hell will freeze over before that happens!

however this is the sort of proactive response I would wish to see from the glider fraternity rather than what appears to be their hell bent approach on finding every possible reason for doing absolutely nothing.

If you go and read the BGA's Mode S response you will find out that they are not hell-bent on doing nothing, but the EASA (legislative) , practical and cost implications of fitting a transponder are not trivial.

In fact I bet if the glider community wished to work along side a company such as TRIG and the CAA it would not be long before an acceptable solution could be found, that was cost realistic, and met your concerns about fitting and power supply. After all there would be a reasonable market for any manufacturer(s) particularly if it was agreed it would be a fleet wide fit.

Would the BGA glider fleet really be a 'reasonable market'? (Just over 2,000 gliders are listed on the BGA's EASA transition status page)

Remembering the cost of development and certification? Would it really get the cost down the the £1K that might get more glider pilots to fit a transponder, including (maybe) the vast majority who will never, ever intentionally fly in cloud? (of course just about all of us fly near to cloud)

Part of the CAA's original Mode S pitch (since the late 1980s) has been been that "industry is developing low power, low cost transponders”. So far as I can see the outcome so far is pretty much zilch, at least in terms of one that can be adequately drivem for a period of time by batteries.

[cats_five]

but the unit can be placed in standby when VFR.

Should have commented that during an XC flight a glider spends quite a lot of it's time near clouds and over 3,000' - e.g. not in VFR. So turning it onto and off standby might be a task that would have to be done many times duing an XC flight, a bit of work in the cockpit we could all do without. If one is carried it really needs to work all the time without being fiddled with.

[Fuji Abound]

Part of the CAA's original Mode S pitch (since the late 1980s) has been been that "industry is developing low power, low cost transponders”. So far as I can see the outcome so far is pretty much zilch, at least in terms of one that can be adequately drivem for a period of time by batteries.


Conisder the TRIG transponder I have referred you to.

If the unit were self comtained (ie the panel component was part of the control box) which would overcome the panel space limitation, and given the published power required which can be supplied by rechargeable batteries, why do you consider the unit does not meet your needs?

[Jim59]

My parents always told me to be careful what I wished for in case it became true. Some of the contributors to this forum might well consider that advice in light of the fact that EASA will be proposing new regulations for flying in IMC in early 2010.

EASA’s starting point in the consultations to-date has been that all amateur flying is to be conducted in conditions somewhat similar to those imposed upon the holder of an NPPL today. (Within sight of the ground, a 5km flight visibility and not in circumstances requiring compliance with IFR.)

This raised many objections from three groups of amateur pilots:

PPL with IMC rating holders who would have lost all of the extensive IMC privileges they enjoy in the UK today.
UK PPL and JAA PPL holders would have lost the limited IMC privileges they have today. (Outside controlled airspace they may fly IMC as long as they maintain sight of the surface and a flight visibility of at least 3 km.)
Glider pilots who would have lost the limited IMC privilege the have today. (Outside controlled airspace they may fly in IMC.)The outcome of the 2010 consultation has essentially four possible outcomes:


All private flyers to remain essentially VMC at all times. This is similar to the UK NPPL today.
Only power pilots to have available to them a rating to enable flying in IMC in some circumstances.
Only glider pilots to have available to them a rating to enable flying in IMC in some circumstances.
Both power and glider pilots to have available to them a rating to enable flying in IMC in some circumstances.
The argument that it is unsafe for power pilots to fly IMC outside CAS because they might meet a glider could be seen as an argument for either outcome 1 or 3. Be careful what you wish for!

Most aviation legislation (prior to EASA which seems to propose it for different reasons) has been in response to real safety issues. My original PPL gained in about 1970 did not have a restriction on flight in IMC generally, or in cloud in particular, outside CAS. For PPL holders there was an excessive incidence of accidents involving either controlled flight into unseen terrain in poor visibility or loss of control in poor / zero visibility. The result was a reduction in PPL privileges compensated for by the availability of the IMC rating subject to further training and testing. The gliding community had used clouds differently and rarely without a large vertical gap between cloud base and terrain enabling recovery from loss of control before reaching the surface. Consequently they did not have an accident rate related to cloud flying needing legislative action.

There have been suggestions that gliders are not equipped for flight in cloud. I have a glider (well a share in one) that is EASA certified for flight in IMC. The certification document specifies the instrumentation that must be carried for such flights. Do I fly it in cloud? Yes – when there is a benefit to be gained. Am I qualified? I have a current IMC rating on my PPL – I leave it to others to judge if that is appropriate. In fact the main reason I did my IMCR was not to fly power in IMC but to learn how to do it properly so I could do it in my glider safely.

So what instrumentation do I have for IMC in my glider: ASI, Altimeter, VSI(2), OAT, T&S, Horizon, compass, radio, alternate pitot and backup batteries. What more would I need in a light ‘plane? Ignoring talk about transponders I would probably have a DI. So my glider is approved, appropriately equipped and I think that I have undergone appropriate training. Why is this so bad?

Flying wooden gliders in cloud was regarded as low risk because a loss of control could be handled by opening the speed-limiting air brakes and letting go of the stick. When becoming visual after falling out of the bottom of the cloud recovering from the spin or spiral dive was always successful and enabled one to have another go. Modern GRP and CRP gliders no longer have speed limiting air brakes and loss of control can have more serious implications. For that reason I would think it reasonable for there to be an EASA qualification to allow glider pilots to fly in cloud – just as we hope the IMCR will re-emerge in some form for power pilots. I.e.: outcome 4 above.

So to Mode ‘S’ transponders…
In an ideal world we would all carry them so that just like recently in the Netherlands if we infringe CAS they can send the fine through the post! Gliders with transponders have been asking for transits through the Robin Hood (Doncaster) Class D CTA/CTR. On the reducing number of occasions where they have not been refused entry they have been given silly clearances such as not above 2000’. At that height a cross-country glider pilot is beginning to look for somewhere to land! So one notional benefit of a transponder – to gain access to CAS turns out to be an illusion.

Is the cost, weight and battery-power requirement of a transponder for a glider that flies in cloud for perhaps half-an-hour once a month proportionate? I doubt it. As far as I know (and if I’m wrong please let me know) a powered aircraft does not HAVE to have a transponder to fly IMC outside CAS so why should a glider?

[belowradar]

Looks like gliders fly a fair bit in cloud from the responses so far

lots of resistance to transponders or similar due cost

competition flying that requires climbing in imc etc

Well I don't think that a flying competition or reluctance to get a box of electronics is a good enough reason to gamble with your life.

The glider pilot may well die and if he or she knew it was a definite they would be queing up to fit a transponder money no object ! either that or they would be back early from the competition having stayed VMC to enjoy a full meal in a local pub with family and friends.

Chances may be small percentage but if the risk materialises it is devastating - why would anyone wan't to take that risk when they don't need to ? You are also risking the lives of others which I cannot understand ?

[cats_five]

Conisder the TRIG transponder I have referred you to.

If the unit were self comtained (ie the panel component was part of the control box) which would overcome the panel space limitation, and given the published power required which can be supplied by rechargeable batteries, why do you consider the unit does not meet your needs?

1) can the existing glider batteries supply the TRIG as well as the normal kit - radio & flight computer for up to 8 hours in subzero conditions? I'm sure it won't have build-in rechargeables capable of powering it for any length of time.

2) If it had to be mounted where the panel bit was visible that would be a rather tricky - I guess you've never seen a glider cockpit. Nothing sharp below the panel please as that will damage legs in an accident - indeed there isn't room for many pilots, their knees are practically in the panel as it is. And it would have to be a tiny slim display to be capable of being safely mounted on the coaming - the size of a Swiss Flarm for example. For me in my glider the coaming points nicely to the horizon or thereabouts most of the time, so anything in the least bit substantial will be obscuring a rather vital bit of the sky for lookout.

If it was a similar size & weight to an EW MicroRecorder and didn't need visual attention during flight then it could be mounted on the inside of the fuselage using Velcro.

[Final 3 Greens]

On the reducing number of occasions where they have not been refused entry they have been given silly clearances such as not above 2000’

Have you considered that this may be a clearance given for highy pragmatic reasons?

As an airline pax, I'm pretty happy with this, in fact, not above 1,500 feet would make me happier.

[cats_five]

Looks like gliders fly a fair bit in cloud from the responses so far

lots of resistance to transponders or similar due cost

competition flying that requires climbing in imc etc

Well I don't think that a flying competition or reluctance to get a box of electronics is a good enough reason to gamble with your life.
<snip>


*most* glider pilots never intentionally fly in clouds. *most* glider pilots never go to a competition. And *most* glider pilots understand that the biggest collision risk by far to a glider is another glider, hence the gradual uptake of Flarm. Come to that, *most* glider pilots never even fly XC, defined as out of glide range of their launch point. Mind you, at 10,000' in wave with a 50 knot tailwind home that can be quite a long way away...

[Fuji Abound]

EASA’s starting point in the consultations to-date has been that all amateur flying is to be conducted in conditions somewhat similar to those imposed upon the holder of an NPPL today. (Within sight of the ground, a 5km flight visibility and not in circumstances requiring compliance with IFR.)

I am unaware of any evidence for that statement or of any possibility of that outcome (unless you are assuming an IR is a professional rating and anything else is not). I suspect you are just badly misinformed.

1) can the existing glider batteries supply the TRIG as well as the normal kit - radio & flight computer for up to 8 hours in subzero conditions? I'm sure it won't have build-in rechargeables capable of powering it for any length of time.


How often are gliders up for eight hours in sub zero temperatures I wonder? Not withstanding I would guess you (the glider community) would have had a go at the research required to either demonstrate the TRIG can or cannot be viably powered for most flights. Has that research been done? If not, to be blunt, it smacks of another example of finding every excuse under the sun for doing nothing - I hope I am wrong.

As cats-five seems to suggest the sort of mission you mention is very rare.

So, back to the point, if the glider community worked with people like TRIG and EASA perhaps a viable self contained transponder pack could be agreed upon that would keep us all happy at a cost of perhaps little more than £1,000. That doesnt seem to me a lot to pay in order to ensure we are all that little bit safer.

As I said earlier if you dont do it the pressure may mount for your priviliges to be curtailed - and once that happens in my experience you never get them back. :)

[Jim59]

EASA’s starting point in the consultations to-date has been that all amateur flying is to be conducted in conditions somewhat similar to those imposed upon the holder of an NPPL today. (Within sight of the ground, a 5km flight visibility and not in circumstances requiring compliance with IFR.)


