Thoughts on reducing risk of mid-airs.

[RansS9]

Today (14/6/09) a mid-air collision between an RAF Grob and a Glider claimed the lives of two people. How can we reduce the risk of mid-airs?
In the UK ,on a fine weather weekend, daytime VFR flying constrained by cloudbase and the plethora of controlled airspace can get very congested.

--education (awareness of choke points, look out techniques, limitations of visual scans)
--aircraft colour (? dark is better)
--parachute / BRS (money / weight?)
--mode S ?!?--in the context of daytime VFR I suspect the mandatory installation of, and use of, a flashing light beacon would be vastly more useful and significantly less expensive.

Your thoughts appreciated.
TIM

[IO540]

Based on the stats, the best way is to fly high.

Most midairs seem to happen 1000ft or lower.

A large % of PPL pilots fly low; 1000-2000ft. Presumably the view is better.

[LondonJ]

a second explanation why a lot of mid-airs occur sub-1000ft is that they tend to happen near airfields, an obvious choke point, especially around circuit height. Purely conjecture though :)

[Fuji Abound]

Use good visual scanning techniques. Most people aren’t even close to having a good scan,
Always obtain a traffic service if on offer,
Fly as high as you can,
Avoid obvious choke points, flying over beacons, skirting around zones,
Buy a PCAS unit,
Avoid operating just below the cloud base,
Listen out for gliders and check the map for any en route segment to establish where they might be,
When following distinct line features keep them on the correct side. A surprising number of pilots actually do,
Be incredibly aware in the circuit that traffic may not be where you expect,
Use your landing light other than just for landing,
Listen out for other traffic, build a mental image of where the traffic is and consider adjusting your own level to ensure vertical separation.

[bookworm]

-in the context of daytime VFR I suspect the mandatory installation of, and use of, a flashing light beacon would be vastly more useful and significantly less expensive.

Most aircraft already have a "flashing light beacon" and many have high intensity strobes. They don't seem to help much. The human eye just isn't good enough at spotting aircraft on a constant bearing at a range that's sufficient to do something about it.

The answer is in electronic enhancement of visual acquisition. Mode S datalinks (1090ES) provide one means for that, and already have broad adoption as a technology. Other possibilities exist, but there's a chicken-and-egg problem: such technologies are only effective if a high proportion of users are equipped with them. I'd like to see a low-power low-cost 1090ES datalink solution, but it seems to be a long time coming if the burden of the usual approvals remains.

[fireflybob]

It was published in 1994 but there's quite a good book called "Avoiding Mid Air Collisions" - just checked and it's available on Amazon.

Statistically the chances of a mid air in the open FIR are quite low (you might have a close air prox that's another matter) but I believe the main confliction point is essentially the runway and the extension of that is the circuit so correct discipline and a good lookout amongst other things go a long way to mitigate the risks.

[jonburf]

1) Dont think radio comms directed at others are not for you to listen too. Listen learn about your surroundings and what others are doing around you.
2) When approaching a aerodrome with a limited radio capabillity. when their busy, there may be local traffic that they arent aware of.
3) Try to avoid area's where there is intensive training.
4) Be forward. if u see sombody coming near. radio 'visual with converging traffic' or similar.
5) Make sure you'r going the correct way and not putting yourself in harms way.

enjoy flying.

jonburf

[RansS9]

Your of course right... alot of people fly between 1000-2000ft because of the view.
The view in question being the ground; a stipulation of the basic PPL-A/ NPPL they hold. People fly higher because they either like clouds or they are droning on somewhere and want to get out of the weather; get there faster; or more fuel efficiently. For the majority of recreational flyers the view of the ground from above is one of the reasons they do it. Flying bigh being a highly expensive irrelevance.

As far as the widespread installation and USAGE of beacons in the light aircraft fleet (inc gliders ,microlights, LSA's) I'm not so sure. It is for the very problem of constant aspect, non-moving, potentially colliding targets that a FLASHING beacon might give some protection...admittedly based on no research evidence that I'm awatre of.

TIM

[Keygrip]

I would say many people fly low because they lack the common sense or tarining to :mad: think for themselves.....and climb when weather and airspace permit.

Better comms range, better glide range, longer S&R time, less fuel, less traffic and obstacles to bump into.

[flybymike]

But one simply gets so dizzy up there above 2k

[LH2]

How can we reduce the risk of mid-airs?

Reflective vests anyone?


(coat, etc.)

[ClippedCub]

The plane that's on a collision course is the one that doesn't traverse, i.e., move left or right, or up or down in your perspective. It merely gets bigger. Makes it hard to see since your eye isn't sensing movement. I like to waggle my wings occasionally when I'm around traffic, but changing course slightly, periodically, would be better.

[IO540]

Your of course right... alot of people fly between 1000-2000ft because of the view.
The view in question being the ground; a stipulation of the basic PPL-A/ NPPL they hold. People fly higher because they either like clouds or they are droning on somewhere and want to get out of the weather; get there faster; or more fuel efficiently. For the majority of recreational flyers the view of the ground from above is one of the reasons they do it. Flying bigh being a highly expensive irrelevance.I am not talking about flying at 10,000ft above the clouds etc. And almost nobody intentionally flies in cloud because it is usually rough.

Let's say the cloudbase is 3000ft.

If you fly at 2500ft then your chances of a midair are (wild guess - there is no midair data from this high) 100x or 1000x lower than it would be at 1000ft, but your view is still pretty damn good. Better in fact because you can see further. As Keygrip says, the radio works a lot better too.

And if you fly at 2300 or 2700ft then you avoid those who have been trained to fly at 2000ft (most of the UK PPL population) or 2500ft (the rest of the UK PPL population trying to comply with the quad rules) ;)

You can't have it both ways i.e. fly at 1000ft for a good view of everybody's garden, and also avoid most of the traffic, when everybody is playing the same game.

If the cloudbase is lower e.g. 1500ft then there is far less traffic about anyway.

The circuit will always remain a dangerous place, and apart from keeping a lookout there isn't much one can do. Just get out of there as fast as possible. A lot of midairs have happened in the circuit.

There is a problem with flying higher: gliders are often found near the base of clouds, well above most GA traffic, so flying at 2500ft under a 3000ft cumulus cloudbase on a hot day may not be that safe. But one can avoid known gliding sites.

The rest of the time, airspace permitting, one can go above the cloud where there is practically nobody, and it is perfectly smooth, but one needs to plan and execute the flight as fully IFR if doing that.

[gla-lax]

'm surprised that no one has said that the new air traffic services that came out in march just might have a say in what caused the accident.

[Final 3 Greens]

I think the gummint should ban gliders, as they don't pay fuel tax and thus don't contribute to the economy.

[doubleu-anker]

ClippedCub

You beat me to it. Yes agreed and I do the same, and move around change course etc., if and when i can.

It is the constant relative bearing, of your potentual collison partner, that can be extremely hard to detect.

[athonite]

The use of landing lights would make a difference as follows:

(a) On departure and arrival while below 1500ft (including circiuts)

(b) When advised of or aware of conflicting traffic

(c) When transiting 'choke points', en-route VORs, VRPs

(d) In areas where miltary traffic is operating

(e) In poor visibility or wx

I have always been under impression that there is a culture of avoiding the use of landing lights within UK flying schools, which is down to the cost of replacement landing light bulbs.

However, I was once told by an engineer that landing lights had a long life while they are being cooled by an airflow, perhaps someone can clarify this.

[BEagle]

How can we reduce the risk of mid-airs?

Less time 'eyes-in' looking at gucci GPS moving maps.

More time 'eyes-out' looking for threats.

[10W]

'm surprised that no one has said that the new air traffic services that came out in march just might have a say in what caused the accident.

How do you work that one out ? :rolleyes:

I think the gummint should ban gliders, as they don't pay fuel tax and thus don't contribute to the economy.

Or just ban aviation. That would be a much simpler answer. :rolleyes:

[ANOpax]

F3G

I'm sure your comment was either tongue in cheek or a troll;

"I think the gummint should ban gliders, as they don't pay fuel tax and thus don't contribute to the economy."

But in case anyone was contemplating taking your comment seriously, the fuel that goes into an aerotow is taxed and the fuel that goes into a winch launch is also taxed.

Back on topic, the suggestions for collision avoidance contained in the "Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous" thread would also seem to be germane to this thread too.

[Discus_296]

Final 3 Greens, I'm working on the assumption that you are being facetious.. (I hope)

As for yesterdays collision, local cloudbase was around 5000' QNH, the glider was most likely 3500-5000 (based on day conditions when I passed throug 30 mins later and a detailed conversation with one of the pilots who saw the collision).

Unfortunately, I don't think any of the suggestions above other than a good lookout would have stopped yesterdays incident.

Both aircraft were white for stuctural reasons (i.e. to stop GRP getting too hot), both were VFR outside controlled airspace. Neither aircraft would be talking to traffic advisory services, nor would they have been much use given the quantity of GA and gliders transiting through the Brize-Benson gap at that time.

There is more to add but I don't want to say anything that might be construed as suggesting blame.

Unfortunately it's one of those incidents where the only way to prevent it is a solid lookout on the part of both parties....

[reportyourlevel]

From a controller's point of view: take an appropriate service and make sure you understand what the terms of that service are. I'm frequently amazed by pilots who just reply "roger" to everything and I'm certain they don't really take in what I'm saying to them.

Once I passed traffic information to an aircraft outside controlled airspace along these lines (good VMC):

ATC: "G-CD unknown traffic 12 o'clock, 10 miles, opposite direction, same level, report visual"
PILOT: "Roger, G-CD."
ATC: "G-CD previously mentioned unknown traffic now 12 o'clock, 5 miles, opposite direction, same level. Do you have it in sight?"
PILOT: "Negative, G-CD."
ATC: "G-CD previously mentioned unknown traffic now 12 o'clock, 3 miles, opposite direction, same level. Do you have it in sight?"
PILOT: "Negative, G-CD."
ATC: "G-CD previously mentioned unknown traffic now 12 o'clock, 1 miles, opposite direction, same level. Do you have it in sight?"
PILOT: "Negative, G-CD."
PILOT: "We missed him, G-CD."

There was plenty of time to turn or change level as I had given plenty of warning of the unknown traffic, but the pilot seemed intent on getting as close to it as possible. This has happened to me more than once.

I suppose the point of my post is that although keeping your eyes out of the window is the most important, an ATC service can be a big help for avoiding collisions, infringements etc but it is important to remember who is responsible for what under the service you are getting. Also that being in receipt of an ATC service does not make you immune from conflicts and you still have to put some effort in yourself.

I'd be interested to hear what the private flying fraternity thinks of the new services outside controlled airspace. I've certainly noticed from my end a lot of people who used to take a FIS are now taking Traffic or Deconfliction services, which I think is a step towards safer skies.

[mary meagher]

Fuji Abound on page one had excellent tips for avoiding mid-airs.

LOOKOUT LOOKOUT LOOKOUT! That's number one lesson, and every other lesson thereafter at our gliding club, if Blogs tries to start a turn without a proper scan, we block the controls.

Too many gadgets in the cockpit. Helicopter flew over our wire launch at 600 feet AGL, apologised later because his head was inside, consulting his moving map!

So PLAN your flight, fly your plan, spend less time looking inside.

To avoid that swarm of gliders going cross country this past weekend, keep track of the weather. If the weather is c...p, gliders won't be going cross country, they may be practicing takeoffs, landings, circuits at the local sites. But on a day with cu all over the sky, gliders are everywhere and anywhere, all white, sometimes in gaggles, sometimes flying in a competition that has been NOTAMed. In which case up to 50 gliders may be following the designated triangular course. Usually working the height band from 2,000' to near cloud base. Under 2,000' we get nervous and start looking for a field.

Unfortunately there are choke points where controlled air space forces GA and gliders into fairly narrow corridors. Special care here, please.

If you can wear a parachute, do so. And know how to use it. You never know, it might save your life.

[Mariner9]

Less time 'eyes-in' looking at gucci GPS moving maps.

More time 'eyes-out' looking for threats.

:hmm:

Or...

Less time eyes in peering at charts and trying to compare that with ground features

More time eyes out looking for threats instead of peering at the ground.

[cats_five]

To add to Mary's words of wizdom, you can get the Lasham view of the forecast for gliding from their website:

LashamWeather.co.uk (http://www.lashamweather.co.uk/forecasts.php)

And you can sign up to receive it by email whenever one is issued, which isn't every day by any means.

There isn't an archive of old forecasts there, but if I remember correctly yesterday's forecast was for a possible 'the day of the year' - and the flights posted subsequently suggest that indeed it was, with the longest being over 800k and many flights of 300k and more. Certainly a day to expect lots of gaggles, plus lots of gliders flying along under cloud streets.

[bookworm]

There was plenty of time to turn or change level as I had given plenty of warning of the unknown traffic, but the pilot seemed intent on getting as close to it as possible.

It may be obvious to you which way to turn to increase separation, but it's not necessarily obvious to the pilot. "12 o'clock" is a 30 degree wide sector, and a turn away may just make things worse. What's more helpful from a traffic point of view is knowing which side the target is likely to pass. That allows a manoeuvre to increase separation.

[gpn01]

It may be obvious to you which way to turn to increase separation, but it's not necessarily obvious to the pilot. "12 o'clock" is a 30 degree wide sector, and a turn away may just make things worse. What's more helpful from a traffic point of view is knowing which side the target is likely to pass. That allows a manoeuvre to increase separation.

In the example given, I think that "12 o'clock" and "opposite direction" are enough of a clue that a turn in either direction would be a better option than remaing on the current heading.

[SergeD]

I dont undersatnd why the British controllers will tell you about traffic but will not say antyhing about which way to turn to miss it. Why is this such a problem?

[flybymike]

Ask for a deconfliction service and (provided you get it ) they will tell you which way to turn.

[fisbangwollop]

gla-Quote..'m surprised that no one has said that the new air traffic services that came out in march just might have a say in what caused the accident.unquote

What sort of a statement is that???????/ all these collisions have taken place in class G see and be seen airspace..........the only sure way to help to prevent a collision ATC wise would be that every aircraft flying would recieve some form of radar service.....as you well know that is totally unpracticle and with the UK's radar coverage below 2000ft very limited it I am affraid down to the mark one eyeball!!!!

[Lister Noble]

Colour is quite important in seeing other aircraft.
White is very often more difficult to pick out in the sky than a darker colour,I'm not advocating that every aircraft is re-painted a dark colour,but maybe it should be a consideration when re-spraying or the choice from new.
I fly a dark coloured aircraft and friends say it is much easier to see than white aircraft ,for example.
Lister

[englishal]

White aircraft amaze me...

I was walking along the beach the other day with light aircraft going over a few thou' above from the local airport. I could not spot one of them, until a Duchess when over. This particular Duchess had blue wingtips and tail, and I could clearly see these blue bits. The rest was which and impossible to see - it was like 3 bits of dark blue zooming across the sky.

Why do people have white aeroplanes? Surely a black one is the best colour or if you don't like black, how about dark blue.

Luckily my aeroplane is dark blue and red, and I have a Zaon box linked to my GPS and transpond Mode C, but it wouldn't help me avoid a glider.

[vihai]

Why do people have white aeroplanes?


Unfortunately composite can and will be damaged due to heating by solar rays.

My glider has orange wingtips and the difference is huge... it goes from the slightly-warm of the white gelcoat to impossible-to-keep-a-hand-on of the orange strips.

I wonder how hot it could become if it was darker!

However darker colors can be considered for the undercarriage.

[soay]

Cirrus spent a fortune getting some fancy colours, such as crimson, approved for their aircraft, but they have to be highly reflective to stop the plastic overheating. Other manufacturers, such as Diamond, are less market oriented, so have taken the simple solution of offering any colour as long as it's white - with a choice of go faster stripes.

[liam548]

surely the paint technology exists so you can have coloured paint that does not absorb heat??

If all aircraft were coloured it would be so much easier. I find it difficult to spot aircraft even if I know the general direction where to look.
I have not completed by PPL yet but did my QXC on Saturday. What is the correct "scan technique"?

[Windrusher]

An excellent question from RansS9, and a thoughtful set of replies.

I too was flying yesterday, and we heard about the collision not long after it happened, not far to our south: it certainly provoked much thought and discussion, especially as the high cloud base and gin-clear air seemed pretty much ideal for aviation. It often seems to be the best days when the collisions happen, though: everyone gets their aircraft out (our hangar was almost empty yesterday, for the first time in months), and presumably the probability of a collision depends upon the square of the number of aircraft aloft. But one also wonders whether there's a 'first day of spring' effect, and not all pilots are as current as they might be. Perhaps the clear vis. also leads to a degree of complacency. (I stress that I'm musing in general, and not thinking of yesterday's events.)

It's also true that the Brize-Benson gap is pretty busy, as are all other bottlenecks: Keevil, Chilbolton, routes to the Isle of Wight... Maybe there's something to be said for *encouraging* GA to route through controlled airspace when it fancies, but the odd transit refusal and widespread disdain for unpolished R/T put most GA pilots off, so they never get to practice it either.

Aircraft colours: white shows up well from above, black from below (though most aircraft look black against cloud) ... but I'm not aware of any conclusive findings about the ones at your own level that'll get you. I've never spotted an aircraft from its strobes but, on the other hand, landing lights can be very obvious, though they must consume a lot of power.

Would Mode-S/TCAS/Flarm help? My guess is that if every aircraft had it (presuming low power versions available etc. - don't start that debate!) then you'd want the clever algorithms of Flarm to make much sense of the dense mixed traffic on a sunny summer Sunday. But Flarm has only got where it has because it's been unofficial: as soon as it became a defined and regulated system, even if targetted at GA specifically, that innovation would all but stop.

All rather tricky...

Windrusher

[cats_five]

Correct scan technique as taught me for gliding is hard to explain in words and much easier to demonstrate, as are the pitfalls. Suggest you ask your instructor.

BTW I find it scary that having reached the point of flying your QXC you are not sure about this... Is it not a very important bit of getting a PPL?

[englishal]

Maybe there's something to be said for *encouraging* GA to route through controlled airspace when it fancies,
That is what I do if possible. When going to the IOW from the NW I always ask Bournemouth for a transit via the o/h rather than squeeze down the StoneyX - Beaulieu gap at < 2000. Although VFR and I know I am responsible for my own separation, the traffic density can be less in CAS, or it is being controlled, or you may get a warning. One of the other posters on here told me how he goes at 4000 in Solent's airspace rather than fly along the Solent at < 2000 which seems a good idea - I've had a C172 pass 200' o/h in the Solent once which scared the crap out of me!

Unfortunately there are areas where the airspace is Class A and hence not available to VFR. This is wrong in my opinion and if it were reclassified as D up to say 10k' then more people could mnake use of it.

[Pace]

I'd be interested to hear what the private flying fraternity thinks of the new services outside controlled airspace. I've certainly noticed from my end a lot of people who used to take a FIS are now taking Traffic or Deconfliction services, which I think is a step towards safer skies

As especially in the spring and summer months when its light till late many people fly in the early evening. Any Radar service is useless if you have closed and gone home. Which appears to be more and more the case with ATC streamlining.

Pace

[BigHitDH]

I must admit, this is the only thing that scares me about GA.

I'm working for a PPL and my local area is very busy with traffic funneling into and out of the LLR between Manchester and Liverpool, and on more than one occasion I've had traffic prox of less than 500 meters. Not bad in itself, but both times I've only spotted them as they are looming in windscreen, certainly too late to really do anything meaningful.

I keep heads up, a constant scan, clear all my turns and listen out, but I still feel like we missed by chance. The rate at which you can close down another aircraft is surprising, one second it's a tiny speck, in another it's close enough to read the reg.

It's not always the case that you can do anything about it either - the last one was someone climbing below us on an almost converging track from behind. And those are just the ones that get noticed - how many go unnoticed?

Strobes, lights, whatever - there will always be one, once, that you miss, no matter how good your lookout is. If you think you'll never miss one, you're almost certainly wrong. It's like closing your eyes and running across the road, chances are you won't be hit, but would you take the chance?

I have no intention of going out for a few hours flying in the afternoon and never coming back. I'll almost certainly be buying parachute to go along with my PPL, because, well, **** happens.

[Lister Noble]

liam,scanning for other aircraft is covered in Air Pilot Manual 6-Human factors and pilot performance.
This is of utmost importance,I would ask your instructor to demonstrate the method,as has already been suggested.
It was drilled into me that looking all around really well, before a turn, is paramount.
Especially the area you are turning into.
And of course the circuit.
Lister:)

[bookworm]

In the example given, I think that "12 o'clock" and "opposite direction" are enough of a clue that a turn in either direction would be a better option than remaing on the current heading.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. You're doing 150 kt. An aircraft reported in your 12 o'clock, "opposite direction", at 5 miles may be passing safely down your right side by a mile. A right turn of 30 degrees puts you perfectly on to a collision course with him if he's doing the same speed as you. More than 30 degrees then? What if he's just a little faster than you? :(

If the controller simply said "turn left to increase separation" or even described the encounter as "left-to-right" which, in terms of relative bearing, it is, the action to take is obvious -- you turn to the left.

[TrafficPilot]

A large % of PPL pilots fly low; 1000-2000ft. Presumably the view is better.Not down here for me in the South/South East. It's because the airspace squeezes us into a tight band of low altitude class G.

TrafficPilot

[vihai]

surely the paint technology exists so you can have coloured paint that does not absorb heat??


The very purpose of paint is to absorb light. It reflects the desired colors and absorbs all the other visible light.

You would need a "paint" that converts light into something else. Photovoltaic cells are the only device I know to exist.

Maybe some new nanotechnology based on quantum dots will be able to change light frequency and have paints that appear to be unnaturally brighter (and cool).

Bye,

[gpn01]

Unfortunately, that's not the case. You're doing 150 kt. An aircraft reported in your 12 o'clock, "opposite direction", at 5 miles may be passing safely down your right side by a mile. A right turn of 30 degrees puts you perfectly on to a collision course with him if he's doing the same speed as you. More than 30 degrees then? What if he's just a little faster than you? :(

If the controller simply said "turn left to increase separation" or even described the encounter as "left-to-right" which, in terms of relative bearing, it is, the action to take is obvious -- you turn to the left.

If there was opposite direction traffic, same height, I'd be thinking of turning more than just 30 degrees. With a combined closing speed of 300kts you have 60 seconds or less to take avoiding action. I think I'd take the hint from the controller who's trying to help, rather than elect to plough straight on and play the odds of just how recipricol the "traffic, opposite heading" call was. You're right that it would be better if the controller could drop a hint, e.g. "suggest turn right for avoiding action" but I'm not sure if they're mandated to do that or not.

[later edited because I'd missed the bl**dy obvious]....should have added that climbing or descending, depending upon airspace constraints, would also be an option.

[fireflybob]

In the days before radio they HAD to lookout and were much more disciplined about (for example) circuit joining procedures. Ok there is a larger diversity of traffic around now but in many ways not a lot has changed if you are operating VFR.

Whilst not being a luddite I think the overuse of services such as Radar/FIS etc can lull pilots into a false sense of security. There are also more potential distractions such as the GPS, even changing frequency means head in the cockpit during which time another a/c can be filling the windscreen.

I know it's a generalisation (and I speak as one who has spent most of his flying career in civil aviation with a spell as a military flying instructor) but in the military there is much more emphasis on LOOKOUT since apart from anything else if you don't spot the enemy first he might shoot you down. So it's surprising to see that recent midairs have involved military operated a/c.

When teaching lookout on early details with students I tell them that lookout is an acquired skill and, at this stage, just because they cannot see an a/c doesn't mean there isn't one out there. Also don't get preoccupied with the one you can see - keep scanning!!

Finally, make sure the windscreen is clear - in summer a screen full of squashed flies can mask the target which might spoil your day!

[atceng]

I'm just getting into this aviation,and unlike any other discipline I've been involved in none of the 'Rules' ever seem to be appropriate to the situation and pilots seem to go out of their way to do the opposite.

UKANO collision avoidance in the air Rule 8,when approaching head on,each must turn to the right.

Given the scenario of direct head on confirmed by range closing,bearing not changing, why should anyone contemplate a left turn,as bookworm has suggested ? No, seriously, tell me, there is probably a good reason which my superficial approach has missed.!

In the last 6 months albeit flying in an uncongested part of the uk (not saying where as it would then become the most congested):\ I have never seen the 'strobe' of other 'craft.
This bit of equipment needs serious re-engineering to become effective. In other environments strobes are used for collision avoidance,drawing attention to alarm states etc. very effectively,but the aviation variety needs an order of magnitude upgrade to be useful. Perhaps if feasible this would be a cheap, simple, universally applicable and effective way of improving see and be seen.

atceng

[fireflybob]

Given the scenario of direct head on confirmed by range closing,bearing not changing, why should anyone contemplate a left turn,as bookworm has suggested ? No, seriously, tell me, there is probably a good reason which my superficial approach has missed.!


Notwithstanding Rules of the Air rights of way - you are entitled to do anything to avoid immediate danger - just because you have seen him doesn't mean he has seen you!

Also emergency (ie avoidance) turns are not in the PPL syllabus whereas the military do teach them to students. I think ETs should be in the PPL syllabus - there was a thread on Pprune a while ago on this topic.

[bjornhall]

Given the scenario of direct head on confirmed by range closing,bearing not changing, why should anyone contemplate a left turn,as bookworm has suggested ?

Because that was not the scenario. The key point is that "12 o'clock" is not the same as "direct head on". The bearing can change quite a bit and still be "12 o'clock".

[bookworm]

Given the scenario of direct head on confirmed by range closing,bearing not changing, why should anyone contemplate a left turn,as bookworm has suggested ? No, seriously, tell me, there is probably a good reason which my superficial approach has missed.!

That was most definitely not the scenario I described. If you could see the other aircraft, you'd see the bearing was steadily increasing. If you simply assume, based on the controller's "12 o'clock opposite direction" limited information, that the other aircraft is on a collision course, the right turn that you suggest would take you into conflict with the other aircraft.

[IO540]

The reason why a "Traffic Service" ATCO does not give avoidance vectors is because he is not allowed to. Rules are rules. Safety doesn't come into it.

[bjornhall]

Less time 'eyes-in' looking at gucci GPS moving maps.

More time 'eyes-out' looking for threats.

Less time eyes in peering at charts and trying to compare that with ground features

More time eyes out looking for threats instead of peering at the ground.
Agreed!:ok:
It makes little sense, in my view, to require a good lookout to be kept at all times, while at the same time teaching navigation methods that appear to maximise the time spent on navigation! Whether it is toying with a GPS with ten million features, or trying to match every church, barn and tree with the map, it just takes too long and is not necessary. Navigation is about getting accurately from A to B, isn't it? So why aren't students taught how to navigate with the minimum possible effort to accomplish that task?

[whiterock]

I posted the following on the original thread about two aircraft down.

I think it is worthy as a contribution on this thread also.

A mid-air collision is a dreadful event which any pilot would want to avoid.

However, the solution for GA is not as simple as putting a gadget on the panel
to do the looking for us.

The FLARM is a good device for glider pilots in the environment they fly. But only any good if all the other aircraft likely to be met in the air are likewise equippped.

I have installed a FLARM system to a GA aircraft engaged in glider towing. When fitted to a powered aircraft it needs to be heard over the noise of the engine and radio. It will therefore need to be properly powered and connected to the aircraft's audio system. This will involve a modification to the aircraft which will need CAA approval (for a fee) and installation (for a fee).

To connect the FLARM to the audio you will also need a FLOICE unit, which is a voice-intercom interface.

Remember that a glider pilot usually has a bubble canopy with excellent vision capabilities so in the event that a FLARM warning is given (visible and audible) the pilot can quickly look for the conflict and take avoiding action. I believe the range of the FLARM is such that a warning is given 15-20 seconds before possible conflict.

Most GA aircraft do not have such good all-round vision and as such, a FLARM alert may not give the pilot time to digest the audible and visible information, look out to verify, given the many blind spots inherent in GA aircraft and take the correct avoiding action.

I am of the firm belief, as a PPL of many years, that the basis of collision avoidance in the FIR can only be a good scanning technique.

As is so often the case in these events, it is better to wait for the AAIB report before deciding a course of action based on where the perceived problem was in the case of the event in question.

[soay]

in the military there is much more emphasis on LOOKOUT since apart from anything else if you don't spot the enemy first he might shoot you down. So it's surprising to see that recent midairs have involved military operated a/c.
Which reinforces my feeling that the Mk 1 eyeball doesn't cut it. You just need to fly in a TCAS equipped aircraft to realise how much "invisible" (but transponding) traffic there is out there on a clear day. Get in the haze under an inversion layer and you've got to hope that the big sky theory works! I'd rather have ADS-B.

[atceng]

bjornhall, and others advising arbitrary avoiding action (new acronym AAA) the opposite to the rules,you make my case perfectly.

If a consistent heading of 12 oclock even allowing 30deg isn't developing into a direct head on when the bearing doesn't change from 10 miles,5 miles,3 miles,1 mile,then I hope never to be flying in the same airspace.

Draw it out and see! Then work out what happens if a right turn is made and the other 'craft does nothing,'cos he hasn't seen you or turns right,'cos she has,(ignoring the possibility that its old bjornhall who's going to turn left).

Work out the permutations and you will see that you are certain to avoid by prompt rule-following action. If both 'craft follow the rules even better.
If one 'craft does the opposite to the rule then wham, another statistic.

Lets all just follow the rules,there isn't time to argue even with yourself.

atceng

[bjornhall]

atceng, the thing you are missing is that ATC traffic information is not accurate and precise enough to use for maneuvering. That requires vectoring. Traffic information is a great help since it tells you where to scan for traffic. Following the rules for collision avoidance comes after you have acquired the traffic. If you are drawing geometry in the cockpit you have your priorities all wrong.

But I also think you are concerning yourself with the wrong issue. Midairs do not happen because pilots fail to follow the rules regarding maneuvering to avoid collisions. Midairs happen because pilots fail to see each other. So rather than get distracted by this unimportant tangent, let's focus on the real issue: How to spot other traffic.