I am unaware of any evidence for that statement or of any possibility of that outcome (unless you are assuming an IR is a professional rating and anything else is not). I suspect you are just badly misinformed.


OK I accept that in theory a PPL holder can have an IR, but EASA are of the opinion that, "
During the transfer of the JAR-FCL requirements into the proposal for EASA Implementing Rules, the FCL.001 group and the MDM.032 group (dealing with better regulations for General Aviation) came to the conclusion that the existing requirements for the Instrument
Rating seemed to be too demanding for the PPL holder."
so they have initiated rulemaking rask FCL 008 to consider a rating that will allow a PPL holder to fly in conditions requiring compliance with the rules for IMC. Part of the TORs are reproduced below. It implies rather strongly, to me, that until they offer such a rating then a basic PPL holder will not be able to fly in circumstances requiring complience with IFR. Since, when clear of cloud today, we already have that privilege then it is clear that the basis EASA licences are a retrograde step to most of us.


EASA Task FCL 008 (a) & (b) Terms of Reference (Extract)

1. Subject: Qualifications for flying in Instrument Meteorological Conditions

“During the transfer of the JAR-FCL requirements into the proposal for EASA Implementing Rules, the FCL.001 group and the MDM.032 group (dealing with better regulations for General Aviation) came to the conclusion that the existing requirements for the Instrument Rating seemed to be too demanding for the PPL holder. Additionally some of the group experts were in favor to develop a similar rating as the UK national IMC rating with lesser requirements than the current requirements for the Instrument Rating (IR) which allows the pilot to fly in circumstances that require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) but in certain airspace categories only. However, the groups could not agree on this issue. Due to the time constraints for the development of the Implementing Rules for licensing it was agreed to start a separate rulemaking task.”

3. Objectives:

Review the existing JAR-FCL requirements for the Instrument Rating with a view to evaluate the possibility of reducing these requirements for private pilots flying under Instrument Flight Rules. This evaluation shall take into account the ICAO Annex 1 SARPs for the issue of an IR
Review the requirements of the UK IMC rating and other national qualifications for flying in IMC and consider whether there is a need to develop an additional European rating to fly in IMC with less training but also with limited privileges
Review the existing national requirements for cloud flying with sailplanes and assess the need for an additional European rating for sailplane pilots to fly in IMC Take into account Air Traffic Control (ATC) requirements regarding Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flights
Amend the proposed requirements for the instrument rating if necessary

[cats_five]

<snip>
So, back to the point, if the glider community worked with people like TRIG and EASA perhaps a viable self contained transponder pack could be agreed upon that would keep us all happy at a cost of perhaps little more than £1,000. That doesnt seem to me a lot to pay in order to ensure we are all that little bit safer.
<snip>



If it was £1K for the total cost that would be fine and a lot of the resistance would go away, but as pointed out before, the total cost (including fitting and replacing the panel in many cases) is way, way over that. I can see no hope of it coming down to £1K either - the best hope is if there's a transponder that can be Velcro'd somewhere out of the way and left to squawk away with a resonable chance of running for the whole flight.

Then my paying £1K for something which will make b*gg*er all difference to my safety (and yours) will make you happy. It won't make me happy.

Paying £600 for Flarm is something I will probably be doing later this year. It will probably contribute far more to my safety than a transponder ever will since as pointed out by endless folks in the Mode S consultations, there are almost no GA vs Glider collisions, except where the GA was working as a tug. If you don't believe me, go consult the AirProx website. Most of the contents are CA vs CA, and the military figure as well.

The one near miss I've had with GA was an idiot flying over the (winch) launch site, below 2,000' AAL. Since it's clearly marked on the chart only stupidity seems a reasonable explaination, or a remarkable lack of imagination as to what flying into a launch wire might do to his plane. If he needs a transponder to warn him of that hazard he shouldn't be flying.

[Fuji Abound]

Jim59

OK, well that is all pretty well rehearsed here and on the dark(er) side.

2010 would now seem the earliest we are likely to know what proposals are really on the table and that presupposes no back lash from our own IMCr holders and glider pilots.

[Pace]

Review the existing JAR-FCL requirements for the Instrument Rating with a view to evaluate the possibility of reducing these requirements for private pilots flying under Instrument Flight Rules. This evaluation shall take into account the ICAO Annex 1 SARPs for the issue of an IR
Review the requirements of the UK IMC rating and other national qualifications for flying in IMC and consider whether there is a need to develop an additional European rating to fly in IMC with less training but also with limited privileges
Review the existing national requirements for cloud flying with sailplanes and assess the need for an additional European rating for sailplane pilots to fly in IMC Take into account Air Traffic Control (ATC) requirements regarding Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flights
Amend the proposed requirements for the instrument rating if necessary

Jim this highlights the stupidity of some of our arguements in these forums as we are all from the same camp facing the same enemy in differing ways. But fight each other rather than the enemy.

It is a natural instinct if asked if something is possible to find every reason on earth and beyond why not. That is how its always been done Guv and thats how it always will be! is a very naive attitude to take.

The day these things are forced on us will be the day we wish we had done something when we had some power to do so. I am not just talking about glider rights to fly IMC.

Pace

[Pace]

The one near miss I've had with GA was an idiot flying over the (winch) launch site, below 2,000' AAL. Since it's clearly marked on the chart only stupidity seems a reasonable explaination, or a remarkable lack of imagination as to what flying into a launch wire might do to his plane. If he needs a transponder to warn him of that hazard he shouldn't be flying.

Cats five

My near miss with a glider was at between 5000 and 6000 feet in IMC and I had no way of knowing he was there until we flashed past each other. So slightly different to your encounter and fingers crossed will never happen again.


Pace

[FullWings]

An interesting discussion.

Flying in IMC outside of CAS has always been a different proposition. Not necessarily in terms of absolute risk but certainly in perception.

Transponders and STCA systems tied into them are a help but they were not designed to separate traffic, only as a means of last resort to (possibly) avoid a conflict. To be more sure of that you need an ATC service or something that was engineered from the outset to provide separation.

There are many users of uncontrolled airspace: GA, military, even commercial. All have different needs/requirements, of which some may overlap. The point is, they are all sharing this resource and have to accomodate others, rather than trying to claim it all for themselves.

If you operate your light aircraft at 500'AGL, at some point you'll meet an RAF low flyer. Answer: don't spend too much time down there. If you insist on 'busting' every cumulus on your route, one day it might be stuffed with a glider or another aircraft doing the same thing. Answer: go round it if you can. You are quite within your rights to loiter on the extended centreline of an airfield with an active instrument approach, just outside their airspace. Answer: Is this wise?

For all those who call for restrictions on what other fellow aviators can do, please remember that you are still in a pecking order and someone higher up the chain could use exactly the same logic to stop your fun. The CAA could say tomorrow that the whole of the UK was now class 'A' down to ground level and only those with an AOC could fly, for 'safety reasons'. The majority of the passengers going to Lanzarote would support that...

[Fuji Abound]

For all those who call for restrictions on what other fellow aviators can do, please remember that you are still in a pecking order and someone higher up the chain could use exactly the same logic to stop your fun. The CAA could say tomorrow that the whole of the UK was now class 'A' down to ground level and only those with an AOC could fly, for 'safety reasons'. The majority of the passengers going to Lanzarote would support that...


Have you read and understood the rest of the thread or did you think you should just write something .. .. .. :}

[Pace]

Fullwings

Vey well written response with very valid points. Yes a law could be written tomorrow which curtailed our freedom and yes we do have to learn to live together OCAS.

Let me give you a breakdown of the cloud descent.

No! flying IFR we dont punch through lumps of isolated cumulus willingly as they are bumpy and the PAX dont appreciate bashing their heads.

If it is extensive cumulus you dont have a choice without diverting miles so in that situation its back with the speed and take the chop and go through.
In my situation I was at FL105 descending into an overcast at FL90. The cloud was a mixture of types with a number of layers and some wave formation.
The cloudbase was about 2000 feet. At 6000 feet there were no patches where the ground was visible at 4=5000 feet there was an occasional glimpse of ground in mainly cumulus and stratus type cloud. The encounter was at around 5000 feet.

Those of us who fly IFR OCAS fly quadrantal rules so that if I am going NORTH WEST at FL65 I know another guy going SOUTH EAST will be at FL55 or FL75 giving us a 1000 foot seperation.

Normally on this route there are two military units who previously gave an excellent service for the descent OCAS. Both these units were closed at 1700hrs with government cost saving and so called streamlining. Both covered an extensive chunk of OCAS But no longer do so flying in those hundreds of square miles of OCAS you are now on your own.

Already aircraft capable of IFR flight (Gliders are NOT) IE homebuilts Microlights are not permitted to fly in IMC even with a transponder.

I was tempted to own one of these aircraft but didnt as I did not want a pure VFR aircraft. If I was the owner of such an aircraft I would be agrieved at the double standards of allowing gliders to fly IMC but not me in my sophisticated well equipt homebuilt.

In a twin or Biz Jet flying OCAS in IMC we have to have a method of seperation whether that be pilot interpretated seperation using IFR rules and TICAS as well as communication or something???? Other wise we are all flying blind and at risk to eachother.

The glider fraternity attitude is we dont owe you any duty of care. We hold grandfather rights going back decaded which allows us to fly in IMC and even into CAS. Dont touch our liberties which no other section of GA has and we are not prepared to compromise to do anything to make sharing those clouds safer Who are the arrogant ones the self centred ones? Us or them? Sad thing is we should all be us.

Pace

[Wrong Stuff]

Would it be a great imposition on the gliding community to stipulate that flight in cloud is either carried out with a working mode C/S transponder OR in receipt of a service from a radar-equipped ATC unit? That way, at least other aircraft can be warned of their presence and kept clear of the aircraft (or area if a reliable return isn't being received). Obviously this isn't a perfect answer but it seems a reasonable compromise which would work fine in the vast majority of cases and would mitigate the accusation that other's lives are being gambled with.

[cats_five]

It's not that glider pilots don't want flying to be safer. If that was the case none of us would be buying Flarm units.

The problems are that 1) fitting a transponder to a great many gliders is very problematic from a number of practical points of view (which have been explained at length earlier in this thread), and 2) the cost is a lot for most of us both in terms of a percentage of the hull value (33% in my case) or of a year's flying (300% in my case). Remember my glider is an above-average value at my club, so the proportional figures will be worse for many other pilots.

You know perfectly well there might be gliders inside clouds without transponders, and unless regulations chance that will continue to be the case. The regulations might change, but that's for the future.