[funfly]

The RAF did some research a few years ago and came up with black being the best colour for air to air visibility, hence they now paint all of their training aircraft black except for the tips etc. My last aircraft was Fibreglass and white but it did have a couple of black areas ,wing walkways' however these got extremely hot and I would hate to have had the whole aircraft that colour. On a previous white aircraft I covered the leading edges of the wings with silver reflective tape and this was extremely good for visibility. (but I don't know if I should have put this in as a mod?)
In practice there are very few mid-airs however I have a policy of never planning a flight from overhead the field and flying at altitude just higher or just lower than the thousand feet mark. pilots often take a pride in being at the exact height - often a multiple of a thousand foot! so stay out of that zone.
In GA flying KEEP AWAY from glider sites and parachute sites.
My penneth.

[mary meagher]

Both should turn right, right? Well, that's the rule, isn't it?

Twice while tugging up a glider, this didn't work.

Junior Nationals Gliding Comp a few years back at Weston on the Green, pulling up a 19 with a Navy pilot, noticed a twin hauling a.... out of Kidlington, so I turned right to avoid him (of course towing a glider, I theoretically had right of way, right? )

He turned left.

I had nothing left to do but dive, with the Navy 19 still hanging on for dear life. Which is the right action for the glider on tow; we present one target (if a rather extended one) rather than two disparate targets. It was nice that he backed up my story when I returned to ask the director to please let Kidlington know what we were doing and where.

The other occasion a very experienced glider pilot was behind me and warned me of traffic; I hadn't seen it (nose high, you know) and began to turn right, and he said very very emphatically "TURN LEFT NOW!!!!" So I
did, and it was so near that if he hadn't directed that avoidance, I wouldn't have been here to file the airprox. The equipment on the glider exactly pinpointed the time and place, so we were able to trace the opposition.

That pilot had thought it would be sensible to dive under the combination.
Not really; if we hadn't seen him and diverged just then, it would have been
normal for the tug to descend.

I say again, LOOKOUT, LOOKOUT, LOOKOUT. Please.

[David Roberts]

Sunday was the best gliding day so far this year. In terms of weather. Obviously and very sadly not for those involved in the mid air near Abingdon. I would guess that a large proportion of the UK glider fleet (c. 2500) was airborne on Sunday and a fair proportion of them in the southern England area OCAS. See Daily Scores (http://www.bgaladder.co.uk/Enquiry.asp) for those that logged their cross country flights - and that is by no means all who did cross countries on Sunday. And look at the distances flown - sans moteur.

I suspect there were a great number of GA aeroplanes also in the height band 1000 - 5000 ft AGL, below cloud base.

What this shows is that Sunday was the equivalent in road traffic terms of a sunny bank holiday weekend on the M5 to Devon - crowded. So statistically one would be more likely to encounter more than the odd aircraft en route.

Now even the proponents of using any ground based advisory radio or radar service in Class G will quickly realise that with (a) the speed at which the high volume of airborne traffic is moving (b) the delay factors contacting and getting a response from the ground based third party (c) the overload factors on a ground based person (d) the fact that gliders do not follow a straight line necessarily and are constantly ascending / descending, then it is impossible to have a fool proof ground based human third party intervention system to keep us all apart.

So the quickest means to do so is constant lookout. Backed up by Flarm or something similar. I have flown with Flarm for 4 years now - mostly in the French Alps - and I can say with confidence that it reduces risk but of course will never eliminate it. The price is worth the extra mitigation.

As to conspicuity, there have been various experiments conducted over the last few years with regard to making white gliders more visible. None have proved conclusive of a better scheme, other than the RAF black (which of course we can't paint our gelcoat gliders with, for reasons already given in this thread). Even orange dayglo strips and markings on the wings do not work that well. In fact my French colleagues - with many '000s of hours mountain flying - say that often these markings break up the profile of a glider against the mountain / snow background, with the result that the aircraft becomes a smaller profile. This I experienced first hand last month high in the Alps when the Flarm gave a 'three reds' alert. Neither my co-pilot nor I could see another glider until it passed close in front and underneath us as we thermalled. And the other glider was covered in dayglo strips. BTW my eye test last week was A1....I write as someone with 40 years' gliding, 2700 hours and some power flying. I intend to do a lot more as well, looking out and hoping I see everything. But I won't rely upon third party sources on the ground for this.

[liam548]

liam,scanning for other aircraft is covered in Air Pilot Manual 6-Human factors and pilot performance.
This is of utmost importance,I would ask your instructor to demonstrate the method,as has already been suggested.
It was drilled into me that looking all around really well, before a turn, is paramount.
Especially the area you are turning into.
And of course the circuit.
Lister:)

thats my last written exam left to do after aero tech. I am aware of clearing turns and looking before turning. I was under the impression reading this that there is a specific scan technique when flying straight and level.
At the minute I split the view into different parts and scan each section at a time, middle, fore and back. I will ask instructor though next lesson.

[Rod1]

If the Glider had had £390 worth of PCAS he would have “seen” the Tutor (assuming it had a transponder. If the BGA encouraged the fitting of Flarm and PCAS and the rest of us fitted Flarm and PCAS we would all be £1000 less well off but much less likely to fly into each other. I am hoping to test a Flarm in my MCR very soon (will report back) and already have PCAS. Collision avoidance which combines detection of Flarm and Transponders is less than 12 months away.

Flarm has a range of 3 - 5km (according to the manual), my PCAS is set to 5nm.

Rod1

[IO540]

Fly high - that's the best option.

A parachute is no good if you have passengers, or if you got incapacitated.

IMHO, you will never spot the one that is going to hit you, for reasons already mentioned.

[astir 8]

If we are talking about reducing collision risks with gliders, do not fly in the band from cloudbase to 1000 or so feet below it. That's where the cross country gliders will be

[Fuji Abound]

I think this whole topic should be broken down into parts:

Firstly, there are various things you can do to reduce the risk of collision that are unrelated to detecting the other aircraft. In short these "things" all revolve around avoiding areas with a high density of traffic - as IO540 says, fly high for example. I gave in my first post a list of other things that will help.

Secondly, developing a scan technique to give you the best chance of spotting another aircraft. However, kid yourself not, if you take the trouble to read all the research, our eyes are really not up to the job. You will get quite a different impression from this and other forum - all I can say is those who punt this are irresponsible and clearly havent read the research.

Thirdly, we can use technology to help. Technology inevitably is the last line of defence. The kids on the chopping block are PCAS, TAS, FLARM and transponders. FLARM is the odd one out because it is only gliders that really use FLARM and even then I personally suspect the uptake is no where near as large as they would have you believe. For that reason, transponders and PCAS or TAS IS the only game in town at the momement, if you have to select one or the other. The alternative is to have both.

[bjornhall]

Secondly, developing a scan technique to give you the best chance of spotting another aircraft. However, kid yourself not, if you take the trouble to read all the research, our eyes are really not up to the job. You will get quite a different impression from this and other forum - all I can say is those who punt this are irresponsible and clearly havent read the research.

I think it is worth recalling that the research you are talking about mainly relates to the cross country type of collisions. It is also worth recalling that proper scan can still significantly reduce the risk of such collisions, while it can not bring it all the way down to zero. A third thing worth remembering is that collisions in congested areas, such as the traffic pattern, will have more to do with improper lookout than with the physiological hard limits of the eye.

To draw the right conclusions from such research, one has to understand its scope...

[mary meagher]

David Roberts points out that more than 200 crosscountry flights were logged on the BGA ladder site this day.(Sunday, 14 May) That is only a small proportion of cross country flights actually made. From our club alone, every single seater that could stagger into the air actually got somewhere. One pilot flew 723 kilometers, launching at 10 am and not returning until 8 pm; as I was supervising that day, was about to phone his wife to ask if he had notified her he might be late for dinner, when he arrived over the hedge.

We try to keep track of our people: before leaving they must note their proposed turning points in a Cross Country Book. But trying to contact them by radio from the ground is not done; most likely they are on a different frequency, or switched off in order to concentrate on the flying.

LOOKOUT,---THEN Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

[chrisN]

Fuji, there is no central source of figures for gliders with Flarm, because they are getting them from different places at different times. My guess is well over 200, of say 2300 gliders, and growing along an S-shaped curve – slow to start, then a rapid acceleration until most have them, then slow for the last few. It is a bit like the first few people who got telephones – not much use until a lot more got them, except for the few in an immediate communication circle who talked to each other. As the largest gliding club in the country has several dozen based there, and have fitted them to all their club fleet, my guess is that the rest at that club will rapidly follow except for the last few.

Similarly, it will happen at other clubs, probably the largest at first, and those hosting competitions, and those hosting lots of visiting pilots for mountain wave expeditions etc..

The experience of last Sunday has, I believe, added a lot more potential buyers of Flarm in the gliding community. I see quite a few people talking about it now. Maybe, just maybe, some of the other GA people will take more interest in it too.

After trying PCAS (the Zaon MRX), I took delivery of mine today. That will help detect transponder–equipped, GA, particularly the low level ones who insist on flying over glider winch-launching sites (in breach of Rule 12) and those when I am soaring at lower levels before getting higher than most GA flies at. (On a flight to try Rod’s PCAS which I borrowed, all the contacts but two were lower than me. One of the two exceptions was probably a Stansted departure. The other was when I was on the ground, and a spamcan flew over our winch launch area at about 1000 feet.)

In the short/medium term, only lookout will help with non-transponder equipped GA unless/until they become sold on the idea of Flarm too. As Rod says, £1000 buys PCAS and Flarm, and gives IMHO a huge leap without needing EASA and other obstacles to be overcome. Not perfect, not 100 percent, but a big improvement.

By the way, I expect my experience on Sunday was similar to many glider pilots. During a 7-hour flight between East Anglia and the Welsh border, the first hour was at 1-3000 feet and I saw a few spamcans (mostly in the choke area of class G just outside the Stansted CTA), including at least one that I saw over our winch launch site (my friends on the ground saw several more during the day); the middle 5 hours was mostly at 3-5000 feet, and I saw lots of gliders at my height range, but all the power GA I saw was lower; and the last hour was much quieter. When I was working Cambridge Approach, all the power GA I heard about was well below me.

So the greatest power/glider risk was mainly in the early part, before I could get high. After that, and for 80-90 percent of my flight, it was mostly glider/glider risk.

I have lost hope of convincing the anti-glider and/or pro-transponder brigade that Flarm (now Flarm + PCAS) is the most cost-effective and as well as the only widely practicable technology to reduce collision risk, but that’s where I am at.

Chris N.

[flybymike]

I commend anyone who can sit in a glider for 7 hours....

[cats_five]

<snip>But trying to contact them by radio from the ground is not done; most likely they are on a different frequency, or switched off in order to concentrate on the flying.

LOOKOUT,---THEN Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

Or simply out of range. It's one thing to hear base from 150k away when at FL100, it's quite another at 3,000' AMSL.

BTW major congrats to whoever did the 700k, and of course to everyone else who did anything.

[Rod1]

I should have added that I have borrowed Chris’s Flarm.

At the Weekend almost all the Gliders were up, a very large % of the Micros and the LAA fleet were also likely to be airborne. We all need to work on our lookout, but a practical traffic alerting solution is possible with current tec at a fraction of the cost of a transponder.

Rod1

[mm_flynn]

Following on from the various 'collision threads' I have done some eyesight checking -- and am depressed.

At every opportunity when I have had another aircraft on collision course (normally following someone on a departure - so not a big threat), I find it very difficult to see that stationary dot more than about 1.5 NM away. Even at 1 NM, I need to 'know' where the target is to see it. On the other hand, if a target has relative motion, I can usually pick it out up to about 4-5 NM.

In every case traffic has been called to me, I can only see it after relative motion has started to be noticeable.

The conclusion, I can't see en-route traffic in time to do anything about a collision - If I can see it, I am going to miss it anyhow!

Obviously coming near the circuit is different as everyone is changing course all the time, so you have a good chance to spot most traffic and avoid turning into someone.

[ShyTorque]

Did the pilot flying the 700km plus set a new record? Any more details, please?

[cats_five]

The one from Dunstable that flew over 800k thinks he might have set one...

[ShyTorque]

Good for him, any idea of his route?

[englishal]

If I was being approached head on by traffic at same height....I'd drop down 100'. That is the thing I like about flying with a ZAON XRX - the azimuth data is pretty good but so long as there is a vertical offset no collision.

One thing though, very rarely does a collision happen in S&L flight. Normally it is caused by one or both aircraft manoeuvring - makeing turns, climbing, descending.

Regarding FLARM - if it is interfaced to the Garmin x96 GPS's then you can have audio warnings as well as position displayed on the GPS screen. I interface the ZAON through the 496 and it displays the traffic on the GPS and tells me when there is dangerous traffic about as I also have the 496 wired into the intercom. If I could somhow get a FLARM box without built in GPS (cheaper), then inject the NEMA position into the FLARM box from the 496, then interfece the FLARM box back to the 496 to display the traffic on the screen then one could have a very neat FLARM installation which could be hidden behind the panel - possibly just having a hull mounted antenna installed (is that a Mod?)....Would be great if you could do the same with a ZAON type box and have a hull mounted antenna for that.

[cats_five]

Dave Robert's post on the previous page mentions the Daily Scores website:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/377743-thoughts-reducing-risk-mid-airs-3.html#post4999839

As Mary said, loads and loads and loads of flights for Sunday, and many more that weren't put on the ladder, plus many more soaring instructionals. It's going a tad far to suggest that every glider in the UK flew as conditions further north were horrible, but well over 1,000 seens not unreasonable.

Someone at Lasham declared just over 1,000k, he didn't quite make it.

The north-most launches seem to be Rufforth, Pocklington & Sutton Bank, and they tasked to the south.

[execExpress]

Cirrus Design developed special colour paints (took quite a lot of effort and time) to break out of the "Got To Be White" tradition.

Look at Photos: Cirrus SR-22 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Unknown/Cirrus-SR-22/1539079/&sid=8aee1b1ed4395d8136c6dce98baa6173)

Perhaps the RAF will in future be saying to any training aircraft supplier that "Got To Be White" doesn't hold true anymore and we're not buying any more of them...?

Maybe the glider manufacturers could approach Cirrus to see about how to get some of this paint, assuming suitable, onto gliders too.

The colour paint is relatively new technology. Personally from an 'avoiding mid-airs' I would like to see it used as widely and often as possible, considering how much 'got to be white' we are collectively capable of putting in the sky on a nice day.

[FrustratedFormerFlie]

Several posters have noted the relaitive difficulty of spotting a static (ie real risk of collision exists) target as against one where there is relative movement across the canopy (and low/no risk of collision)

However gliders rarely fly in straight lines and very few GA aircraft are required to.

To avoid the dots staying static before your eyes, first, move your head: a moving-head scan (IMHO) picks up more than a long stare. Second, manoever the aircraft. Pre aeros/spins checks recognise the need for 'clearing turns' to get a good view in blind spots above/below/behind; well why not do some in normal flight? They don't have to be knife-edge manoevres to panic the pax, just avoid sustained stright-line flight - every change of heading (with its instinctive associated extra lookout) increases chances to acquiring a target.

Not rocket science, but every little helps

'Simples!'

BTW, I question the contributor who reckons greatest risk of collision is in the circuit: with everyone going the same direction, with the same intention and on the same frequency, all these factors reduce collision risk.

My top candidate for a collision black spot is a recognisable landmark, suitable for use as a glider or GA cross country turning point, especially if it also marks a choke point between areas of controlled airspace. The combination of the controlled areas squeezing non-IFR traffic into smaller spaces and the landmark attracting them multiplies the dots on the canopy amazingly!

[cats_five]

It would be fine to have new aircraft painted with the Cirrus paints assuming they are suitable and Cirrus will release the technology. But, there are large numbers of 'legacy' aircraft which are white because they are composite, and buying Flarm and TCAS is far, far cheaper than getting a glider refinished or (I imagine) an aircraft painted...

[execExpress]

Not arguing against FLARM. TCAS etc. Highlighting "Got To Be White" ain't necessarily so anymore.

If I were RAF AEF I would be interested in at least a costing for putting some of this paint on an existing GRP aircraft. And FLARM, and TCAS.

[FrustratedFormerFlie]

All this kit (and kash).

There's still a little voice in the back of my head saying 'technology is no substitute for technique'.

[execExpress]

Technology is not a substitute, or shouldn't be. It supplements and enhances the effectiveness of see and avoid, and is itself improving.

Is there a technique thats adequate to stay out of mid-airs - with say, all-white aircraft, no flarm, no P/TCAS, no transponder, no ATC service, not using radio - that couldn't be meaningfully supplemented?

[bjornhall]

BTW, I question the contributor who reckons greatest risk of collision is in the circuit: with everyone going the same direction, with the same intention and on the same frequency, all these factors reduce collision risk.

We don't need to guess... Statistics talks. Most collisions do happen in the traffic pattern, with a significant number on final approach.

Why that is so is an interesting question IMHO, bearing in mind the factors you mention... One interpretation is that the main collision avoidance mechanism is the big sky concept, and where that does not apply (=traffic pattern) the risk of collisions goes up tremendously, despite same direction frequency intention etc.

This is a pretty interesting publication on the subject: http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa15.pdf

[jammydonut]

Is there something intrinsically wrong with the RAF Grob having the PIC in the right hand seat and wearing a bone dome scanning to port must be difficult if not impossible.....

[fireflybob]

I recall that in the USA about 25/30 years ago they did a statistical analysis of mid air collisions and very close airproxes.

The highest risk was if you were within 10 nm of an airport with mixed VFR/IFR traffic - very often these airports were equipped with radar. In the open FIR there tends to be a fair amount of random separation built in (apart from certain choke points) so although you might get a fright by having an airprox the chances of a midair collision are relatively low.

I often call Class G "jungle airspace". To many airspace users (including me!) the idea of a control service in the open FIR is something of an anethma. There are ways of sensibly mitigating the risks many of which have been mentioned in this thread.

A question I sometimes ask students and pilots is if you have to go around from an approach what is the first action? Very rarely, if ever, is lookout (above) mentioned. Also my observation is that very often the lookout below prior to descent is omitted. Do you weave during climb and descents? This is very basic stuff and whilst the mk 1 eyeball isn't infallible correct lookout techniques are vital to remain safe.

[cats_five]

That's an excellent link - and the pictures show just how bad the vis can be from GA. :(

[tinpilot]

Good for him, any idea of his route?Flight Details (http://www.bgaladder.co.uk/dscore.asp?FlightID=21107)

[IO540]

Technology is no substitute for techniqueThe problem is that no "technique" actually works. As has been written a million times, a target on a genuine collision course is a stationary point in your field of view.

The best one can do is play the probabilities in one's favour.

The "Mk 1 eyeball" so beloved of the proverbial ex RAF navigators who write the training literature, doesn't work, and never did work. Not in cases where there is a genuine collision course.

Fortunately, due to the way flying is trained, it is not too hard to improve matters drastically.

Flying well above 1000ft, say 3000ft, reduces the probability more than anything else - by at least an order of magnitude. So much so that there have been no UK midairs (TMK) above 2000ft - ever.

Flying at weird levels, say 2300 or 2700 or 3300ft, reduces it by another huge amount - because most people who fly "high" fly as they have been trained i.e. at 2000ft 2500ft or 3000ft.

Be conscious of aerodrome circuits when flying enroute. Get a decent GPS which shows the ATZs and even when flying an accurate planned route, give these areas a wide margin. Another order of magnitude improvement?

If you have to fly low, e.g. taking pics of your bird's house, or departing or arriving, have all the lights on. One is far more visible in a near head-on situation when the landing light is on, even during bright sunlight.

TCAS would be great but until Mode C is made mandatory it will be of limited usefulness for avoiding actually possible collisions, versus the cost of the proper active system - £10k+. And I suspect a huge % of the low level bimblers don't have a transponder or don't switch it on, anyway, and if you fly high, there ain't nobody there, more or less.

Personally, I don't worry about this.

The circuit remains the dangerous place. The only time I do overhead joins is when ordered by ATC. At AFIS or A/G airfields I ignore the "overhead RH circuit" default instruction and if he reports no known traffic I tell him I will report downwind / crosswind / long final. But I must confess I wouldn't fly to Stapleford (or some other totally mad free for all place where people cut you up left right and middle) on a sunny Sunday :)

If you have an autopilot, use it to reduce cockpit workload and look out of the window - one day you might actually spot something.

If you have a GPS, use it to reduce cockpit workload and look out of the window - as above.

But don't bank on spotting the one that might get you while flying at 1000ft.

[Fuji Abound]

TCAS would be great but until Mode C is made mandatory it will be of limited usefulness for avoiding actually possible collisions, versus the cost of the proper active system - £10k+. And I suspect a huge % of the low level bimblers don't have a transponder or don't switch it on, anyway, and if you fly high, there ain't nobody there, more or less.

IO540

I think that is the one aspect of your post with which I disagree, although I havent got any proven stats with which to back it up.

Using TAS I reckon that only around 10% of primary contacts reported by PR is not shown on TAS, and about 5% are shown with no height information. That would suggest that most traffic has transponders at a mix of levels - albeit I agree the number without is even less at higher levels.

It would be interesting to know what % of the UK GA fleet has a transponder fitted - does anyone know?

[IO540]

Using TAS I reckon that only around 10% of primary contacts reported by PR is not shown on TAS, and about 5% are shown with no height information. That would suggest that most traffic has transponders at a mix of levels - albeit I agree the number without is even less at higher levels.

Unless I misunderstand you, that would very much suprise me, because when flying under a "traffic service" the majority of reported contacts are "level unknown" which means either no TXP or Mode A only.

These contacts would not usefully show on any TCAS system.

I think Mode C fit % is close to 100% among those flying higher up, say 3000ft+. It's a whole different pilot population up there.

Between flying below 2000ft, and flying above 3000ft (approx) it seems as if GA exists in two different compartments.

A lot of pilots joke about getting a nosebleed at a few thousand feet but I don't think many of them are actually joking.

[ShyTorque]

Tinpilot,

Thankyou. That was probably the glider I passed yesterday.

I asked the question because after what I think was about 7.5 hours flying he still had enough electrical power to speak to an ATC radar unit and to use a transponder with mode C, which helped us to see and avoid him, using our TCAS to assist our lookout.

Good on him, a good example of how to fly in a thoroughly professional manner, he allowed us the chance to avoid his aircraft by changing our transit altitude in good time and keep us all the safer for it, whilst maintaining my passengers' comfort.

[cats_five]

Don't assume the glider had had his transponder on for the whole flight.

[chrisN]

From the link posted by somebody above, it shows it is an ASH25 EB28 – a 2-seat motor glider (fold-away engine) which has much bigger battery capacity than most gliders. “Electric power supply by two lead batteries, one in each inner wing. . . . 5 kg can be saved by using lithium-mangan-batteries in the fuselage instead of lead batteries in the inner wings.” [Sic]

See: Binder aircraft- & engineconstruction | ASH 25 EB 28 | ASH 25 EB 28 (http://www.binder-flugmotorenbau.de/index.php?id=30,0,0,1,0,0) for details if interested.

For the umpteenth time, yes, SOME gliders can have transponders, and SOME of those have fitted them. SOME OTHERS, like mine could physically have a transponder, but EASA at present prevents it.

AND A LOT OF GLIDERS cannot and never will have.

I can’t really believe ST does not understand, but I don’t know why he keeps hammering the point that SOME gliders have transponders, as if that means all could.

If I got a needle stuck in a groove saying SOME powered aircraft have BRS, TCAS, Autopilot, and two crew to look out, so all can, so why don’t you all do it - I suspect that he and others would soon get fed up.

As I am of having to remind people who keep hammering that some gliders can have transponders as if that means that all can.

And two transponding gliders have no communication to tell each other of impending collision – only ST etc. with TCAS, or those who also fit PCAS, could know. Flarm is better than that for glider/glider. It could be used for GA/glider. Why don’t they get Flarm as well as their other equipment?

Chris N.

[joehunt]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned previously.

It is not only the lookout that is important but the eyes need to be focused. It is of little use being on instruments for a period of time and then proceed to lookout for something several miles away from your aircraft. Your eyes need to be focused for that distance, for you to see effectively. This takes time and not 5 seconds or so.

To focus you need to look at an object of that approximate distance, not just thin air.

This may sound like a wise guy statement but if you want to avoid completely the risk of a mid air collision, then stay on the ground. Mind you the aluminium /composite show will probably get you, from some other persons bad day at the office.

[astir 8]

IO and others.

the idea that there is a lot less traffic at say 3000'+ can be a questionable assumption. This may be true of powered light aircraft but on a thermic day the gliders will operating as high as they can keep themselves. ie from cloudbase to 1000 - 1500 feet below cloudbase. So if it's a 5000' cloudbase day, there will be a lot of gliders in the 4000' band, particularly through the known choke points.

Sad to say Didcot/Abingdon is one of the said choke points

[Pace]

For the umpteenth time, yes, SOME gliders can have transponders, and SOME of those have fitted them. SOME OTHERS, like mine could physically have a transponder, but EASA at present prevents it.

AND A LOT OF GLIDERS cannot and never will have.

I can’t really believe ST does not understand, but I don’t know why he keeps hammering the point that SOME gliders have transponders, as if that means all could.

Chris I would not support a proposal that all gliders regardless of whether they fly in IMC or VMC have to have transponders.

The ones who want to fly in cloud should be equipt to a certain standard and their pilots should be trained to a glider pilot specific IMCR.

In VMC we fly see and avoid in clouds we cannot. In powered flight there are rules as to who can or cannot operate in clouds. As an ATP I could go out and buy myself A Europa. I could build it, spend a fortune on avionics. Would the CAA allow me to fly it in clouds? NO. Could I argue that gliders have exceptions so why not me?

On the other hand as a glider pilot I can buy an old wreck of a glider with minimal instrument flying instrumentation. I can have NO radio, little IMC flying experience and I can fly blind to all in clouds to my hearts content.

Is that a level playing field between power and gliders? is that fair morally never mind from a safety aspect?

Because see and avoid is a non starter in cloud flying there should be regulations to stop aircraft and pilots who are not equipt to be there from being there.

Like the example of the Europa in powered flight if the glider cannot meet the required standards and the same with the pilot it should be legally limited to day VMC ONLY. There is no valid or fair arguement for otherwise.

There is a fair arguement that gliders cannot fly normal VFR rules. To force them to do so would destroy the sport. We as power pilots know gliders maybe lurking in cloudbases so to be allowed to fly to glider specific VFR rules maybe FLARM should be looked at for all gliders.

Flarm is a good option for VMC gliders and an extra backup for IMC gliders but unless regulated as a requirement for all powered and non powered it can give a false sense of security.

Pace

[Rod1]

IO540

With all your experience you must have noticed that some VFR pilots are very good at spotting other traffic and some are not. The more one works on lookout and scan the better ones gets, but it is not 100% and never will be.

100% of people have transponders above 3000 ft? This is not correct. Last weekend there were 2000 ish gliders flying, 99% with no transponder and most would have been at 3000+.

Some numbers;

There is about 7000 G reg c of a SEP aircraft. Most will have transponders, say 80%

There are 4000 micros, 99% will not have transponders. About 50% of these are “little aircraft” flown by ex C of A aircraft owners who fly them exactly the same as there old PA28/140’s (similar performance). Such people do not usually stooge around at low level.

There are 2200 LAA permit aircraft. Around 50% of these have radio, so less will have transponders. Reasonable guess, 30%? Most of these are flown by experienced PPL’s in the 50 + age bracket with old stile CAA PPL’s, who are as likely to fly at 3000 ft as anybody else.

Lastly, you have a very large number of paramotors, 12000+. These are mostly low level, but I have seen them at 4000ft, and they have flown over Everest.

The above represents the majority of UK light GA which will be flying on a Saturday afternoon in summer. The % with some kind of traffic avoidance system will be very low. There are only 2 – 400 PCAS units in the UK, Flarm is estimated at 200 and rising fast, TCAS etc is only on a small number of high end C of A machines. Last Saturday the few LARS units which were open were swamped and offering BS only, so right now we need to work on our lookout, encourage people to fit low cost traffic warning systems which are technically appropriate to the aircraft concerned and stop bleating for transponders.:ugh:

Rod1

[ANOpax]

Good on him, a good example of how to fly in a thoroughly professional manner

That's because he is a professional. If the ASH is the glider you passed, the pilot in question flies B777 for Big Airways.

[IO540]

Rod, it's indeed possible that your picture is closer to the mark for weekend traffic. I rarely fly at weekends.

My comment about the correlation between Mode C carriage and altitude is based on an obvious observation of traffic reports by radar ATC.

I tend to fly either just below CAS or (if CAS base is in IMC; often the case under the LTMA) just below the cloudbase, so there will be negligible GA traffic above me. The vast majority of traffic reported to me in this situation is "level unknown". Most of this traffic is never spotted (by me or passengers) but when it is spotted it turns out to be way down below.

If OTOH I fly higher up, 3000ft+ which a lot of the time is above cloud, the vast majority of traffic spotted is reported with a known level (Mode C).

Anyway I have written this before many times. Maybe everything changes when the weekend comes and suddenly all the non-transponding pilots climb to great heights?

Transponder use is (as you well know) not just for the benefit of the few TCAS-equipped Cirrus SR22s etc. You get

- protection to jet transport TCAS, should you bust CAS (of course you never bust CAS but hundreds of other pilots manage it every year, with plenty having near misses with 737s etc)

- protection to jet transport TCAS in Class G (the only solution to CAT in G is more CAS, which nobody in GA wants, do they??)

- radar ATC can see your level and pass it to other pilots (hardly any point in calling any ATC unit if they cannot provide a radar service, but a RS is near-useless without it seeing altitudes)

- easier to get CAS transits (apart from airspace rules, a transponder makes you appear more professional)

- visibility to other planes that carry TCAS (fixed or portable) systems

Considering the average 30 year old spamcan costs about £5000/year to drag through the Annual, I don't really see this argument anymore. And the vast majority of "homebuilt" planes can have one fitted too - even if battery powered.