So, if you want to be as safe as possible in the meantime, it strikes me there are three things you can do to mitigate the risks:

1) avoid flying inside clouds. It's almost free and the PAX get a much better view as well.
2) monitor 130.4 and use it to try to establish if there are gliders inside the cloud you want to fly in. Again it's free.
3) get yourself one of the standalong Flarm units, currently just over £500 for a Swiss Flarm which is stand-alone and can be mounted using Velcro. If you don't have a suitable power outlet in your plane you could use a small rechargeable battery. If I could buy and fit a transponder for that sum I would, and so would most other glider pilots that fly XC. If it was that sum and that easy I would have no problem with a transponder being mandated for cloud flying.

Finally, did you report the incident to the AirProx board?

[Final 3 Greens]

Not above 1,000 feet would be even better, on reflection.

[Fuji Abound]

1) avoid flying inside clouds. It's almost free and the PAX get a much better view as well.
2) monitor 130.4 and use it to try to establish if there are gliders inside the cloud you want to fly in. Again it's free.
3) get yourself one of the standalong Flarm units, currently just over £500 for a Swiss Flarm which is stand-alone and can be mounted using Velcro. If you don't have a suitable power outlet in your plane you could use a small rechargeable battery. If I could buy and fit a transponder for that sum I would, and so would most other glider pilots that fly XC.



Well we are just going round in circles.

The answer is simple.

The glider community should write to a company like TRIG and see if a self contained transponder can be developed for around £1,000. If it can they should petition the CAA to allow fitting and to be allocated a dedicated code. Job done.

If such a unit cannot be developed or approved then the glider community is entitled to say we have tried, we have made an effort to properly regulate our sport.

In the mean time I shall be writing to the CAA and EASA pointing out that the practice of gliders operating in cloud is an en route hazard to every other airspace user and they should introduce regulation without delay.

[PPRuNe Radar]

In the mean time I shall be writing to the CAA and EASA pointing out that the practice of gliders operating in cloud is an en route hazard to every other airspace user and they should introduce regulation without delay.

Powered aircraft can also operate in cloud without a transponder :ouch:

But be careful what you wish for, since maybe EASA will ask the UK to go down the route of many other countries and remove the right to the freedoms to fly in Class G in IMC. More Controlled Airspace and more rules would be inevitable, i.e IMC flights would be operating under IFR and therefore an ATC clearance would be required :ok:

[Pace]

1) avoid flying inside clouds. It's almost free and the PAX get a much better view as well.

Not usually possible in the UK at least 80 percent of my flights are in IMC

2) monitor 130.4 and use it to try to establish if there are gliders inside the cloud you want to fly in. Again it's free.

Normally too busy talking on other frequencies but if those frequencies are to be closed thats something we could do.
Maybe gliders could give positions and blocks to London Info. When IMC or flying above 4000 feet? As London Info could pass on that information.

3) get yourself one of the standalong Flarm units, currently just over £500 for a Swiss Flarm which is stand-alone and can be mounted using Velcro. If you don't have a suitable power outlet in your plane you could use a small rechargeable battery. If I could buy and fit a transponder for that sum I would, and so would most other glider pilots that fly XC. If it was that sum and that easy I would have no problem with a transponder being mandated for cloud flying.

Happy to do that if gliders self regulate that ALL gliders flying IMC have to have a working FLARM fitted.Some do some dont is NOT good enough.

Finally, did you report the incident to the AirProx board?

I made a CHIRP report and have been encouraged to go much further by them.

But then maybe its better to forget it take the risk hope it will never happen again than upset our gliding brothers.

I was two minds about posting here because I am really not against gliders and the animosity makes me wonder why I did?

More than anthing hope there never is a collision OCAS with a CAT then we all loose our freedoms as fast as the gun owners lost theirs.

Pace

[Pace]

Powered aircraft can also operate in cloud without a transponder

I dont think that is a practice widely used and would be frowned upon by most IMCR/IR pilots.

I do not know many IMCR/IR pilots who would oppose compulsory Transponders for powered aircraft in IMC.

Pace

[cats_five]

Fuji, will you make use any of the ideas I've suggested that you can do right now to make your flying safer? Without having to wait for the outcome of writing to the CAA/EASA? If not, why not?

The BGA can write to TRIG (or whoever or indeed all transponder makers) but I doubt that anything suitable will be forthcoming for some time to come. In the meantime, things are what they are. You might as well do what you can now to reduce your risks.

Pace, waiting for the BGA to add Flarm to it's laws & rules is prevaricating with your safety. For all you know the glider you had your scare with might have had one fitted - if you had had one then your incident wouldn't have happened. Also, what would be the point of a glider in Scotland giving London details of where it is? *if* they should be talking to anyone it would be Scottish Information, but not all glider pilots have an RT licence and AFAIK in those without should not talk to ATC except in an emergency. And maybe when your report comes up in CHIRP you'd care to post the URL so we can all benefit? Ditto if it goes through the AirProx process. BTW surely you are unusual in that 80% of your flights are in IMC?

[Rod1]

The PCAS trial result should be known by the end of next week. If it works and I would be surprised if it did not, then we will have a viable, cheap solution.

Rod1

[Pace]

BTW surely you are unusual in that 80% of your flights are in IMC?

I am a corporate pilot rather a weekend fun pilot who only flies if the sun shines through the curtains in the morning.

I would say 80% as an estimate is not far off the mark.
May I add that almost nil % are just in the local area ie most trips are 150 nm + so the chances especially at higher levels of being VMC all the way are small.

The idea of someone in clouds without even a radio is totally unacceptable

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Fuji, will you make use any of the ideas I've suggested that you can do right now to make your flying safer?


Yes, of course. This issue was debated a while ago and I learnt a lot about the behaviour of gliders. 130.4 is always on box 2, and I find it relatively easy to monitor box 2 as I am accustom to working the other frequencies on box 1. Not many pilots like doing it that way I might add.

Yes, I always avoid gliding sites.

I am not about to buy a FLARM unless you convince me most gliders have FLARM fitted - in reality I gather very few do.

I am not about to avoid clouds - and this suggestion of yours is just daft. That said I would rather stay out of clouds, and one of the reasons is I cant trust you lot not to be inside one.

The BGA can write to TRIG (or whoever or indeed all transponder makers) but I doubt that anything suitable will be forthcoming for some time to come. In the meantime, things are what they are. You might as well do what you can now to reduce your risks.

Much of the time I have a ballistic chute, I have TAS, I have mode S, I always try and get a traffic service if anything is remotely on offer, so my conscious is clear if I run into one of you lot, and with any luck my parachute (and perhaps yours) might save the day.

Sadly my perception is it is you lot that arent prepared to do anything - the BRG could but I doubt are words that ring rather hollow with me.

You could require all gliders to be fitted with PCAS - but I doubt you will.

With regret, it is rare to see such complacency and such a lack of willingness to attempt to improve the situation.

I rather hope your activities are restricted by legislation - frankly the only difference it will make to me is to make IFR flying safer, I dont mind being restricted to airways at all if it comes to that, and I dont mind cloud flying being closed if the attitude of those that do is so irresponsible.

I was a supporter of those that campaigned against the general carriage of transponders. I find that I was probably mistaken and swayed by a bunch of people who are more concerned with protecting their rights than enhancing the safety of everyone that uses the air space. I suspect it is your complaceny that will ultimately lead to a restriction of the freedoms we should all be trying to preserve.

Anyway nuff said, I cant add anything more.

Please dont misunderstand me, love gliding, love to see gliders up, even had a couple of flights myself, the last thing I would wish is to see gliding restricted BUT if you cant behave as responsibly as the rest of us, you only have yourselves to blame.

[FullWings]

Pace,

Thanks for the polite reply.

I would argue that it is mostly a matter of how you perceive and manage risk. Aviation is an inherently risky endeavour and in GA, the chances of hitting someone else OCAS & IMC are orders of magnitude less than most of the other things you are exposed to such as CFIT, performance issues, mechanical problems, departure from controlled flight, etc. If you only allowed one aircraft in IMC at any time over the whole UK, it wouldn't noticeably affect the accident statistics in terms of something like fatalities per flying hour.

I would also argue that we (humans) have many incredible inbuilt faculties. Unfortunately, being able to assess risk in complex scenarios is not one of them and this leads to emotional responses to problems which would benefit from more analytical approaches.

I notice from one of your previous posts that:
Normally on this route there are two military units who previously gave an excellent service for the descent OCAS. Both these units were closed at 1700hrs with government cost saving and so called streamlining. Both covered an extensive chunk of OCAS But no longer do so flying in those hundreds of square miles of OCAS you are now on your own.

So you knew that you wouldn't be getting an ATC service, yet took the risk that others, also not in receipt of a service, might conflict with you? This is NOT a criticism - I'd have done the same thing - but you could have reduced the risk by arriving when the units were open and chose not to... Obviously it lay within the bounds of what you felt to be acceptable but I'm pretty sure you didn't make the decision based on a quantative analysis - who does?

Those of us who fly IFR OCAS fly quadrantal rules so that if I am going NORTH WEST at FL65 I know another guy going SOUTH EAST will be at FL55 or FL75 giving us a 1000 foot seperation.
But that only applies in level flight and you've got to cross the other quadrantals on the way up or down. Also it does nothing for people going in the same direction at different speeds. It helps but has limitations. Some years ago someone ran a statistical model and worked out we'd be better off all flying random heights and headings... :ooh:

In a twin or Biz Jet flying OCAS in IMC we have to have a method of seperation whether that be pilot interpretated seperation using IFR rules and TICAS as well as communication or something???? Other wise we are all flying blind and at risk to each other.
Until we've all got ADS-B, we're stuck with more traditional methods. TCAS is good but, as I have pointed out, was not developed nor intended to be used as a means of separation. It is a last ditch mitigation of a conflict and is not a magic security blanket: I fly all over the world in areas where TCAS is mandated and regularly see other aircraft who do not appear on the display, even though I know they're within the parameters when they should. Of course I'd rather have it than not but I'm aware it's not an 'armour of invincibility'.

'Risk' is an emotive word in today's society - everything has to be done to reduce it, even if the cost/benefit does not add up. Yes, there are many things which carry a certain risk level but unless you can accurately quantify it, you don't know whether it has any relevance. 100% safety is unachievable, unless you lock the hangar doors and throw away the key.