[ShyTorque]

I can’t really believe ST does not understand, but I don’t know why he keeps hammering the point that SOME gliders have transponders, as if that means all could.


ChrisN,

Please get down off your pedestal and read my post again. You are possibly now getting stuff I have posted mixed up with stuff posted by others! Of course I know that rules don't allow the fitting of certain equipment to certain aircraft. As I mentioned to you before, I too have no clearance to fit FLARM or anything other equipment to the public transport aircraft that I fly. It already has the mandatory CAA fit and more besides. It looks like there is no possibility of FLARM being given a certification for PT in the near future; each individual aircraft type and mark would need individual certification at huge cost; I've also mentioned that before. Not only that, the aircraft is not owned by me, I don't pay the bills and I have little say in these issues. It will eventually be decided by EASA / CAA legislation, probably when it becomes enough of an issue in the Sunday papers.

Those who say "well if you don't like it stay on the ground then" are avoiding the issue; if I stayed on the ground someone else would take my place. I have no intention of giving up flying for a living just yet; I've been doing it for 32 years and it's what I'm best qualified to do.

I began the post above that you seem to object to so strongly, by mentioning the fact that pilot was talking to an ATC unit on the radio. In the past you told me that gliders can't speak to ATC, either.

This pilot managed to make intelligent use of his on-board equipment and battery power, whether or not he had it switched on for the whole flight is irrelevant. I was impressed that he seemed so professional and I said so. What do you expect me to say? You don't like it whan folk criticise glider pilots and yet you complain even more strongly because I just praised one.

Perhaps he should have switched everything off, not spoken to ATC and I should have just looked out better? I suggest you give this a break, it seems to be getting to you; it's not your personal responsibility to answer everything posted here, with increasing angst. I'm going to comment no more, I've got some flights to plan.

[Rod1]

“Maybe everything changes when the weekend comes and suddenly all the non-transponding pilots climb to great heights?”

This is true; the aircraft get above 0 feet! At my strip, it is unusual to find anybody flying Monday – Thursday 8am to 6pm and Friday 8am to 1pm. On a good weekend everything is up. Most gilding clubs operate one day during the week and at weekends. I occasionally fly during the week and the situation is hugely different. It is normally possible to get a traffic service, the airspace is much less crowded and some classes of aircraft are almost entirely absent from the sky. Even at a weekend, at significant altitude, say 6 – 10k, there is less traffic, but CAS normally makes this impractical. I regularly fly my LAA machine at 7 – 10k over the more remote parts of the UK (with mode C).

I am not anti transponder; I have mode c and have helped several people fit second hand units to LAA type aircraft. However, with the current regulations and the current fleet most flying machines will not have one for the foreseeable future. Try to get the BGA to push transponders and you will get “not technically possible”. Try to get them to recommend FLARM + PCAS and you have a chance as it is both technically feasible and much less expensive. As collision systems come onto the market which will combine the two, we are moving in a positive direction.

Rod1

[Pace]

Rod

In the very long thread "Flying out of CAS IMC now dangerous?" which was started by myself a lot was made that the chances of collision with gliders in or out of IMC was negligable.

It was stated by a number of the gliding fraternity that a VMC glider collision would be between gliders only and NOT powered aircraft.

Ironically during the course of my thread a collision has occurred between a powered aircraft and a glider with tragic loss of life.

In my case the near collision was at between 5000 and 6000 feet in IMC. So where do we go from here?

There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by the gliding fraternity clinging onto unwarranted excemptions that gliders enjoy to what the rest of us have to comply with.

Sadly we have loss of life in a VMC collision I really hope we are not in these forums in the future discussing a collision with a glider and CAT with a large loss of life as then all our freedoms will go faster than a blink.

No one will care whether this or that is capable of being fitted in a glider as there will then be NO choice for any of us.

Pace

[englishal]

Flying well above 1000ft, say 3000ft, reduces the probability more than anything else - by at least an order of magnitude. So much so that there have been no UK midairs (TMK) above 2000ft - ever.
While I agree with you, and when I can I always fly above 5000' (6.5-9.5k is a good altitude), many places in the UK you can't. For example along the Solent everyone is squashed to below 2000' unless you manage to get a clearance from Solent to go higher. Invariable everyone then decides to fly at 1700-1900' in any direction!! Scary stuff, and I sometimes wonder whether you'd actually be safer flying at sub 1000' (say 800') in these areas or ask Solent if you can fly at 2100' (or higher if they will clear you - I reckon a 2100' clearance should be no problem). Perhaps there should be advisory altitudes "Aircraft heading west do so at 1500', aircraft heading east fly at 2000'"? You are unlikely to find many other aircraft that low, most going into Bournemouth will be at 1700-1900 too.

[cats_five]

May I also remind you that very sadly there has been another middar this year, again in VMC, and resulting in the lose of 4 lives. No gliders were involved in that one.


There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by the gliding fraternity clinging onto unwarranted excemptions that gliders enjoy to what the rest of us have to comply with.



'clinging on to exemptions' had nothing whatsoever to do with the first middair (it didn't involve a glider), and since the second was in VMC I doubt very much it had anything to do with that either. Hopefully the AAIB will produce informative reports on both, hopefully PDQ. In the meantime, if you are so concerned, there are a number of suggestions in the thread about how you can mitigate the risk to yourself that are either free or pretty cheap. Implement at least some of them. Otherwise the rest of us will have excellent grounds for complaining that:

There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by Pace

[Rod1]

Pace

“There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by the gliding fraternity”

I am no longer a glider pilot, but I do understand gliding. I have experience of fitting Transponders in “low” electric aircraft. I was involved in the aircraft interoperability consultations (from an LAA POV) and am aware of the BGA’s case and the CAA reaction to it.

The only reluctance on this thread has been yours to listen.:ugh: Transponders in the existing glider fleet are not going to happen. Had the glider in the collision recently had a transponder, it would, I suspect, have made no difference.

A workable anti collision system has been proposed and some of us are busy testing it. Had BOTH the aircraft in this tragic incident had FLARM and PCAS, I suggest it is most unlikely it would have happened. I am in touch with a manufacturer who has a prototype box which will provide collision avoidance for both FLARM and transponder aircraft. If my FLARM test is ok, I will give details on how to help this along.

Now, are you going to carry on winging, or help with a practical solution?:rolleyes:

My thanks to Chris for testing my PCAS (has yours turned up now?) and for loaning me his FLARM.:ok:

Rod1

[Pace]

There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by Pace

I have the required licences to fly in IMC as well as in CAS. The aircraft I fly which do not belong to me all have Mode C or S, some have TICAS.
I would not consider flying any aircraft in IMC without a transponder.

So as long as your happy to do what I do Im happy too.

Pace

[Fitter2]

In the very long thread "Flying out of CAS IMC now dangerous?" which was started by myself a lot was made that the chances of collision with gliders in or out of IMC was negligable.

It was stated by a number of the gliding fraternity that a VMC glider collision would be between gliders only and NOT powered aircraft.

Ironically during the course of my thread a collision has occurred between a powered aircraft and a glider with tragic loss of life.

In my case the near collision was at between 5000 and 6000 feet in IMC. So where do we go from here?

There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by the gliding fraternity clinging onto unwarranted excemptions that gliders enjoy to what the rest of us have to comply with.

Pace, you have made your feelings clear on another thread.

I can find no statement there that a VMC collision WOULD be between glders, only that it was more probable.

Your concern was IMC, and to drag your arguments into an entirely different subject is (in my opinion) in poor taste. I understand the Tutor does not carry PCAS, and therefore carriage of Mode C/S (as you insist should be the case) would not have been useful.

'Unwarranted' is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. If you would like to reduce universal risk, entering into a discussion on affordable and effective traffic information systems (they exist but are deemed not acceptable by the regulatory authorities) would be (again in my opnion) a more rational approach. There has been much more than 'nothing but excuses' from other sections of the aviation community if you would only listen.

[Pace]

Had BOTH the aircraft in this tragic incident had FLARM and PCAS, I suggest it is most unlikely it would have happened.

Rod

If you read my previos threads I am all for Flarm and PCAS as a solution.

I note in your section pasted above you post this Had BOTH the aircraft Would you be in favour of getting a system worked out and then compulsory fitting of the above. If that is the case then this would be a workable solution and I would be happy to persuade my owners to fit the kit in their aircraft on top of Transponders and TICAS.

But if its not unilateral or at least nearly a majority use we are all wasting our time.

Pace

[englishal]

Pace has a valid point. How does one protect themselves and their passengers when you simply have to rely on the Mk1 eyeball and all it's failings? In a Jet at 250kts at 6000' in receipt of a radar service, but HAVING to be outside CAS, one would feel pretty pissed off if one then slams into a glider because no one knew it was there (ref. Hawker 800XP and Glider outside Reno last year). I say Glider because chances are a Light aeroplane with engine may show a primary return on a radar.

There are several solutions to this: a) Increase CAS to keep people out, b) Mandate that everyone fit transponders so that the likes of Pace in his Citation can have fair warning of someone doing steep turns at 6000 just below the airway he is about to pop out of, or c) Come to a compromise, for example all aeroplanes in IMC MUST transpond? or d) make aeroplanes ighly radar visible without having to have a transponder fitted (i.e. radar reflectors) or e) have Transponder mandatory zones in certain busy areas.

I'd vote for e) myself.

[Rod1]

Pace

“But if its not unilateral or at least nearly a majority use we are all wasting our time.”

The vast majority of Transponder fits in UK SEP aircraft are not mandated. Most people think it is a good idea, if their aircraft is capable, it gets fitted (out of there own pocket). I fall into this category, as do many other pilots and owners who are restricted to VFR by aircraft type (in my case) or pilot qualification, or both.

If we can prove that Flarm / PCAS works well then lets try and persuade the BGA to recommend it on Gliders, and the LAA / BMAA to recommend it where possible on their aircraft (weight shift may not work). There may be no point in some vintage and training machines fitting it, but if the majority “go any distance” aircraft had it we would all be a bit safer. As we are talking about portable battery powered devices you could even get your own, so you would always have it with you…

This is an argument we can probably win. Trying to push transponders is doomed, and of almost no help unless you have some form of CAS as well, which 90+% of aircraft do not have.

Rod1

[Pace]

Rod

That makes a lot of sense and thanks for your input.

To the others who feel i am being arrogant or not listening my apologies.

having had a glider flash past the wing in IMC and a realisation of what the consequences nearly were does make you focus on the problem and maybe more motivated on my opinions.

Hence maybe I of all the posters here have come across as dictatorial on the subject. thats not my intention so apologies.

Pace

[shortstripper]

Pace,

I think Rod's suggestion has some merit. What I object to, is the "fit a transponder or keep out" mentality. I've always thought FLARM has a place, and if a compromise has to be made, it is at least affordable, small, light and portable (so no CAA/EASA probs).

SS

[betterfromabove]

Englishal: I think your suggestion about different inbound & outbound heights from an airfield is a good one. Funnily enough, the local training organisations at Bournemouth do in fact have their own "voluntary" system of 1700' outbound & 1300' inbound (I think...) - someone can confirm.

Saw the same when I was flying from St Cyr under the Paris TMA (terrain 300-500 AMSL below) & TMA @ 1500'QNH above, where we operated 1300' & 1100' QNH respectively along strict in/out routes. There you really needed to separate vertically as they passed within less than a km of each other!

One other major thing we could do: GET RID OF OUR INSANE O.H.J.!!

Nothing is better designed to put lots of unfamiliar aircraft in:
(i) a jumbled mess in the same piece of sky,
(ii) not knowing from which direction they're coming,
(iii) followed by a disorientation by putting them in an artificial turn that bears little relationship to the underlying circuit,
(iv) dumps them out potentially somewhere in the middle of downwind meaning the appropriate checks get rushed.

Unless there's something I'm missing, either the French-style "rectangular" OHJ or US-style "45 degree join" must be immeasurably simpler & safer for all concerned.

BFA

[Fuji Abound]

In another place on another thread on the same subject a glider pilot in Holland points out that it is nonesense gliders cant be fitted with transponders and goes on to say the whole fleet at his gliding club with the exception of a very few vintage models is fitted with transponders.

Someone is not telling the truth.

[bad bear]

Fuji wotsit

Cloggies are a bunch of light weights! Have any Dutch pilot done 1,00km in the Netherlands? There are few ridges, no mountain waves and they are limited to thermals only. Few glider pilots fly long cross countries in the Netherlands and many are forced into Germany to fly sensible cross countries, thus no need to run transponders for lengthy periods. The Amsterdam TMA is over large and has an unacceptably low base, this is environmental vandalism at its worst and excludes much of the flying activity in the local area. Last Sunday one UK glider pilot was airborne 10 hr 50 min (he is working on flying faster next time!) Do the sums, 1.6 AH for 11 hrs exceeds his battery power by over 40 %.
Besides the cloggies have been banned from using their transponders near the TMA
b b

[Fuji Abound]

I wonder how many gliders fly for more than 5 hours?

There are always exception - but the exceptions do not enable you to evade the point - if gliders in clogg land as you put it can and do fit transponders under EASA why cant the same gliders do so in roast beef land?

[RansS9]

In defence of the MK 1 Eyeball:

--It is not the MK 1....... I make no apologises to the Creationists amongst you.

--they are incredibly powerful versatile visual sensors; and the good news is that if you are a pilot and reading this you are very lucky to have a pair in good condition (possibly only needing refractive assistance).

--they are FREE. When you won Life's Lottery and found your consciousness awakening in the body of a human being you didn't have one but two at NO COST.

-- yes like all equipment they have shortcomings which have to be appreciated.

With respect to the shortcomings these mainly centre around the difficulty in detecting threats with no relative motion ,as most are aware. Back to my query concerning the use of lights / beacons call them what you will. If I can stand at the threshold of Birmingham Airport (don't ask) staring back up the approach; see an aircraft on its 30 degreee intercept (rel motion); not see it on the glideslope (constant bearing no rel motion); then see it on the glideslope as soon as it switches on its' landing lights. That's 10nm + and these lights are constant not flashing which I suspect would grab the eyes attention even more.

Okay so the lights are a "billion candelera" but surely if is possible to engineer a Light Aviation sensible equivalent........or maybe not?

TIM

[tinpilot]

why cant the same gliders do so in roast beef land?Why should they?

[Fitter2]

Okay so the lights are a "billion candelera" but surely if is possible to engineer a Light Aviation sensible equivalent........or maybe not?


Unfortunately, not.

1, they are high power, so would flatten a battery in minutes, and burn out an alternator. CAT has much higher power available.

2. They are directional, being primarily the equivalent of headlights, and the threat is 3 dimensional.

Strobes have peak brightness as high as possble, and experiments show that you can identify an aircraft (in daylight) that has a strobe once you have visually acquired it. The presence of the strobe has no statistically significant effect on the range of acquisition. (Cranfield University conspicuity test flights).

But let's keep thinking - FLARM is not the only solution, but it is one that exists and works. If regulatory authorities permitted 10 times the transmit power (which would have only a small effect on unit power, since transmit time is very short) then range in the 10s of Kms is possible, allowing sufficient time for faster traffic to be aware. Of course, the regulators would probably want gold plated certification, multiplying the price by 10, but if united political effort was put into pushing the safety angle, who knows what is possible.

[chrisN]

Fuji, for the record, I asked a Dutch glider pilot who has the same type of glider as mine how he was able legally to fit a transponder, when under EASA there was at that time no approved scheme as far as I could find out.

I had hoped to be able to do what he did.

He sent me a drawing, and implied that they just did it without EASA approval. As far as I could find out, there was no EASA approval for installing one of any make at that time in this glider type. As I have posted before, there is now, but limited to three specific models of transponder which does not include Trig.

I don’t know which model transponder he fitted, but I don’t think Trig was available then. Without a major instrument panel change – and even then I don’t know how I would make more room – the Trig TT21 appears to be the only one I can fit, and it is not covered by an EASA approved modification for my glider. Other people with different instrument levels and specifications may have more room for other transponders. The Trig is the only one I am reasonably sure will fit in mine.


Chris N.

[gpn01]

I wonder how many gliders fly for more than 5 hours?


Quite a few. Checking the flights that have been published on the gliding competition ladder from the weekend shows 88 flights in excess of 500kms on 14th alone Many of these will have taken five hours+. Many, many more flights of a similar duration will have taken place but won't have been published (not all glider pilots are competitive). Additionally most club gliders will have been flown pretty solidly from 09:00 to 20:00 with flight durations ranging from a quick 10 minute hop & circuit through to many five hour badge claim flights.


There are always exception - but the exceptions do not enable you to evade the point - if gliders in clogg land as you put it can and do fit transponders under EASA why cant the same gliders do so in roast beef land?

As mentioned elsewhere, the suspicion is that the Dutch pilots have installed non-EASA approved equipment to their gliders. Quite ironic really that they've done non-approved mods to comply with the Dutch requireement to have Mode-S equipment fitted and they're now obliged to turn the equipment off as it's apparently causing problems with Schiphol's Radar when they're flying below CAS.

[RatherBeFlying]

they're now obliged to turn the equipment off as it's apparently causing problems with Schiphol's Radar when they're flying below CASOur glider club in Canada has ongoing airspace discussions with the authorities. They do not want a dozen plus transponder returns from our local gliding area as it will overload their software. Possibly the conflict alert system starts making loud noises.

[ShyTorque]

In such cases, a radio transmission from one glider pilot to ATC, or even a phone call to say that gliding is in progress, would help, rather than hinder them.

[David Roberts]

Just to add a little recent experience in VMC on Tuesday.

I was flying my glider over central Wales, just south of Welshpool, in the cruise at c. 3800' AMSL, cloudbase c. 4600', heading approx 180. And low and behold I spot an aeroplane at approx 10 o'clock and about 1NM away on a course that will cut across my path, probably about 200' below me. So I think, 'let's see if he sees me' (I am ready to taking avoiding action). I waggle my wings quite markedly several times. I turn a bit left and then right. But the aeroplane (Cessna 180 or similar) just keeps ploughing on without change of course, speed or height. Of course he flies underneath my level (by approx 150') about 1/4 mile ahead (I slowed up by c. 20kts to ensure that).

Looking out or head in cockpit looking at all the gizmos?

That compares with last Thursday in the same general area when I heard (you always hear them first) a fast jet. I spot him to the left at about 2 NM and roughly same level I would guess but tracking across the front of me - and he spots me because he turns left in a climbing turn. Waggles his wings to acknowledge my presence. Tornado. I was prepared to drop down below his level if necessary. This confirmed my impression that fast jet RAF pilots do look out a lot, borne out by my experience some years ago of getting a back seat ride in a Hawk trip over Wales. The pilot then, despite being very busy with the task and everything else, was eagle-eyed with his look out. I asked him after the flight what proportion of his time on the flight was head in cockpit. Less than 2% he estimated.

[flybymike]

The only wing waggle acknowledgements I have ever received have indeed been from military aircraft.

[ShyTorque]

David, Having flown both SEP and RAF jets in my time (and now mainly helicopters), I would say that the Cessna pilot didn't have as good a chance of seeing you as did the jet pilot. A Cessna pilot's wing is above him and he sits on the left of the cockpit. If you think about the geometry of that, you might understand. The fast jet pilot, on the other hand, has a much better field of view.

It's a strange thing that where two powered side-by-side seating aircraft are concerned (I appreciate that you are flying a glider and therefore have ROW irrespective) the one with the other on it's right must give way, whilst the one with the other on its left must hold a steady course.

Therefore, the one who is least likely to see the other aircraft must give way. The one who is more likely to have seen the other one must initially allow the "blind" pilot to take the avoidance on him, meanwhile thinking: "Well has he seen me or not?"

From my own routine daily encounters with such aircraft, probably not! :(

[David Roberts]

Shy Torque,
As an ex Beagle Terrier owner I know what you mean about restricted visibility with a high wing aircraft (and the clutter of overhead metal bars in the case of Terrier!) but the position of the Cessna on Tuesday relative to me was such that I reckon he should have seen me before I was in his 2 o'clock or so. There was at least 20 secs whilst I should have been visible to him, particularly as I tried to attract his attention by manoevering

The only point I am making is that all pilots, especially in Class G VFR, should spend as much time as possible looking out and scanning. None of us is perfect but generally us glider pilots seem to be more conscious of the need, IMHO.

As a glider pilot (primarily) I don't personally rely on the ROW rule, on the simple premise that at the pearly gates it's no good saying 'I had the ROW'.

[ShyTorque]

As a glider pilot (primarily) I don't personally rely on the ROW rule, on the simple premise that at the pearly gates it's no good saying 'I had the ROW'.

Can't agree more. I experience pilots who fail to comply with the rules of the air in a similar situation almost every working (flying) day.

As a helicopter pilot I sit on the right, so can see aircraft on my right a little easier - apart from the six inch wide door pillar about eighteen inches from my nose, partially obscuring my field of view. I suffer from neck-ache.

[bad bear]

I wonder how many gliders fly for more than 5 hours?
Oone problem that gliding suffers with is that people who do not know or understand what we do have opinions on how, when and where we should fly.

The answer to the 5 hour question?
last sunday there were at least 100 flight recorded of over 5 hours, but probably 300 plus!!!

Looking in my own log book few flight are less than 5 and many are in the 8 to 10hr+ bracket. I think a guy in Scotland did around 14 hrs in one fligh last year, now that is not the norm so not quoted here, He is hoping for a longer flight in the near future.

5 hrs is not an exception Fuji Abound, I would say more like an average for soaring pilots

[cats_five]

Fuji, please provide a URL to the thread you mention about the Dutch pilots.

[Fuji Abound]

FLYER Forums &bull; View topic - Glider Thread (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=55964&start=60) [Flyin"Dutch"]

Sorry guys, but my view of this thread and issue is that gliders in the UK are prepared to do very little about this topic.

It maybe nothing can be done. It maybe transponders are not the answer.

The threads have been useful in helping to ensure GA have a better understanding of gliding, albeit it would seem it is GA that is expected to take all the precautions to avoid gliders.

The trials by gliders using PCAS are on the other hand very useful albeit I wonder whether many gliders will actually invest in PCAS.

Yesterday I did two 10 minute diversions because AT told me numerous primary contacts were ahead. Did it bother me giving them a wide berth - no. Would there have been a good chance of blundering into another glider a distance from the main group had I not been receiving a traffic service - yes. Did I hear any transmissions from the gliders whilst routing around - no.

[IO540]

Is there any enforcement of certification issues on gliders? The impression I've always had, from speaking to owners on occassions, is that - like homebuilts - more or less anything goes. Obviously the installation would be "removable" which is how one does this kind of thing generally. Also, modern lithium batteries (used in model aircraft) are a fraction of the size and weight of the old lead-acid ones.

[mary meagher]

Interesting to read David Robert's encounters with a ?Cessna and a Tornado.

Too right the Cessnas (and my Supercub) have blind spots. So does a Warrior; in the USA I was traveling at the correct altitude for my direction (slightly to the right of north) and only just in time when his airplane blossomed from behind my doorpost, saw the opposition. He never saw me, it would have spoiled his entire day.

In the glider one has (except in a K-7) superb visibility, except below under the nose, and when the Cessna is catching you up from behind. Also in the glider one spends a lot of time going around in circles.

Also our training (and survival instinct) insists on lookout.

As far as right of way, forget it. We assume the spam can driver has got his head inside. If only the military pilots ethic could be transmitted to the GA fraternity. . . . .

[chrisN]

Cats, I just found the refernece to Dutch gliding with transponders - it is on "Flyer Forum", the "Glider Thread". See your pm's.

Chris N.

[Fuji Abound]

Also in the glider one spends a lot of time going around in circles.

Ah well, a bit like this thread then .. .. .. :D

[IO540]

Mary

If only the military pilots ethic could be transmitted to the GA fraternitythis will never happen.

RAF pilots are the cream of the cream, selected by rejecting maybe 99% of applicants and they catch them very young. And it is a very rigorous high time on type regime. Tight preflight briefing. Any time not spent looking out is spent watching their wafer-thin fuel reserves ;) And most of their flying is on well rehearsed routes. Radar service provided on private UHF frequencies, by units which at the same time appear closed when GA calls them up.

GA will never be like this. Go to your local GA airfield and look at the demographics. Average age is about 50, average hours maybe 20/year, flying knackered wreckage with windows scratched by decades of cleaning with paper tissues and monkey-fisted maintenance.

Fuji is right about this thread going around in circles but pilots who use technology correctly do spend practically all their time looking outside - precisely because they have nothing to do. The route is loaded into the GPS, and you fly VNAV according to the plog.

[cats_five]

Fuji:

The trials by gliders using PCAS are on the other hand very useful albeit I wonder whether many gliders will actually invest in PCAS.


And I wonder how many GA will invest in Flarm? to get the best benefits both fleets have to be transmitting and both receiving.

We know that not all GA transponds, so fitting a PCAS wouldn't let me find them, and since I don't transpond they will be in blissful ignorance of me until they fit a Flarm (once mine is borught and fitted, which will be next month).

I would also remind you that there have been two middairs this year, one in S. Wales and the one last Sunday. The first one didn't involve gliders - it involved two modern, well-equipped planes flown by experiences pilots each of which must have known the other was in the air. I have no idea what either of the AAIB reports will say (or any internal RAF report), but both were in VMC. Does all GA with a transponder transpond at all times? If not, why not?

You have been told several times over that (leaving practical issues aside) the only way most gliders can fit a transponder is by driving a coach and horses through the EASA regulations which is what we suspect the Dutch pilots have done. Now most of us are distinctly unimpressed with having had to EASA-transition our gliders, but now they are EASA controlled do you recommend we ignore the rules?

IO450: Yes, a qualified BGA & EASA approved inspector looks at the glider every year and should spot non-EASA installations / modifications. Since we have only just come under that umbrella I don't know what would happen if they spotted a non-compliant installation / modification. Yes, we take everything out we can first - parachutes, pee bags, charts, camelbacks, food crumbs, flight loggers, Flarm, O2 bottles - and as can easily be removed is not an issue for EASA, PCAS could probably go in just about any glider, ModeS not.

Modern lithium batteries - URL please, I'm not sure what they are, what sizes they come in and so on. But remember the only kind of transponder that EASA would do a scheme for now would be Mode-S which uses a lot more power than Mode-C.

Someone at my club said that in 10 years or so ADS-B will be side-stepping the issue. Can't comment except to say that he is very well connected in both the gliding world and the CAT world and is nobodies fool.

[englishal]

We know that not all GA transponds, so fitting a PCAS wouldn't let me find them, and since I don't transpond they will be in blissful ignorance of me until they fit a Flarm (once mine is borught and fitted, which will be next month).
I'd buy FLARM if all gliders fit it. I already have a transponder (which technically we do not NEED to have), and PCAS interfaced to my 496 (and it shows up LOTS of traffic). We are alos painted dark blue and red. However I suspect that maybe 25% of gliders have FLARM, if we're lucky? You yourself are yet to fit FLARM which has been around years. Someone publish some useful stats on how many UK gliders have FLARM fitted and if it is significantly over 50% I'll order a box tomorrow.

FTR, I reckon that probably 90% of US gliders have Transponders - maybe they don't always turn them on, but I bet they have them. How come they CAN DO yet in typical British fashion, we CAN'T DO ?

[Fuji Abound]

Trig are running a series of ads in the GA mags. It amazed me just how small the head is - about the size of a matchbox. Doubtless there are some gliders who dont even have space on their panel for a matchbox but presumably many do.

As to the approval we did several mods on an aircraft I owned. We worked with the other operators of the same type (less than 10) and shared the cost. I dont know how many types of gliders there are but if the glider fraternity were willing I suspect this could be done legally and without the cost being out of hand. Who knows a firm like Trig might even help - it is in their interest to do so.

As to the power consumption, and the comments about 100 hour corss country flights it is all irrelevant - I dont think anyone is suggesting you should transpond all the time but there are clearly times it would be helpful - in cloud, in and out of cloud etc. If the flight is less than three or four hours of which I suspect many are then leave it turned on.
ADS-B is the answer, but not for now. Realistically GA is not going to invest in FLARM, so transponders are the only game in town that are used by nearly everyone else.

In short your arguments are unconvincing. They remind me of politicians trying to shed the responsibility every else, and finding every reason under the sun for not doing what is right.

20 hours flights - great, so turn on the transponder when you are in and out of cloud, or in cloud, switch it off some of the time to conserve power. Investgate Nicads as IO540 suggest,

No panel space - OK so some panels dont have room for a matchbox, but I bet the majority to,

EASA - well work with EASA, band together so that people with the same type of glider get a major mod approval for the type etc.

I know you have convinced yourself it is them and us - but it really isnt. It just so happens powered GA is on the side of the fence where the majority of things that fly have decided (rightly or wrongly) transponders are the only game in town for the time being. Do you think I wanted to pay out £7K for a mode S transponder to be fitted in their early days.

You lot really need to sort yourselves out and work together and lobby together to make transponders happen otherwise you will make yourself very unpopular with those that matter - and I am not one of them! However, I do know for sure EASA are on your case, so do something about it now or you may not like the outcome because I dont want to see gliders being banned from cloud flying, I just want it to be safe for everyone who might be in the same cloud at the same time! :)

[ShyTorque]

If only the military pilots ethic could be transmitted to the GA fraternity

Some of us in GA are ex-military pilots, especially so in the helicopter world.

[Final 3 Greens]

Fuji

I agree with you about the attitude of the gliding community.

As a non resident of the UK and therefore with no axe to grind as I don't use the airspace, reading this thread makes me think find parapet, raise head, apply large 'X' in middle of forehead and await developments.

[IO540]

IO450: Yes, a qualified BGA & EASA approved inspector looks at the glider every year and should spot non-EASA installations / modifications. Since we have only just come under that umbrella I don't know what would happen if they spotted a non-compliant installation / modification. Yes, we take everything out we can first - parachutes, pee bags, charts, camelbacks, food crumbs, flight loggers, Flarm, O2 bottles - and as can easily be removed is not an issue for EASA, PCAS could probably go in just about any glider, ModeS not.

You don't need Mode S - not relevant to any gliding context. Mode C is all you need and they are cheap enough on US Ebay. DIY installation is trivial, and so it removal when needed.