The glider fraternity attitude is we dont owe you any duty of care. We hold grandfather rights going back decades which allows us to fly in IMC and even into CAS. Dont touch our liberties which no other section of GA has and we are not prepared to compromise to do anything to make sharing those clouds safer Who are the arrogant ones the self centred ones? Us or them? Sad thing is we should all be us.
As someone who flies gliders, motor gliders, light aircraft and heavy jets, I feel I can see the issue from several angles. As is usual when different groups interact, it is mostly more about *perception* than reality. Power pilots think glider pilots float around the place, sometimes in clouds, taking unfair advantage of historical exemptions (500ft rule, IMC flight, etc.). Glider pilots think power pilots bore round the sky heads-down in VMC, trailing fumes, expecting everyone else to get out their way. Commercial operators think any form of recreational flying should be banned or at least severely curtailed, so they can go directly from point A to point B.

I appreciate where you're coming from, as you recently had proof that the sky isn't always as empty as it seems. Having a 'It Could Be You!' moment tends to polarize your opinions somewhat!

I think that we are in a transitional period where technology and regulation are catching up with requirements. I'm sure the CAA/EASA want (although they deny it) to know the exact whereabouts of everything larger than a paper dart that takes to the sky. It will probably happen. In the meantime, trying to restrict the freedoms of other airspace users, *without an accurate risk analysis*, understandably gets those 'others' a little hot under the collar. There is far too much of 'but think of the children!...' going on these days outside of aviation, so let's keep it there.

You'll be glad to hear that I have Mode-S and FLARM in my glider and when I fly IMC OCAS, which I do every now-and-then, I have the transponder on 7000 - I agree that every little helps. I don't for one minute *as things are now* think it much alters the *real* (miniscule) risk of collision but it makes me feel better which is a common human failing. ;)

[Pace]

You'll be glad to hear that I have Mode-S and FLARM in my glider and when I fly IMC OCAS, which I do every now-and-then, I have the transponder on 7000 - I agree that every little helps. I don't for one minute *as things are now* think it much alters the *real* (miniscule) risk of collision but it makes me feel better which is a common human failing.

Just to correct a couple of points I had flown this route in the morning both ways. All four trips were filed IFR and in three trips I was routed the way that meant minimal time OCAS for the destination.

Things went wrong on the last evening trip. Firstly mostly after an initial SID out of EGMC I was given radar headings and climbs first to the N/E and then to the North west (correct direction) and then to the South West and then further south to the point that I complained that I was doing a tour of the UK in CAS.

I was then down south of CPT on top of overcast cloud at FL100. Usually fine as Brize have always given an excellent service but London C just said Cleared direct XYZ contact London Info for a basic service.

I didnt want a Basic service and it became apparent that there is now a huge mass of airspace in OCAS with no radar cover other than trying to get one with London Military.

You are correct at some point you have to descend and in OCAS that can be a blind descent. Like many pilots we consider most Gliders to be around the bases of cloud or playing around isolated CU. Hence the second surprise was in pretty solid IMC to meet a glider at 5 to 6000 feet.

As a Heavy Iron pilot you also know that many destinations are OCAS and with NO RAS even for A320 737s etc so it is a misconception held by some in these forums that a collision risk it only between other gliders or light GA.

I fly Citations twins and turboprops in some pretty unhospitable areas as well as some worldwide ferries so far from a "SAFE" obsessed pilot.

The thought of a Glider flying without even a radio in cloud is horrific.

You have gone a long way to making your own Glider as cloud friendly as possible I wish that was the case with all who want to fly IMC. How do you power your own Mode S?

This posting was firstly to warn of the deterioration of RAS OCAS and a growing need for those who fly OCAS to work out a pilot interpretated seperation. the second was to highlight the real risk of collision with a glider at higher levels than percieved.

We may do nothing until the awful day that a jet and glider collide and the Russian Roulette system used at present is exposed to the media. Then as with the gunlaws restrictions would be forced on us all.


Pace

[PPRuNe Radar]

I dont think that is a practice widely used and would be frowned upon by most IMCR/IR pilots.

I do not know many IMCR/IR pilots who would oppose compulsory Transponders for powered aircraft in IMC.


Maybe not, but until it's mandated, there are people who can and do operate without transponders in IMC. Maybe not the majority but they do exist.

As a Heavy Iron pilot you also know that many destinations are OCAS and with NO RAS even for A320 737s etc

Just to be 100% clear, there is no RAS for any traffic in the UK. It's a Traffic Service or a Deconfliction Service, and has been for a few months.

[cats_five]

Fuji, surely the important question is not 'do most gliders have Flarm' but 'do most of the ones I might come across in or near a cloud have Flarm'.

Many gliders never get out of glider range of their launch point, and never fly in cloud (though they will fly near cloud). I can't provide an emprical answer to the second question, but Flarm is becoming more and more popular in the UK and the people getting it are the XC pilots - the ones that you might meet in cloud either because they intentionally cloud fly, or they go wave flying, it goes to rats and closes up so a descent through cloud becomes inevitable. Remember, most of us never ever want to fly in cloud but some of us either suddenly find cloud developing around us or get caught above it.

Pace, as a corporate pilot I would classify you as CA rather than GA so I'm quite surprised to find your original post was in 'Private Flying' - so far as I can tell your nasty surprise happened on a corporate flight. I might not be able to book a ticket on it, but then I also can't hitch a lift on any Cessna (etc.) at my nearest GA airfield just by waving my credit card.

[Pace]

Just to be 100% clear, there is no RAS for any traffic in the UK. It's a Traffic Service or a Deconfliction Service, and has been for a few months

That just shows how stupid things are getting what is wrong with what we had "deconfliction service" sounds like some hospital procedure to clear your bowels :)

Still dont understand what this is all about other than putting traffic firmly the responsability of the pilot and not the controller.

And now we have ATC streamlining which means close them for 90% of the time :)

Pace

[belowradar]

Good debate

Can't help thinking of the following analogy....

Why not get up late one night, put on a blindfold and ear plugs and then cross your nearest road without looking or listening.....chances are you will be OK and not hit anything....at least you are managing your own life risks and are a daring road crosser !....then again maybe you will get run over.:ok:

[Jim59]

Pace stated that

Already aircraft capable of IFR flight (Gliders are NOT) ...


I must be missing something here. Why are gliders incapable of IFR flight? The relevant rule seems to me to be:


...an aircraft in level flight above 3,000 feet above mean sea level or above the appropriate transition altitude, whichever is the higher, shall be flown at a level appropriate to its magnetic track,...



Since gliders don't do level flight and are either climbing or descending they are in exactly the same situation as other traffic that is climbing or descending. Entirely legitimate.

[Jim59]

A couple of responses to comments in the thread about transponders in gliders…

It is suggested that a low power transponder, such as the Trig, would solve many of the problems.

It is only approved for use up to about 15,000’. This is because above that altitude the responder signal may be too weak to be detected by secondary radars. Gliders in some areas frequently fly higher so if mandated they would need high power transponders to remain legal with all the implications for size, weight and battery power. I’ve had several glider flights above 15,000’ in recent months, including one to FL195.
Transponders quote an operating temperature range. In high flights in unheated cockpits the ambient temperature may be outside that range. The consequence is that altitude indications are likely to be incorrect and the responder output not accurately on frequency – if the transponder continues to operate.It was also suggested that a transponder could be installed off-panel with a dedicated glider code eliminating the need for access during flight; only an on/off switch need be accessible. I have proposed this to the CAA and was advised they have already reserved a squawk code for gliders, but it is not being made available for use yet. Currently they are of the view that transponders should be accessible by the pilot in flight.

[Pace]

I must be missing something here. Why are gliders incapable of IFR flight? The relevant rule seems to me to be:

Jim

You answered your own question . They are not capable of level flight so cannot fly instrument flight rules.

I get your point which seems to be a loophole in the regs and against the meaning of the regs.

Interesting because you are saying that theoretically you could file a suitably equipt glider IFR?


They can fly IMC which is slightly different :)

Thanks for the info on transponders

pace

[chrisN]

Thanks to Rod, I was able to fly my glider with his Zaon MRX PCAS unit yesterday for 1 ½ hours, on a local soaring flight from Ridgewell – between the NE end of the Stansted CTA, Haverhill, Sudbury and Bury St Edmunds. For those who don’t know, this is a choke area for GA skirting the Stansted CTA to get from the south east to the midlands etc..

I am impressed. The MRX detected between 10 and 20 transponding aircraft, mostly at ranges of 3-5 miles, and almost all below my height. I could not see any of those, nor would expect to. (Visibility was not very good at long distance below the horizon – it was a bit grey.)

I suspect another of the contacts was a departure from Stansted runway 08, from the rate of change of range and relative height. There was nothing close enough to set it in “Alert” mode until after I landed, which I will come back to.

There was no interference with my Flarm, GPS, or anything else. (I had also repositioned the Flarm GPS aerial for a different reason – Flarm had not been working well in steeply banked turns, and this too was now OK.)

The MRX unit only obscured a very small part of the field of view though my canopy, not in a direction from which collision threats are likely (1 o’clock, below the horizon) in the only place I can accommodate it.

At £399, and easily carried as personal equipment not needing EASA approval, I shall be buying one.
-------------------

After I landed, I got the only alert while it was switched on: 0.5 miles, 1000 feet higher than me on the ground. I was at one end of our airstrip, about ½ mile from the launch point. A GA spamcan of some sort was flying over our winch launch point, in flagrant disregard of Rule 12. Fortunately, a winch launch was not taking place at the time, but my launch had been to 1300 feet, and others went higher. Our site is notified as having launches up to 2000 feet. (Also, we were displaying the required ground signal - not that that CAA requirement is of the slightest use in preventing such incursions).

I did not have it switched on when earlier, a helicopter also flew over the launch cable run at an estimated 600 feet, but I expect it would have alerted that too.

Gliding clubs with winch launching are forever being troubled by incursions such as these. The BGA has written to every GA aerodrome it could find, enclosing a sample of winch cable to show what you can fly into. Most years there seem to be a few airprox reports involving GA doing similar things. Nothing we have tried stops them. And, after all, it was the glider pilots that GA killed in the 1981 incident I wrote about in post 33 of this thread.

What was that expression Pace used? “ . . . we are not prepared to compromise to do anything to make . . . safer Who are the arrogant ones the self centred ones? Us or them?”

I have now recommended that my gliding club considers obtaining a PCAS to alert us before we start a launch, as a fast GA can emerge from over the distant trees during the time between checking all clear /giving the start signal, and completion of a winch launch. We probably need to do more trials to see if it is effective when there is no visual line of sight from launch point to intruder. Other gliding clubs have nearer trees and it might benefit them more, if that works.