If I was gliding, that's what I would do. It makes me visible to many more planes, directly and via ATC radar services.

Modern lithium batteries - URL please, I'm not sure what they are, what sizes they come in and so on. But remember the only kind of transponder that EASA would do a scheme for now would be Mode-S which uses a lot more power than Mode-C.

True but I am talking about an unofficial install.

Here (http://brchobbies.co.uk/?page=shop&category=2) is one of many shops doing the batteries. You need a 3S or 4S variant.

Someone at my club said that in 10 years or so ADS-B will be side-stepping the issue. Can't comment except to say that he is very well connected in both the gliding world and the CAT world and is nobodies fool.

In 10 years' time, possibly. But IMHO there will never be a "removable" ADS-B product, due to certification issues that get stuck to anything that transmits on these frequency bands. And it is highly likely that ADS-B will be implemented using Mode S transponders, using the 1090ES feature (a kind of data back-channel).

[David Roberts]

When I was in Friedrichshafen in April, I asked the Flarm guys how many they had sold so far. Approx 13,000 in Europe. Mostly to glider owners. Some to aeroplane owners - they thought about 10-15% I recall. There are approximately 22,000 gliders (aircraft, not people) in Europe, both EASA controlled in terms of airworthiness and non-EASA, i.e. Annex II. Data from European Gliding Union survey of member countries, which I was involved with. That means approximately 50% of gliders in the whole of Europe now have Flarm, if the numbers are reasonably correct. In Germany, with about 8,000 gliders, I am led to believe it is a high %, and also in France particularly in the Alps. Flarm is about 5 years old as a product on the market.
In the UK the reason for low numbers with Flarm so far is that until last October, we had not got clearance for use of the relevant radio spectrum. Until that was resolved - the BGA's safety case won the argument quickly and the use of the spectrum is licence-free - UK glider owners were inevitably putting off the purchase of what they saw, for the main part, as a sensible option. I suspect the take-up rate this year will increase considerably. And it doesn't require an EASA mod approval.

[Radarspod]

True but I am talking about an unofficial install.

That doesn't help anyone! A new Mode A/C transponder installation on ANY aircraft that wants to enter airspace that requires transponder carriage is against the requirements of the UK ANO. For new installations, it MUST be Mode S. You can only operate Mode A/C if it is already fitted (until 2012), or if you never enter transponder mandatory airspace. Later this year the general UK glider exemptions are likely to be revoked, meaning all aircraft will be treated the same, powered or not. There's a reason Mode C transponders are cheap on Ebay, because very few operators can fit and use them now (legally!).

Mode S is absolutely critical in the context of gliders as Mode S is the only way to track a gaggle of them in close proximity. A group of Mode A/C equipped gliders will lead to garbled replies and false targets presented to ATC.

I understand the issues related to length of flight and battery support for transponders, I sat in enough meetings with UK CAA, transponder manufacturers and flying representative groups looking at alternatives to suit the gliding and microlight fraternities (lightweight Mode S transponder) but unfortunately it hasn't got anywhere yet

This is a free forum for people to post what they want, but IMHO it would be wise to ignore advice to perform illegal installs, it defeats the whole point of the transponder regulation in the ANO.

RS

[cats_five]

Batteries:
4S I suspect is too high a voltage at 14.8v. Not sure if the 3S would work the radio in particular as it gives the voltage as 11.1.

I also need one that fits the glider - no point in having one that is going to break lose. So far as I can see that make at least don't do one - the Yuasa . Since they are mounted behind my head (as they are in lots of gliders) they *must* be secure. The most common size in gliders (judging by our battery room) is the NP7-12 - 151mm x 65mm x 97.5mm - larger in one way and smaller in another than the ones in your URL. (Height isn't the key dimension in mine, width and depth are)

Unofficial installation:
Go read the chap who has given chapter and verse on it, just after your own post. You want to prove that we can carry a transponder that you will be able to detect, but driving a coach and horses through the regulations isn't a very bright thing to suggest IMHO, however stupid the regulations seem to be.

Transponder:
Mode C is all you need and they are cheap enough on US Ebay.

Maybe I struck unlucky, the only one there today is a CESSNA ARC RT-459A (Item no. 150105633270) and sorry but there is absolutely no way that could be fitted in my panel, even if it is completely reworked. The panel is about the width of a normal keyboard and half as high again, and is full. (ASI, altimeter, mechanical vario, electric vario, radio, T&S)

I *think* there is room on top of the coaming for Flarm & PCAS next door to each other (and I'll be measuring it next time I'm at the club). At least mine has a flat top to the coaming, a lot of gliders have a curved top.

Flarm and PCAS will not be illegal in any way, you will be able to detect me (so long as you can bear to part with £500 for Flarm and I have mine turned on), I will be able to detect you (so long as you are transponding).

[Rod1]

Radarspod

The LAA won a concession to allow mode c transponders to be fitted to permit aircraft till at least 2012, I am not sure if that was extended beyond permit aircraft or not as I am no longer directly involved.

Rod1

[Fitter2]

Radarspod

The LAA won a concession to allow mode c transponders to be fitted to permit aircraft till at least 2012, I am not sure if that was extended beyond permit aircraft or not as I am no longer directly involved.

Rod1


The LAA govern Annex 2 aircraft, which operate under an entirely different system. Gliders (except for a few vintage ones) have to comply with full EASA airworthiness certification. Since the majority of gliders were entered onto the EASA system with a wide range of different instrument and electrical fits, a generic mod to cover a number of gliders of the same type is not possible. I have had a long discussion with TRIG on exactly this subject. The regulatory obtacles are vastly greater than GA fitting 'portable' FLARM.

As for Lithium batteries, their fire hazard record is well documented, and fitting one in an EASA certified glider would be seriously illegal.

[cats_five]

<snip>
As for Lithium batteries, their fire hazard record is well documented, and fitting one in an EASA certified glider would be seriously illegal.

OMG! :eek: (love that 'eek' smiley!)

Just what you want in a composite aircraft (not) - a fire just behind your head. Fire isn't good for parachutes either.

Sorry fitter wasn't aware of these fire issues, even if it only happens under charge that would be seriously bad news since the battery room is at the end of the hanger - or in my house. Not sure how impressed my insurer would be...

[Fitter2]

Possibly this (http://tinyurl.com/y46tcs) or this (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_29_18/ai_n6280925/) might discourage you from considering a Lithium battery. Other safer battery technologies are believed to be in development, but currently lead-acid gel cells are the only ones approved for use in EASA gliders.

[IO540]

So, what does one do about the "CAA approved" ICOM radios which use NICD or NIMH battery packs, which can deliver hundreds of amps on a short circuit and cause a very nice fire while at it? All high energy batteries are a hazard, if you puncture them or short-circuit them. That's life. Try shorting a decent size lead acid battery; the battery will probably not catch fire but the wire will do something pretty spectacular. If you want safety, power everything from a PP3 :)

[Fitter2]

ICOM NiMH and NiCd batteries have an internal fuse.

Lithium is an entirely different hazard. Used in the oil industry (because they will work up to 180C) they are sealed in their own explosion proof housing. I have seen what they can do, and it is nasty; I am not having one anywhere in an aircraft of mine.

As I said, battery technology is advancing and other, safer, technologies are coming.

[Final 3 Greens]

All high energy batteries are a hazard, if you puncture them or short-circuit them

Or cook them on a plancha, per the You Tube video.

[flybymike]

Worth mentioning that several GPS units are sold with integral lithium batteries fitted, so those who would "never use them" might already be doing so....

[Fitter2]

Garmin use very low capacity LiPo batteries for memory backup. A 10AH one (or similar capacity useful for powering Transponders etc) is a very different animal.

[ShyTorque]

Aren't Lithium batteries in almost every mobile phone these days?

[englishal]

Oh dear...Now we have the Lithium excuse !!

My mobile has a Lithium battery and I take in my aeroplane, in commercial aeroplanes, and in helicopters. Actually now I think about it, so does my laptop...and my camera come to think of it....

[Fitter2]

I don't make the rules - the CAA used to, but fortunately the BGA had a realistic attitude towards airworthiness, and an extremely high safety record.

Now EASA make the rules, and whatever we may think of them they are the law. Changes to an aircraft that do not comply with their rules invalidate the insurance, and no doubt you would then castigate gliders for flying uninsured...........

I do not have to make any excuses for complying with the rules (however stupid I may consider them to be).

[bambuko]

...currently lead-acid gel cells are the only ones approved for use in EASA gliders...so what about these Li-Ion powerpacks (http://www.streckenflug.at/shop/product_info.php?cPath=32&products_id=608) ?
half the weight, three times capacity... when compared with the same size lead-acid battery :ok:

[bad bear]

englishal, old chap, what are you trying to say? In an airliner there are crew trained and equiped to deal with low capacity Li-ion battery fires and they have enough space to deal with the issue. In my glider I cannot reach the batteries and would not have an ice bucket to immerse the batteries in if I could reach them. Mobile phone, gps etc can be jetisoned if necissary through the DV window.
Are you seriously suggesting that I fit a large capacity Li-ion battery in my sailplane next to a O2 bottle and my parachute to satisfy some ludites desire to provide enough power for a WW2 based relic that should be consigned to the history books? i.e. a transponder
No chance ! EASA have approved only 2 types of battery and I am not in the game of taking random risks like that. ADSB is the way forward and much lower power drain. Even the CAA know that new technologies will overtake the mode s malarky by 2012 or shortly after.

Now back to the point. In class "G" look out of the window and dont expect technology or a controller to keep you safe and if you see a cumulus cloud , go round it rather than through it in case someone else is already in it, then you have a sporting chance of staying safe.
b b

[cats_five]

Have you seen the price of those batteries? 512Eu! :eek::eek::eek:

[Fitter2]

Just to be on the safe side, I asked the manufacturer of the glider I fly whether they were legal to fit. The answer was a firm no, they are not on the approved equipment list for the type.

I also asked whether the TRIG TT21 could be added to the approved equipment list, possibly reducing the modification cost. It is under consideration, so there is some hope there.

Six years ago the process of fitting a transponder would have been easy, and a fraction of the cost it is now under EASA (assuming all other technical problems are overcome).

An example of the dead hand of anti-safety of the current regime. There is a glider type used for training where the rear seat is suspended from an adjustable strap to change the height. In a seriously heavy landing, the strap attachment breaks, increasing the spinal injury. UK gliders had a simple mod to detach the strap and adjust the height uning energy-absorbing foam. The replacement type from the same manufacturer has the same arrangement. Under EASA now either you fly unmodified, and risk spinal injury, or pay a design authority a large sum of money to apply for a major modification. The manufacturer refuses to change the arrangement, because that would imply admission that the design is faulty, leading to legal liability. Remind me what the 'S' in EASA is supposed to stand for?

[cats_five]

Fitter, I know the type of glider you are refering to in the second part of your post. It's a very fine glider to fly, and we did the mode in the one at our club a long time ago.

BTW what do you fly? PM if you don't want to go public.

[Final 3 Greens]

Six years ago the process of fitting a transponder would have been easy, and a fraction of the cost it is now under EASA (assuming all other technical problems are overcome).

Powered pilots had to deal with mode S and biennial training flights, we didn't like it, but hey ho, our licenses grant privileges, not rights.

Life moves on and things change, get on the programme and be proactive, or suffer the consequences.

[englishal]

englishal, old chap, what are you trying to say?
Sigh....I'm trying to say Lithium batterries are perfectly safe, that is all, and to say that they can't be used in a glider is an excuse.

I've worked with them for years. In the past there were some dodgey old ones, which I only ever came across in two places - inside the fuse of a military bomb, and in offshore equipment deep below the surface of the ocean. But these had big warnings "DO NOT LOAD INTO PASSENGER AIRCRAFT" and you had to treat them with respect and package them up in vermiculite and have graphite fire extringuishers on hand.

Mobile phone type Li batteries are a completely different kettle of fish. Sure bung them on a fire and they will burn, but for them to spontaneously catch fire is a very small chance. Someone will no doubt point to a YouTube video of a laptop battery going up - well these had faults in them. All commercial Li batteries contain short circuit protection and will vent off before catching fire.

As a side note: I was once working up at the Royal Navy Armaments Depot at Beith in Scotland. They took me up to the burning ground to burn off some old (dodgey type) Li batteries...great fun... but you had to literally set fire to the batteries for them to really get going.

[Rod1]

“Sigh....I'm trying to say Lithium batteries are perfectly safe, that is all, and to say that they can't be used in a glider is an excuse.”

I am sure you are right, the batteries are perfectly safe, but why is it that you consider the glider types to be using it as an excuse? If you have an aircraft and you fit a part which you are not allowed to fit, have an accident (nothing to do with the part) and then came on the forum complaining that your insurance has not paid out you would be slated. If EASA say you cannot fit Lithium batteries to gliders then you do not fit them.:ugh: All you can do is try to convince EASA. A few changes to regulations and you would increase the number of gliders that could fit transponders. Changes to the regs for Micros to allow them to fit transponders (by increased MEW) have been under discussion since 2005. If the changes are approved between 1000 and 2000 micros will be able to fit a transponder and most want to. To the best of my knowledge the CAA are still saying no. If you are offering to help the BGA prove to EASA that the batteries are perfectly safe I am sure your offer would be gratefully accepted.:ok:

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

Fitter2

EASA? The issue I have is I dont understand why you dont do something about it?

To your credit (and I mean the gliding fraternity) you have a very strong association that represents you. You have the ability to lobby effectively.

.. .. and yet I dont see you doing so. Ultimately the fate of EASA is in our hands. We as pilots have the ability, if we really make enough fuss, to force change.

I was so annoyed about the challenge to the IMC rating that without a great deal of effort I started to stir up a veritable hornets nest. I believe that if push had come to shove, we could and would have got our way, because it was the right way. Perhaps we still will. Anyway, at the moment I am leaving that matter to AOPA who say they have our interests at heart and are best able to achieve the "right" result. We shall see.

You have the advantaged of a far more powerful player that the rest of us - if you really wanted to solve a few of these problems the gliding fraternity would make it clear the current regulatory framework is unfit for purpose - infact by the sound of it, positively dangerous, and force change - it is not that hard.

If you do nothing - as another sage so eloquently put it on here before he got banned - you will only have yourself to blame!

:)

Maybe a far too simplistic impression but when everyone campaigned against mode S it seems to me it was a totally negative campaign. No one said now if you agree to the following changes we will come on board. It was more a matter of finding every which way to avoid mode S. It was effective, but it also was pretty hypocrytical.

Again simplistically, if you lot explained to EASA you want to fit transponders and have a workable formula for doing so and will hold them responsible for the next mid air if they fail to put in place a regime that enable you to comply you may well either get your day before the European Court of Human Rights or at least a column or two in the Sun!! The one thing the press loves is anything that would seem to make air travel safer.

[cats_five]

Fuji, none of us here (so far as I know) are involved with the BGA other than as members through our clubs. None of us are on any committees they have, none of us can comment one what dialogues they might or might not be having with EASA.

We are commenting on what we can - the status quo.

So please stop making assumptions about what discussions the BGA might (or might not) be involved in with the EASA.