---------------------------
In response to a few other points mentioned since I last posted;

Re talking to Trig or anyone else about self-contained low power etc. transponder: I don’t think it has a future with present technology. The CAA got at least one potential manufacturer to build and try a working prototype. I was one of those who was shown a mock-up and visited by the maker to assess viability etc.. I was much later told that trials showed it needed virtually the same power as the ICAO standard to be detected when required by ground-based radar. The mock-up unit I was shown was much bulkier than first intimations, to accommodate batteries and insulation to address issues of temperature mentioned by Jim in post 199. I have been told that the CAA has quietly dropped its hopes for that sort of solution – if anybody knows differently, please tell me.

I still have the hole in my panel for a Trig 2-part unit WHICH I CANNOT FIT BECAUSE EASA/CAA WILL NOT LET ME. (See my post 47.)

Fuji, many if not all new gliders have approved antenna installation schemes. I don’t know if any others, like mine, limit the installation to only certain selected transponders of which Trig is not one. Some have larger battery carrying potential. I have mentioned before that I have made a way of carrying more batteries in my glider, but only because I am not the tallest of pilots. But if the EASA certification for installation exists, and it limits the permitted transponders and does not include Trig, I cannot fit it.

Under the pre-EASA BGA technical regulation (which worked more satisfactorily than CAA regulation applied to most of the rest of GA) and had the necessary flexibility to cope with new developments efficiently, I could have done it. Now, I can’t. So much for the “S” in EASA.

------------------------
My conclusion is that what Rod suggested - Flarm + PCAS - is the best “interoperability” we can hope for at present. I can then detect Pace etc. coming. Those power GA who choose to carry Flarm can detect me.

By the way, Flarm in GA would also help avoid non-cloud collisions with gliders – the sort that has actually happened, and of which many more airproxes are reported, and where IMHO, backed up by statistics, by far the greater danger for GA/glider events exists. It would also help GA/GA incidents outside cloud, which are far more common than glider/GA in cloud.

These can be augmented by other voluntary actions where people can and will, including:

- powered GA in cloud to monitor 130.4 in cloud where gliders might be present (not Pace of course, when “ . . . Normally too busy talking on other frequencies”),

- gliders switching from 130.4 if no other gliders are in cloud in the area, and talking to an obvious ATC unit where there is one. (But as I have written before, about the area north of Ridgewell “ . . . how about [GA] should call out on 130.4 to see which gliders are there, rather than expect us to know if GA and/or mil a/c are on Mildenhall/Lakenheath, or Wattisham, or Essex Radar, or London info, or Cambridge, or illegally using 123.45, or non-radio and we need extra-sensory perception. Sauce for the goose . . .”

My further 2p worth. Probably my last on this thread.

Chris N.

[cats_five]

chrisN, thanks for that long & informative post.

As to the title of this thread: "Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?"

I guess the correct reply is that it always has been. Gliders have been allowed to fly in clouds for many, many years and so has GA without a transponder. I was rather shocked when I did my Bronze paper that the only requirements for cloud flying were to wear a parachute and make a call on 130.4 if I had a radio! I did rather expect taking some training to be required rather than just a good idea... Maybe that goes back to the days of speed-limit airbrakes which my glider most certainly doesn't have.

Had a quick look at the Zaon, wouldn't it be good to be able to combine it with Flarm (in one Flarm-sized box) to reduce the cockpit complications?

[FullWings]

Pace,

The thought of a Glider flying without even a radio in cloud is horrific.

It doesn't fill me with delight, either. I'm sometimes the pilot in the other glider, who has made his calls on 130.4. IMC descents from mountain wave apart, most cloudflying in the UK is into active cumulus, usually from the base. There may be only one thermal core going into the cloud and it not unusual for the lower glider to catch up the one already there. That's put so many constraints on the positions of both machines that the risk of getting too close is getting pretty high.

You have gone a long way to making your own Glider as cloud friendly as possible I wish that was the case with all who want to fly IMC. How do you power your own Mode S?
Batteries. Lots of batteries! About 60Ah worth combined with a set of solar panels on the fuselage.

That Zaon gismo looks the business... I wonder if it will fit?

[cats_five]

<snip>
Batteries. Lots of batteries! About 60Ah worth combined with a set of solar panels on the fuselage.
<snip>


Blimey! Where on earth do you put them all? I suspect (and haven't tried) that I might get another two safely fitted in mine, making the grand total of 28 Ah. Or prehaps you fly an electric Antares...


That Zaon gismo looks the business... I wonder if it will fit?


You panel is rather full?

[soay]

I'm intrigued to find out how glider pilots maintain attitude in clouds. Presumably they don't have enough battery power to run a gyro for an AI?

[FullWings]

Blimey! Where on earth do you put them all? I suspect (and haven't tried) that I might get another two safely fitted in mine, making the grand total of 28 Ah. Or prehaps you fly an electric Antares...
Lead in the tail (useful trim of CG), NiMH packs in the wings and some leads in the mid-fuselage. If you go Lithium or NiMH, you can get a much better energy/weight ratio. Need specialist chargers, though. The solar panels aren't bad and give enough power run the nav. computer in bright sunlight or top up another system in flight.

Your panel is rather full?
Somewhat. :O I think it might fit on top of the coaming next to the FLARM without obstructing any view out.

I'm intrigued to find out how glider pilots maintain attitude in clouds. Presumably they don't have enough battery power to run a gyro for an AI?
People have been fitting blind-flying instruments in gliders since, oh at least pre-WWII. T&S to start with, then AHs. You needed a *big* battery to run one of the ex-mil jobs and it wouldn't last that long. The RC Allen 14V horizons were the weapon of choice until fairly recently as the current drain wasn't too appalling.

There is a magnetic compass, made by Bohli. It's gimballed on three axes and can be used as a blind-flying reference. If you're pretty good at that sort of thing... Cool not to need any power, though.

Quite a few of us have fitted one of these (http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/D10A_intro.html) (They do an even cheaper D-6 now) as it it's less than a new mechanical one and only about 1,000x better. Can leave it on all day, too.

I learnt to fly gliders in cloud by trial and error using a T&S when I was 16. On my own. I had read the book on how to do it, just in case you think I was being irresponsible at that age. I only came out upside-down once, too.

[gpn01]

I'm intrigued to find out how glider pilots maintain attitude in clouds. Presumably they don't have enough battery power to run a gyro for an AI?

In a glider attitude=speed, therefore if you maintain the attitude you maintain the speed. The corollory is if you maintain the speed then the attitude is being maintained also.

[soay]

In a glider attitude=speed, therefore if you maintain the attitude you maintain the speed. The corollary is if you maintain the speed then the attitude is being maintained also.
How does that work, when changing direction to ride the updraft in a cloud?

Quite a few of us have fitted one of these (http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/D6_intro.html) (They do an even cheaper D-6 now) as it it's less than a new mechanical one and only about 1,000x better. Can leave it on all day, too.
In following your link, I see that "Key safety features include an optional Li-ion backup battery which will keep the instrument running for 2 hours in the event of a power bus failure". Doesn't sound very suitable for a glider, particularly if it's so difficult to provide the power for a transponder.

[gpn01]

How does that work, when changing direction to ride the updraft in a cloud?


I was assuming by attitude that we were talking pitch. For Roll and Yaw you use a T&S.

[Jim59]

I'm intrigued to find out how glider pilots maintain attitude in clouds. Presumably they don't have enough battery power to run a gyro for an AI?


I wrote earlier...
So what instrumentation do I have for IMC in my glider: ASI, Altimeter, VSI(2), OAT, T&S, Horizon, compass, radio, alternate pitot and backup batteries.


Typically for IMC use the Horizon or T&S will be on for less than one hour per flight so the battery issue is not a big one. One of the CAA's proposals for transponders required them on at all times. With flights often exceeding 5/6 hours that's the difference; it's also an additional electrical load not a substitute..

[Fitter2]

How does that work, when changing direction to ride the updraft in a cloud?
Needle, ball, airspeed, needle, ball, airspeed, needle, ball...........

If you don't follow that, ask any pilot taught limited panel instrument flying the old fashioned way.

I recommend a book called 'Pilot's Summer' (ISBN 1-902914-12-0) a 'diary' of the Central Flying School instructors' course in the 1930s.

[FullWings]

Soay,
In following your link, I see that "Key safety features include an optional Li-ion backup battery which will keep the instrument running for 2 hours in the event of a power bus failure". Doesn't sound very suitable for a glider, particularly if it's so difficult to provide the power for a transponder.
The nominal power consumption is 8W, i.e. < 700mA from a 12V battery. That means you could run it continuously for 10hrs from an 8AH gel cell, which is the most-used power source in gliders. There are other instruments to feed, though. As another poster has pointed out, it is unusual to spend more than an hour IMC on any particular flight. The D-10 will provide an attitude reference within seconds of turning it on, so you only use it when you need it.

The older sort of horizons needed an inverter to run, so you had the losses in that as well as the high current drain when erecting the thing in the first place.

A transponder is a bit of a variable feast in that you have a fixed power drain plus how much it's being interrogated. In a busy bit of sky with lots of ground SSRs and TCAS units on the go, the old duty cycle can creep upwards. Also, if they become mandatory, you'll have to have it on all the time...

How does that work, when changing direction to ride the updraft in a cloud?
When thermalling 'partial panel' in gliders, you're trying to a) keep the airspeed within sensible limits and b) make your turning radius as small as possible to stay in the lift. You don't have any direct indication of attitude relative to your required datum so you have to derive it from turn rate and airspeed trends. The absolute pitch attitude is not important as you're not trying to maintain an altitude.

Turn rate steady, airspeed reducing: reduce pitch. Turn rate steady, airspeed increasing: increase pitch. Turn rate reducing, airspeed reducing: reduce pitch, increase bank, etc. It's a constant series of small corrections (hopefully!), seeing what effect the last correction had before continuing with the next, made more difficult if it's not a smooth thermal.

T&Ss fitted to gliders are generally tweaked to be much less sensitive as a rate one turn is useless. Rate 5-10 is more like it in a thermalling turn. When I climb in cloud on a horizon I use between 30 & 60 degrees of bank, depending on the thermal structure. Less on partial panel.

[Riverboat]

In spite of my original scepticism about Pace's report, having read the whole of this thread - a mammoth read! - I must side with his basic view that it isn't safe to fly through clouds OCAS if gliders can be flying around in cloud with no transponders.

OK, the non-commercial operator can elect not to fly, or to stay in good VMC, but some of us fly for a living and basically fly all over the place: airways sometimes, OCAS on others, and it is beginning to scare me that the next time I go through a cloud I might hit a glider.

That glider will not be flying for business purposes (except maybe for a leisure business.) It is flying for pleasure, and I very much admire the skill of some glider pilots and don't want to be a miserable basxtard, but I do not think it is safe, and I would like to see it stopped.

I suspect that more flights are conducted OCAS for business purposes than for pleasure on weekdays. That includes owner-pilots flying to meetings etc. Maybe a start could be that gliders not be allowed to fly IMC during the week, but could at weekends. At least then we'd be able to weigh up the risk better.

I know there will be howls of derision from glider pilots, and I really do understand and sympathise with them, but the fact is, one single-seat glider, with the pilot having a parachute to help him get safely to the ground in the event of a mid-air, could collide with an 8 seat aircraft from which no one would survive.

Really when the risk is properly assessed, it is obvious that something should be done to protect the powered aircraft. It is bizarre that a glider can be at any level at any time in IMC; a legacy of the past that should be dealt with.

RB

[IO540]

I have a BF Goodrich 504-0111-926 28V electric horizon (model # 1100-28LK(5F)) right here on the bench in front of me. At 24.00V it is drawing 406mA. One could double that for a 12V model.

A 2kg lead acid battery (10Ah) would run that for 10+ hours.

A GTX330 Mode S transponder draws a similar current.

So I don't think there is any problem powering this stuff. You need to only eat at Macdonalds for a few weeks to put on the same weight, and within the wide variation of pilot weights ;) all this is meaningless anyway.

The problem, presumably, is how to charge the battery. Taking it out and putting it on charge is the obvious way. On a sunny day, a solar panel would top it off in the day but that is a ~£200 panel.

Funnily enough I carry a flexible roll-up solar panel on long trips abroad; if I flatten the battery by leaving the avionics master on, I could recharge it with that in a day or so, enough to start the engine.

Then there are generators, etc. None of this stuff is rocket science.

[Rod1]

I have now got my PCAS back and have borrowed Chris’s FLARM. I will report back on its compatibility with a GA environment after I have sorted his wiring out…;)

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

IO540

I was hoping you would be along - it is good to have an expert.

I hinted rather strongly earlier that I was unconvinced by the claims that transponders (particularly the low power variants such as the Trig) could not be adequately powered in a glider. I also dont see why the battery (or unit) could not be taken home at the end of the day to be recharged and even a spare charged battery kept in the boot.

Then there is the claim that these transponders do not work about 15,000 feet. Well I wonder how many gliders operate above 15,000 in cloud? A few, and perhaps that is a risk we must live with.

The glider argument is not convincing - for those who would claim there is no technological solution I would have expected sound evidence that a transponder cannot be powered.

Riverboat - you have nailed it, it really is time to for the CAA or EASA to act, gliders in IMC not transponding and not following any of the conventions for flight in cloud is an accident waiting to happen.

I hate the thought of the lawyers getting involved, but it does make me wonder if there was an accident an action might be brought against our regulatory authority.

[soay]

Really when the risk is properly assessed, it is obvious that something should be done to protect the powered aircraft. It is bizarre that a glider can be at any level at any time in IMC; a legacy of the past that should be dealt with.
I too have read all of this thread and whilst being impressed with the level of skill it must take to fly a glider in cloud without an AI, I think it's poor airmanship to do so without a transponder. The simplest solution, as others have suggested, is to allocate a fixed code for gliders, so they only need an on/off switch on the panel, and the transponder can be mounted anywhere it fits.

[Fitter2]

There are technically possible solutions; the change of regulation to EASA plus the interpretation of their rules by the CAA has increased the potential cost by a factor of 3 to 5 or more.

Possibly more of a concern is the experience of places where transponders have been fitted to gliders, where they are required then to switch them off to avoid unwanted traffic warnings/advisories created by their normal mode of operation (see the Schipol update). It would be sensible to do a proper traffic effects study, (as well as a sensible statistical safety case) rather than the knee-jerk response of those who insist their perception of risk should override reasoned arguments to the contrary.

I am equally unimpressed by arguments 'you are doing this for fun, and I am doing it for a living, so my needs override yours'.

Please present a reasoned statistical risk assessment, the cost-benefit analysis follows and the last time it was done the case disappeared.

If you want to pay for me to fit a Mode s transponder to make you feel happy, be my guest.

Other lower cost technical solutions proposed (which would interact with TCAS and lower level traffic awareness systems) ahve been rejected out of hand by the CAA Mode S lobby.

[cats_five]

Please go back and read the comments made by PpruneRadar:
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/375241-flying-imc-out-cas-now-dangerous-10.html#post4978211


Powered aircraft can also operate in cloud without a transponder http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/shiner.gif

But be careful what you wish for, since maybe EASA will ask the UK to go down the route of many other countries and remove the right to the freedoms to fly in Class G in IMC. More Controlled Airspace and more rules would be inevitable, i.e IMC flights would be operating under IFR and therefore an ATC clearance would be required


http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/375241-flying-imc-out-cas-now-dangerous-10.html#post4978839



I dont think that is a practice widely used and would be frowned upon by most IMCR/IR pilots.
I do not know many IMCR/IR pilots who would oppose compulsory Transponders for powered aircraft in IMC.

Maybe not, but until it's mandated, there are people who can and do operate without transponders in IMC. Maybe not the majority but they do exist.


As a Heavy Iron pilot you also know that many destinations are OCAS and with NO RAS even for A320 737s etc


Just to be 100% clear, there is no RAS for any traffic in the UK. It's a Traffic Service or a Deconfliction Service, and has been for a few months.


The bottom line - the current situation is that flying in clouds always has the potential for finding someone in there you are not expecting. It might be a glider, it could be power.

I await the next stage of the Flarm / PCAS cross-over trial with interest.

[Pace]

I am equally unimpressed by arguments 'you are doing this for fun, and I am doing it for a living, so my needs override yours'.

Please present a reasoned statistical risk assessment, the cost-benefit analysis follows and the last time it was done the case disappeared.

If you want to pay for me to fit a Mode s transponder to make you feel happy, be my guest.

Fitter

Doing it for fun or for a living is irrelevant but one rule for some another for others is not.
Taking your arguemnt any pilot of a homebuilt or microlight should say to the CAA, "stuff your IMCR requirements and the costs it will take for me to get one I am flying IMC just like the glider guys."

He should fly his homebuilt or microlight in IMC regardless of what is or is not fitted for IMC flight and tell the CAA
"gliders are allowed so why not me"? what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

These excemptions were in place decades ago when the only nav equiptment was VOR or NDB, when RNAV was to be dreamed for when DECCA was the future.

Now we have all manner of advanced avionics fitted to aircraft like the Cirrus.
Ticas is becoming more and more standard fit and most aircraft have transponders of one kind or another.

Couple that lot with the governement cutting military budgets and a steady decline in radar services OCAS and living in the past technology of 40 50 years ago is not on.

Finllly I am sure we would all love someone to pay for our aviation! If you want to be a CPL or ATPL you will have to find a heck of a lot more dough than fitting a transponder.

Wait for the day there is a collision and the media catch onto the cowboy regs the CAA have in place for IMC flight OCAS and the rules will change faster than you can launch your glider.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Please present a reasoned statistical risk assessment, the cost-benefit analysis follows and the last time it was done the case disappeared.



By all means please explain the cost analysis of a six seater twin and a two seater glider colliding in IMC with 8 people dead and some collateral damage in the area below.

If you follow your argument no one would fit transponders outside CAS so the argument is nonesense.


But be careful what you wish for, since maybe EASA will ask the UK to go down the route of many other countries and remove the right to the freedoms to fly in Class G in IMC.


As I commented earlier that wouldnt bother me - we would just stay airways. Moroever, with the proposed changes in the IMCr for those without an IR it may well not bother them either.

Moreover it is another argument that does not make sense.

Either the practice is safe or it is unsafe.

If it is unsafe it should be outlawed. If there are reprecussions of outlawing it that are less than desirable they are never reasons for doing nothing.

I feel the glider community is grasping at straws.

You know, and we know flying in cloud without a transponder and without obeying the rules that everyone else follows is unsafe.

I suspect one reason there hasnt been more debate about this issue is most pilots dont realise there could be a non transponding glider in every cloud

[Pace]

But be careful what you wish for, since maybe EASA will ask the UK to go down the route of many other countries and remove the right to the freedoms to fly in Class G in IMC. More Controlled Airspace and more rules would be inevitable, i.e IMC flights would be operating under IFR and therefore an ATC clearance would be required

More reason why we should self regulate or be seen to be responsable rather than waiting for an air prox with an airline OCAS with not only a glider but ANY aircraft.

When the media see the gaping holes in the regs they will change faster than we want and totally out of our control. Better for the gliding association to take gliding in IMC up to date, to work for an acceptable solution not only in pilot training but in aircraft fit.

Pace

[IO540]

I hinted rather strongly earlier that I was unconvinced by the claims that transponders (particularly the low power variants such as the Trig) could not be adequately powered in a glider. I also dont see why the battery (or unit) could not be taken home at the end of the day to be recharged and even a spare charged battery kept in the boot.I think there is a "GA cultural" issue too.

For example, where I am based is a certain vintage plane; well known to everybody because it is doing regular flights but even better known for having a really crap radio which drives ATC up the wall, not to mention other pilots who cannot get their calls in because ATC is trying to regain contact with this one as he is heading for the circuit or whatever. I gather he has no electrical system and is using a handheld radio.

If I was him, I would do my bit for the other pilots by sorting out the radio. And he is far from the only one. There are loads of "proper" spamcans around with totally crap radios, which could be fixed with something picked up on US avionics Ebay.

Now, I can easily get 5/5 performance using my Icom A22, and it is trivial to charge the battery on it by taking it home and sticking the charger in it. So why is this pilot having these problems? His avgas bills comfortably exceed the cost of a new radio every week or every month.

A gliding club presumably has a mains supply (and I have a generator 5ft away from me which cost a few hundred quid, which we drag outside the office and start it up when we get a power cut) so battery charging is a non-issue.

One can make a good case, perhaps, for not carrying transponders on the grounds that the midair rate between powered GA and gliders is very low and the equipment is thus not justified - that is one long debate which can be argued for ever. But IMHO the argument against transponders based on power requirements or weight just doesn't wash.

[cats_five]

<snip>
I suspect one reason there hasnt been more debate about this issue is most pilots dont realise there could be a non transponding glider in every cloud

As Pprune Radar point out, most people don't seem to know there could be a non-transponding GA in each and every cloud...

[cats_five]

The power problems with transponders in gliders are/were:

1) one of the CAA's proposals was that everything should transpond all the time. That clearly is an issue for gliders.

2) the weight issues are that a) some panels are limited as to how much weight they will support (and apparently a transponder tucked out of the way tranponding with just an on/off switch on the panel is not acceptable), and b) finding somewhere safe to fit the additional required batteries can be tricky if there is no room near the CoG.

All complicated of course by EASA.

The route that rod1 and ChrisN are going down is the most likely to provide some kind of acceptable (on power, weight and cost grounds) interoperability.

But given that every year there are AirProx incidents involving transponding CA, under ATC, in CAS, you can be sure that flying will never be 100% safe.

[Fuji Abound]

As Pprune Radar point out, most people don't seem to know there could be a non-transponding GA in each and every cloud...


A fair point .. .. however, I suspect very very few GA aircraft that fly in cloud will not have a transponder, whereas it would seem not a single glider will have a transponder.

However, for the same reasons, I see no grounds for any aircraft being in IMC without a transponder, because, in case you have missed the point, I have nothing against gliders.


The route that rod1 and ChrisN are going down is the most likely to provide some kind of acceptable (on power, weight and cost grounds) interoperability.



Hmmm, I am wondering how you think this will work? If you are only carrying PCAS it will become your sole responsibility to avoid the other aircraft coming towards you in cloud. PCAS will not help the radar controller see you and will not help TAS on board the other aircraft to see you either. The aircraft will therefore remain oblvious to your presence. You will be relying on PCAS for seperation. What are you proposing to do if PCAS reports the aircraft 500 feet below and climbing at 2 miles? Of course you are in cloud so you will not be able to visually identify the traffic.

[cats_five]

A fair point .. .. however, I suspect very very few GA aircraft that fly in cloud will not have a transponder, whereas it would seem not a single glider will have a transponder.

However, for the same reasons, I see no grounds for any aircraft being in IMC without a transponder, because, in case you have missed the point, I have nothing against gliders.

The vast majority of gliders, like the vast majority of GA, never ever intentionally fly in clouds. And some gliders (expensive new ones mostly) do have transponders. However I don't think there is any data on how many of the ones that deliberatly fly in clouds have them. Nor I suspect is there any data on how many cloud-flying aircraft with transponders remember to turn them on before entering cloud...




Hmmm, I am wondering how you think this will work? If you are only carrying PCAS it will become your sole responsibility to avoid the other aircraft coming towards you in cloud. PCAS will not help the radar controller see you and will not help TAS on board the other aircraft to see you either. The aircraft will therefore remain oblvious to your presence. You will be relying on PCAS for seperation. What are you proposing to do if PCAS reports the aircraft 500 feet below and climbing at 2 miles? Of course you are in cloud so you will not be able to visually identify the traffic.

I thought we were talking about Class G airspace which is ATSOCAS. Not all Scottish Information controllers have a radar, cannot comment on the more southerly ones...

As to PCAS/TAS, does the PCAS owner (rod1 I believe) have any comments?

[Pace]

But given that every year there are AirProx incidents involving transponding CA, under ATC, in CAS, you can be sure that flying will never be 100% safe.

Cats Five

I accept what you say above but as you know the country is media driven. If the Media decide you should not be there your gone ( Not just aviation :)

Just imagine that the Media got hold of the fact that the nice shiny A320 taking 200 pax on their holidays was operating OCAS flying through clouds with NO Radar cover and NO ability to see other aircraft.

In those clouds were Gliders with pilots not trained to IFR standards, not even talking to anyone as they cant afford a handheld. With no nav kit and more than anything NO TRANSPONDER.

The Airline would say that they have TICAS but would not pick up gliders without a transponder with at least Mode C.

Forget a collision or Airprox just a media programme called "threat in the clouds" would be enough. It would not be the A320 that would be stopped from flying in OCAS. Either the OCAS would become CAS overnight or others would be banned from cloud.

The MEDIA would say why is this allowed? How come a fun pilot is allowed to risk the lives of 200 people?

They would have a field day. Remember what happened with the gun laws
Then when your sport is in tatters you would say why didnt we do something when we could now we cannot at least you would have an arguement at present you dont. The media would make a meal out of you.

Pace

[mm_flynn]

By all means please explain the cost analysis of a six seater twin and a two seater glider colliding in IMC with 8 people dead and some collateral damage in the area below.


If you look at some actual facts for a cost benefit analysis we have
a number of cases of powered/powered mid-airs (all in VMC), even a twin and a single taking each other down, both speaking to the same radar controller! - This accounts for about 10-15% of the powered fatalities each year - so probably worth doing something about

a number of cases of glider/glider (some cloud flying I believe) - which FLARM will help address.

3 recent cases of glider/power of which 2 of the three powered aircraft recovered successfully to an on airport landing - parachutes minimise the impact to gliders but we don't have a good plan for this one.

for glider/power in IMC, let me check?? it appears to have never yet happened.


I think anyone doing an objective risk assessment would focus legislation, training, equipment, and systems on - the event that has never happened??

While it makes me uncomfortable to know there are gliders in cloud without a transponder, it makes me more uncomfortable to know there could be powered aircraft without transponders, or there could be fast jet activity when I have just been told 'basic service only due to controller workload' or that I could be T-boned on an ILS by traffic also being worked by the controller.


I think the comments about them 'gliders' not following the same rules for IFR are a red herring.

The IFR (OCAS) have almost no use in providing separation. The only aspect is the quadrantal rule (which only applies where almost no one is flying - so big sky is most effective). The remainder of the rules are about avoiding the ground (and I bet there are no glider ops with ceilings less than 1000 ft - so that one is covered).

The rest of the 'Fly to IFR standards' is only for two reasons - one to comply with ATC instruction - which in this cases is totally irrelevant as it is OCAS and the service is declining towards nil, or to keep the shiny side up and I think the intrinsic performance difference is such that glider pilots are adequately served by their current training. After all they are hardly likely to call up Farnborough for an SRA are they!

[Pace]

After all they are hardly likely to call up Farnborough for an SRA are they!

That would be cool think the space shuttle did :) With your glide ratio you would happily lock on to an ILS if the going got tuff.

Pace

[cats_five]

<snip>

3 recent cases of glider/power of which 2 of the three powered aircraft recovered successfully to an on airport landing - parachutes minimise the impact to gliders but we don't have a good plan for this one.

<snip>

I'm curious about these cases. Were any of the power aircraft tugs?

[FullWings]

To add to mm_flynn's answer to:

By all means please explain the cost analysis of a six seater twin and a two seater glider colliding in IMC with 8 people dead and some collateral damage in the area below.

Would be: work out how probable such an event is and balance the immediate and collateral effects against the cost of trying to prevent it.

The airline industry/regulators do this all the time. Think about ETOPS criteria - at some point you have to define an acceptable level of risk and engineer/certify systems to that level. If it costs 10x as much to produce, say, an engine which is 20% more reliable, then it's not worth bothering with. Maybe it would on a spacecraft, where ultimate reliability is at a premium.

If deeply technical subjects such as these become influenced by the popular press or public sentiment, then we all become much worse off. If the perception of risk in aviation became more important than risk itself then it will be a sad day when that happens.

In 2007, there were nearly 900 *reported* airspace infringements, mostly GA. There is a risk that one (or more) of those could have resulted in a fully-laden 747 coming down over a densely populated area. Should we not eliminate this risk, whatever its level? That would mean the end of GA (and probably a lot of CA). We'd have much safer skies, wouldn't we? Anything is worth pursuing if it increases safety, isn't it...?

[Mike Cross]

Just imagine that the Media got hold of the fact that the nice shiny A320 taking 200 pax on their holidays was operating OCAS flying through clouds with NO Radar cover and NO ability to see other aircraft.

In those clouds were Gliders with pilots not trained to IFR standards, not even talking to anyone as they cant afford a handheld. With no nav kit and more than anything NO TRANSPONDER.

It's up to the CAT operator to convince the CAA that his operations are safe before he gets to fly the route. OCAS with no primary radar cover is unlikely to be viewed by the CAA as safe.

Gliders have been allowed to fly IMC OCAS ever since I learned to fly in 1974 and no doubt for a long time before that. Why do IMC rated pilots see this as something surprising or new? If they have been properly trained they should be fully aware of it and behave accordingly. Launching into the murk assuming that SSR or anything else that depends on transponder returns will see anything you might come across in cloud OCAS shows a lack of knowledge and airmanship.

Pilots flying IMC OCAS should be fully aware of the conditions pertaining to the airspace they are in, i.e. that transponder carriage is not mandatory. They can mitigate the risk by obtaining a deconfliction service from a radar unit that has primary radar coverage. If they are unable to do so but choose to go ahead anyway then Big Sky Theory is all that they have on their side. That's a matter of airmanship and the judgement of the pilot.

[gpn01]

The orgiinal thread is titled "Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?". I'd suggest that no, it isn't NOW dangerous. It always has been. It's simply that many people weren't sufficiently aware of the potential risks that they're exposing themselves to when flying OCAS. It always worries me when threads such as this kick up on PPRUNE because it tends to take the same sort of route.... surprise expressed, risks highlighted, opinions polarised, options evaluated (oh, and the option is normally for the other guy to do something), whinging about the risk to big shiny airlners flying OCAS (yet no-one questions why theyr'e doing it when it's to save them money), complaints of "they can do it so I should be allowed to", pointing out how legislation will change in the future and finally a general calming down as people maintain their viewpoint as being right.

So, a few suggestions:
We ALL need to work together on coming up with amicable solutions that are commensurate to the risk
We ALL need to improve pilots awareness of the risks involved - why on earth aren't people told about the IMC differences between glider and power as part of their PPL?
We ALL need to properly weigh up the risks for everything we do
We ALL need to get along...otherwise we'll end up with a totalitarian CAS covering the entire country

[Pace]

OCAS with no primary radar cover is unlikely to be viewed by the CAA as safe.

It is at LondonDerry it is at Dundee it is at Gloucester it is at Inverness at just to name a few.

Pace

[Mike Cross]

I don't pretend to be an expert at CAT route approvals but no doubt appropriate operating minima apply.

[Fuji Abound]

Mike - as I commented elsewhere you are indeed correct a pilot should make safety assessment before he launches into the murk.

Lets see how that could work.

Launching from Liverpool recently at the very late hour of 18-00 I was aware Brize had closed, Birmingham aside no service was available. Pace found the same. If I didnt like the thought of meeting something in the murk then of course I could have abandonded the flight - but why should I, or I could have crossed my fingers and hoped, which is what I did.

[cats_five]

<snip>
I didnt like the thought of meeting something in the murk then of course I could have abandonded the flight - but why should I, or I could have crossed my fingers and hoped, which is what I did.

Now how many incidents has 'press-on-itis' been involved in? Surely assessment isn't a one-off thing done before launching but something that is ongoing throughout the flight.

However statistics are on your side - the number of power/power collisions in IMC are very low and the number of power/glider ones seems to be zero.

[mm_flynn]

There is definitely a risk in the UK style IMC OCAS with the haphazard structure, radar service, and equipment requirements. However, the glider element which has consumed so much of this thread is a minor part of the risk. there are all sorts of things one can hit and all sorts of possible lack of service. It took me years and years to get comfortable with this state of affairs. In the US, IFR OCAS without a flight plan and being in contact with a controller would be deemed reckless endangerment. However, it does seem to work, no one yet has had a collision OCAS in IMC.


FF -----
My comment on the three was not original research it was taken from earlier in the thread and the details posted say the powered aircraft were not tugs and it was only the coincidence of time and space that the gliders and powered had in common.:eek:

[chrisN]

Cats, I listed the 4 (not 3) GA-power/glider VMC collisions in post 33, of which 3 were fatal killing 4 people. All but one near gliding sites. I excluded tugs. (I know of one tug/glider collision, also VMC, which was fatal, not relevant to Pace’s point when he raised this thread – though it is relevant to Flarm.) Pm or email me if you want to discuss more.

Chris N.

[Fitter2]

A manufacturer has produced a prototype box which would cost under £1000 if produced in reasonable numbers, is nominally 'portable' and therefore has no installation cost, transmits a low-power 1090-ES signal which activates TCAS in aircraft fitted with TCAS within aprroximately 10 n.m. radius, and displays the position and relative pressure altitude of local transponding aircraft, and local FLARM fitted aircraft if it has a FLARM itself to connect. It could incorporate a built-in FLARM for abot another £500.

A complete solution that would keep everyone happy, you might think?

Unfortunately, EASA and Eurocontrol believe its operation would be totally illegal unless it went through all certification processes, used an IFR certified GPS and had a twentyfold increase in transmitted power to be as visible to ground ATC systems as a Class II Transponder. Approximate price after all that, £10,000 per unit estimated if produced in the same quantity, which is unlikely.

Please remind me what the 'S' in EASA is supposed to stand for.

Would that be a technical solution that the 'glider pilots in cloud are mad' lobby would be happy with? I would fit one. I am less happy to spend £7,000 (current quoted price for fitting a TRIG, including necessary modification paperwork, since the instrument panel would require complete re-engineering) to reduce an extremely low risk. Before the advent of EASA I could have done all the work myself, signed off by a BGA inspector, and I doubt the end result would have been any less professional, cost sub-£2,000.

[cats_five]

Thanks Chris, was just curious about them.

[Pace]

There is definitely a risk in the UK style IMC OCAS with the haphazard structure, radar service, and equipment requirements. However, the glider element which has consumed so much of this thread is a minor part of the risk

Unhappily it happened to be a glider who was involved with me in the air prox.

He came onto the local airfield radio, we had a ten second chat and left it at that.

I didnt hold him any more responsable than myself the guy sounded experienced and at the time a miss was as good as a mile so happy to leave it and forget it.

Then I thought about the whole chain of events from being shoved all over the place and unwanted in CAS to the lack of Brize Radar OCAS to the near collision IMC with a Glider. (It could have equally been a non transponding C150) So I filed a CHIRP and posted here for discussion.

Since then I have been asked to take it much further by the authorities which I am reluctant to do.

Maybe a case of be careful what you wish for and at the end of the day we are all one in the Sky.

What would I vote for if I could?

I would make transponders a legal requirement for ALL aircraft in IMC Regrdless of type powered or unpowered. One poster here " FullWings" runs a mode S on a glider. He is an ATP. If he can so can others and must do focuses the mind :)

I find it madness that aircraft of any type are allowed any where near cloud without a radio. We are not back in the 1930s. Handhelds are plentiful and cheap.

Pace

[jez d]

Pace,

Yes, handheld radios are plentiful and cheap, but unfortunately none of them are EASA approved.

For that you need to shop on ebay or somesuch in order to bid for an old Icom A3 or A22, which were the last handhelds to hold European approval, and which are currently selling, second hand, for more than their original retail price.

jez

[IO540]

handheld radios are plentiful and cheap, but unfortunately none of them are EASA approved.There are two kinds of "approval" involved here and it is important to separate them.

The last I have heard is that the "CAA approval", on the old Icom models etc, means that the Radiocommunications Agency (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/rahome.htm) has delegated the approval of the product as a transmitter/receiver on the aviation bands to the CAA. (No doubt, the CAA then delegates the actual testing to some 3rd party RF lab because they won't have an RF testing lab in-house). This CAA "approval" prevents the sale of radios which have features which the CAA doesn't like e.g. recording of ATC communications.

In practice, the above approval is unenforceable, except possibly to the extent of preventing somebody selling these items overtly in the UK.

This is not the same as an airworthiness approval for equipment permanently installed in a plane. You don't need this approval for a portable / removable item. You can just use any VHF transceiver as a removable item. This approval is enforceable because when you take the plane in for its Annual, the installation will be readily visible and they (in theory) won't sign the release to service. In practice, this goes on all the time.

This confusion supports the higher prices (over the much nicer radios on the US market) of these "CAA approved" products in the GA marketplace.

A transponder is something else. There aren't any portable models I know of, so it has to be a certified installation (if the airframe requires certification). You can buy a nice KT76C Mode C unit for a lot less than you might expect (even brand new (http://www.seaerospace.com/lc/cart.php?target=productDetails&model=KT-76C&substring=kt76c)) but somebody has to install it.

A Mode S unit is rather more (http://www.seaerospace.com/lc/cart.php?target=productDetails&model=KT-73&substring=kt73). The GTX330 is cheaper than the KT73 but you can't buy them mail order from the USA; it is about £2k plus the antenna.

When you look at the prices of Mode C units from the USA, you can see there is no market for a £1000 unit. Nobody would want to install it anyway - where is the dealer margin? This whole avionics business is lubricated 99% by dealer margins. Only a tiny % of owners have the contacts to get something installed by a friend who has the authority to sign it off; these are free to source their own stuff from the USA.

[Fuji Abound]

Unfortunately it is all too easy to make EASA / CAA the scape goat however if the glider community where to make a formal submission to both / either recognising the issue and proposing a workable solution then I for one would have a great deal more symphathy.

Often it is better to take the high ground, at least being cynical you can always point out the gliding community tried, it took the initiative, it was the regulators that were not up to the job. :}

[Rod1]

IO

“A transponder is something else. There aren't any portable models I know of, so it has to be a certified installation”

Not sure what you are getting at, but installations on LAA and some BMAA aircraft are not “certified”.

“Only a tiny % of owners have the contacts to get something installed by a friend who has the authority to sign it off; these are free to source their own stuff from the USA.”

There are about 1000 such LAA installations in the UK, and a number of BMAA equivalents. I installed my own and have helped two people with “low” electric aircraft install second hand items for “occasional” use. Such installations can be signed off by an LAA inspector at little or no cost. Almost all Gliding installations would need to be fully certified and backed by the manufacturer which adds another hurdle and considerable cost.

Pace

“I find it madness that aircraft of any type are allowed any where near cloud without a radio. We are not back in the 1930s. Handhelds are plentiful and cheap.”

No comment on “near cloud”, but it is not possible to make a Handheld work in some aircraft, particularly if it is fitted with S4 mags. I tried for over a year in my Nipper and gave up.

Rod1

[Fitter2]

LAA and BMAA aircraft operate in an EASA country, but outside the EASA Airworthiness system.

Gliders (other than Annex 2, mainly vintage types) come within the EASA system, therefore are subject to regulation designed around Airbus etc, with the predictable paperwork bureaucracy and costs.

Installation of a Transponder in a glider requires a full mod. scheme; the CAA do not approve any new scheme for other than Mode S Transponders.

During the Mode S 'consultation' the gliding movement worked very hard to propose better and more approriate technical solutions than the blanket compulsory fitment of Mode S being pushed by the CAA working group. The efforts are ongoing - nobody will be able to say if it becomes necessary that the movement were not pro-actively involved in proposing practical solutions that would make a much more positive contribution to flight safety for all.

[Rod1]

Backing up what Fitter2 says the CAA was very complimentary about the BGA with regard to the Mode S consultations. The CAA tried really hard to force mode s on gliders and was finally convinced it was not technically feasible. This took several years of endless meetings. This conclusion was only reached about a year ago. I doubt that the CAA will revisit this for a very long time!

The “low” electric aircraft I have helped fit transponders to have also been a very limited success, as the units appear to use much more power in practice than expected. A small wind generator charging a battery which runs a transponder and a hand held radio will not keep up with just the transponder demand. Ok if you are transiting a zone for 20min, but of very little use outside that. The impact on useful load and performance was also not as predicted. Such a solution will not work on a glider without turning it into a brick.

Rod1

[Mike Cross]

The Powered IMC fraternity seem to think that it's OK for them to demand that owners of aircraft currently not required to carry transponders should fork out to fit them.

They do not seem to be forthcoming with any ideas to charge for radar services in IMC in order to provide funding to reverse the current trend of a reduction in availability of primary radar. A case of "I demand something be done providing I'm not the one paying for it"?

The pilots of gliders getting sucked into a cloud from below at low speed and equipped with parachutes are responsible for their decision to enter cloud rather than pull out the airbrakes.

The pilots of powered aircraft boring holes through cloud are similarly responsible for their decision.

If you are flying IMC OCAS on an IMC rating perhaps you should be considering that the original purpose of the IMC was as a get out of jail card and not as a sort of mini-IR. Yes it gives you privileges, but how you exercise those privileges is a matter for your own judgement. Unless you are receiving a deconfliction service I find it difficult to understand how you can be adequately discharging your responsibility to maintain separation from something you can't see (which leaves us back with Big Sky Theory).

If of course you have an IR and an Airways equipped aircraft then file a flight plan and stay in Class A.

Having lobbed that into the discussion pool I'll go home and have my tea.:E