And, none of us have any intention of risking any insurance claim by being non-compliant with the rules as they are at present. I can imagine the howls of anguish from you if you had a claim against someone who turned out to be uninsured through making the sort of unapproved change you are suggesting many of us do. We wouldn't hear the last of it.

[englishal]

I am sure you are right, the batteries are perfectly safe, but why is it that you consider the glider types to be using it as an excuse?
Because whenever someone suggests something, there is a "Can't do that because...." Sounds like my mate Ed the builder - "tskkk, you can't do that because it will need...." Yes you bloody can do it, it may cost a bit more, may need some more work but you CAN do it !!!

We have Mods in CofA aeroplane. If I want to do something that was not originally done to my aeroplane, I can get a Mod to do it....If I want to hardwire a PCAS into my Intercom for example, I could get a minor mod to be able to do it. It may cost me a fee and be a bit more hassle than "just doing it" but it is not impossible.

Surely then if Giding types wanted to fit a certain bit of kit they can do it the same was seeing as they fall under CofA's....Unlike our permit brethren who can do whatever the heck they like so long as the inspector (who is probably an old drinking buddy) is happy. With the weight of a BGA behind them it'd be easy to get approval for certain things which would blanket most of the UK gliding fleet.

Anyway that is my frustration, the "Can't do" attitude of UK GA - whether it be gliding, or powered. In the USA for example I bet most glider pilots would be saying "durrrr, why wouldn't you have a transponder? I don't get what you are arguing about?".... ;)

[Fuji Abound]

Fuji, none of us here (so far as I know) are involved with the BGA other than as members through our clubs.


Why then bother to me members of the BGA?

How can you so passionately defend the staus quo on the one hand and yet be so dispassionate about doing anything about it.

I have to agree with Englishal, it is looking more like one excuse after another.

Anyway I give up.

You have certainly lost one supporter of your hobby in me, if your views are really representative of the rest of you.

I certainly will not be shedding a tear when EASA come down very heavily. I hope you are as passionate about staying well away from clouds for reasons of insurance and apathy given that legally you are banned from being in them or near them.

I also hope you will at least have the compassion to shed a tear for the pilot in the next aircraft you run into whilst wringing your hands that if only you could have done something about it of course you would.

Good luck!

Final, final word - the next time I go up in a glider at least you can be certain it will only be if it IS fitted with a transponder.

[cats_five]

Arghhhh!!!!! :ugh: :ugh:

Rod1 wrote:

Changes to the regs for Micros to allow them to fit transponders (by increased MEW) have been under discussion since 2005.


That is the time it takes to get changes to EASA. In the time it will take to get to be allowed to fit transponders to more gliders, and use LiPo batteries, there could be more middairs if people ignore Flarm and PCAS -not to mention the free things like using the radio, reading the chart, checking the weather forecast and so on.

Rod1 is actively investigating solutions which are available now, work now, and aren't tied up in the red tape of EASA.

Why on earth (if safety is so important to you) are you continuing to peddle solutions which due to EASA cannot be implemented for most gliders for the foreseable future? One would think you are simply wanting to beat aircraft without transponders out of the air regardless of what else is available and possible.

And why, if safety is so important to you, do you give the impression that transponders are the be-all and end-all of safety? There was a fatal midair earlier this year involving two powered aircraft which launched from the same site (so should have known each other was in the air) both of which were fitted with transponders and both of which should (because of their joint OP) have been squawking.

There have also been middairs (and ground collisions) between transponding aircraft using ATC.

Transponders, Flarm, PCAS, ADS-B are all AIDS in Class G, not cure-alls. As Mary has posted several times, LOOKOUT LOOKOUT LOOKOUT. Unfortunately the visibility from a create many GA craft is lamentable and the designers should be condemed for making them that way. I agree there are a number of human factors making a really good lookup hard to do, but that is why lookup need practise, and also why I'm sure there is a huge difference between the best and worst of us.

As to why be a BGA member - if one belongs to a BGA club one is a member, end of. And there are very few places to fly gliders that are not BGA clubs.

[Fitter2]

Hi Fuji
Final, final word - the next time I go up in a glider at least you can be certain it will only be if it IS fitted with a transponder.
Insist it's fitted with FLARM too, that is much more likely to help.

And you are much more likely to find one, than a transponder equipped one.

I also hope you will at least have the compassion to shed a tear for the pilot in the next aircraft you run into whilst wringing your hands that if only you could have done something about it of course you would.


Or the pilot that runs into me because he wasn't looking out, and couldn't be bothered to fit a £400 FLARM?

[englishal]

Shouldn't the BGA then lobby EASA? I bet of the BGA actively talked with EASA about having txpdrs fitted then EASA would make an excemption in no time. Or perhaps most of the BGA memebers do not want transponders? What is the BGA view on transponders (out of interest)?

I am investigating FLARM, and I understand they maybe be working on a "black box" FLARM for powered aircraft which can utilise existing GPS's and displays....so it should be significantly cheaper. I'll buy one as soon as one appears on the market.

[Fitter2]

Hi Englishal

You can have one of these (http://www.lxavionics.co.uk/traffic-monitor.htm) now for £1000 inc VAT, nominally portable so no installation charge. (No, I have no commercial involvement).

Is that too expensve? Surely not, Pace wants me to spend about six times that to fit Mode S.

[cats_five]

Fitter, it's not just Pace that want us all to spend £6k getting an illegal transponder fitted - there is Fuji as well, and some other folks as well.

[englishal]

Now if it also had PCAS built in, it'd be the ideal light GA traffic monitor (or everyone had ADS-B / FLARM). Would certainly be worth it for Airway IFR ops because realistically anyone in the Airways would have Mode-S.

Certainly the technology is there at reasonable cost, and FLARM does look to be the ideal choice for "us" when and IF everyone starts using it. like I said before I have no objection to paying £1000 for something that could possibly save my life - we buy liferafts for more than that but will probably never use them. Likewise with PLB's, lifejackets, parachutes, etc...so £1000 for an integrated traffic system is worth it IMHO. Of course if it can't detect the traffic then it is useless.....

[Fitter2]

Fitter, it's not just Pace that want us all to spend £6k getting an illegal transponder fitted - there is Fuji as well, and some other folks as well.

To be fair to them, it's only £2000 to fit an illegal one, the higher figure includes the modification fees for the approval of installation, plus re-engineering the panel so that my insurance remains valid.

[cats_five]

You can never, ever rely on being able to use technology to detect all traffic as you can never, ever rely on technology to work all the time.


FLARM does look to be the ideal choice for "us" when and IF everyone starts using it


Give up hope right now then. There will probably never be a time when take-up on something is 100%. Remember it's illegal (generally speaking) to not wear a seatbelt in a car that is fitted with them - people still drive without using them. They also drive when drunk, when using mobiles without hands free kits and so on. There will always be a week link. If you care about safety do what you can, now, instead of hanging back making other people's lack of action an excuse for your own.

[Rod1]

englishal

Your box already exists, or very close. I am 2300 words into a 3000-word article for the mags on all this. If things go well we may get considerable support for fitting CAS, can increase the fitment in Gliders and light GA and save some lives. Alternatively we can argue about Transponders for the next 10 years until they are scraped and replaced by something much better.

If you want more on FLARM and the next generation of combined CAS send me a PM with your contact details and I would be happy to chat.

Rod1

[cats_five]

Rod1, are you able to copy your article here? It will take time for it to appear in S&G (I assume you are sending it to them), I'd like to see it PDQ and I'm sure there are others who feel the same.

Thanks.

[Pace]

Is that too expensve? Surely not, Pace wants me to spend about six times that to fit Mode S.

Fitter I am not letting you get away with that comment!

Firstly I am not talking about flying VMC in gliders I am talking about probably more advanced glider pilots in clouds in hopefully capable gliders.

To your own admission cloud flying gliders are a small proportion. Most fly VMC albeit near cloud where see and avoid can work.

The basis of my thread also included the lack of Radar services which were available through the military with the so called cost cutting streamlining and the reluctance of more civil units offering a radar service OCAS.

That makes us more alone OCAS and more at threat.

I would hold for ALL aircraft in cloud to have a transponder of one kind regardless of type.

I am still of that opinion although slowly being swayed by some of the glider community like Rod 1 who appear to be trying to find a workable solution.

Regarding my heart bleeding for you having to find some money to cloud fly?

Go finance an IMCR, a CPL, an ATPL, a type ratings like some of us as well as some powered pilots who pay a fortune on their aircraft and yours is chicken feed.

You would not fly a single across the atlantic without immersion suits, life rafts etc with the excuse I cannot afford them!

If you cannot afford to be in something as serious as cloud, IMC where we are all blind then stay out and fly VMC where you belong.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

I wasnt going to post again but just like Pace I take exception to your misrepresenting my comments.

I believe gliders in IMC should be required to carry transpoders. That has nothing to do with flying in VMC.

[Rod1]

Just to correct one thing from Pace, I have not flown a glider solo for many years, so would not consider myself to be a glider man. However, I do not want to bump into one. Having been involved in “aircraft interoperability” consultations one and two (mode s) and fitted several transponders to aircraft under the LAA system, some with very limited electrics I do have a good knowledge of the problems.

I will be flying with Chris’s FLARM in the very near future. I was hoping to fly up to Mull today for a long weekend with Mrs Rod1, but 30kn winds over the lakes put us off!

Rod1

[cockney steve]

Re- Li-Poly batteries.....the technology is well-established in the model helicopter field, where flight-times of 10 minutes of wild 3-d,hurling ~ 6 lb of battery and machine around the sky is commonplace.

The prices are nowhere near as outlandish as those i've seen bandied about....fully automatic balancing-chargers are available at reasonable prices as well.

Re-Insurance.....in the UK,at least, we have the "unfair contract-terms act" basically, if your "unapproved " mod. or addition did not materially affect the claim,or the basis of it, the insurer couldn't argue and refuse to pay.....already well-proven in other fields- in the motor-trade,an insurer was trying to evade liability, because an aftermarket branded part had been used..... the claimant threatened to inform the parts company of the libellous slur on the quality and merchantability of their product.....claim settled.

In this instance, you have the slothful dead-hand of "jobsworths" (EASA)to contend with...usually all these outfits are several years behind "real-world" developments. If I was convinced that something WOULD enhance my safety, security and chances of survival, I'd be inclined to have professional appraisal to confirm and then go ahead.....it would be a brave or foolhardy "jobsworth" who prosecuted you for sidestepping their failure to discharge their duty of care to YOU, the person they SHOULD be protecting.

Lambs will always go to the slaughter,fools will always comply blindly with idiotic rules.

Sounds like the Cloggies, like the Frogs, take a pragmatic approach and get on with it. good for them.

[Mechta]

With all the suggestions that GA aircraft should carry devices to indicate other traffic, and in particular, gliders; it strikes me that one could easily be misled into believing that the indicator is showing the aircraft you have in sight, rather than the one which is the threat to you. Also if such a device requires you to look at an in-cockpit display, surely then to interpret the information you will be looking in the cockpit at the very time you should be looking out?

BTW, last weekend, whilst approaching the top of a winch launch, I had a much closer inspection of the underside of a biz jet than was comfortable. Although gliding is indicated on the map, the symbol is offset to one side of the airfield for clarity. I just wonder if this could have caused the pilot to believe that winching took place near, rather than at the airfield? Perhaps if there was an arrow from the 'G' symbol pointing to the airfield, it would make it clear that the gliding actually takes place on the airfield?

[jonburf]

Less time 'eyes-in' looking at gucci GPS moving maps.

More time 'eyes-out' looking for threats.


What a fantastic idea. sombody with common sense!

[chrisN]

Mechta, if a Flarm or PCAS goes into audible alert mode (for Flarm, I mean not the single bleep that a new contact is detected but the loud continuous bleeping and lights flashing that mean a collision is imminent) the first thing to do, if not already doing it, is to look out ahead and between about 10 and 2 o’clock. If you are approaching a near-head-on collision, you have minimum time to see it and react quickly. Probably the best action if that is the sector of threat is to turn right. On my glider, both PCAS and Flarm are right on top of the instrument coaming so within the field of view anyway.

If no threat from nearly head-on, you have a bit more time to do something, so seeing which direction Flarm says the threat is from seems a good idea. It does not mean that there is no other threat, without a Flarm, in some other direction, and your only protection for that is lookout anyway. In my experience, and that of others who have Flarm, it improves your lookout. All the detractors are those with little or no experience of using it.

The cheap PCAS I have does not indicate direction. If it shows reducing distance, and I can’t see anything within the field of view, I have to turn and try to see the threat.

Would you really rather not know if somebody is coming at you from behind? That is the geometry in which the majority of collisions happen, I am told. I have decided I would rather know and be able to do something about it. If others don’t want to, it’s a free country, and they don’t have to. It might be their funeral, as it has been for 3 glider pilots.

Chris N.

[RatherBeFlying]

This is a reasonable description in English: Glider-Equipment.nl (http://glider-equipment.nl/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=982&language=en&osCsid=0fbe9c68d978521e5e193f1acd1218d9)

Price seems to be around 1500 Euros -- perhaps a better deal than a mode S transponder.

[Mariner9]

Quote:
Less time 'eyes-in' looking at gucci GPS moving maps.

More time 'eyes-out' looking for threats.

What a fantastic idea. sombody with common sense!

Nope, just somebody trotting out the same tired old Luddite GASIL line. In reality, a quick glance at the GPS is all that's required whereas conventional map compass and stopwatch navigation requires far more head-down time studying the chart.

Neither of the ATC Grobs involved in the recent mid-air had GPS by the way.

[cats_five]

<snip>
Neither of the ATC Grobs involved in the recent mid-air had GPS by the way.

I would be very surprised if they needed any navigational aids whatsoever beyond looking out of the window for a 45-minute air experience trip in VMC.

[Mariner9]

Exactly so c5. Sadly, see-and-avoid didn't work on that particular occasion despite the lack of any apparent 'distractions'.

However, its a fairly common theme in GASIL and on here asserting that GPS degrades the lookout when in reality the opposite is the case.

I'm with Rod1 (and others). Technology, combined with the lookout, is the answer.

[cats_five]

I guess the Grob incident refered to is the on in South Wales earlier this year, and I guess we are all waiting to see what the AAIB report on that one has to say.

However, technology is not the whole answer. Not everyone has it, it's highly unlikely that we will reach a time where everyone has it, and it will never sort out plonkers such as the ones who gaily fly over winch-launching glider sites at circuit height and so on. Surely gliders and/or planes on the ground is a bit of a clue? In one case I know about, the offending plane was being flown by two instructors. :sad:

Don't get me wrong - technology can and does help - but it never ever will be a complete fix.

[MichaelJP59]

I'm firmly in the GPS camp, properly used they must lead to more time being able to look out.

Did Rod ever publish the article mentioned on PCAS etc?

I've just got a Zaon MRX to experiment with but yet to decide how useful it is in practice. Even though it doesn't show non-transponding traffic I'm hoping it will be at the least a reminder that there are other aircraft around in the vicinity.

Look out is all very well but there are many blind spots and always the geometric fact that the plane on a collision course is the one least likely to attract your attention.

[Lightning Mate]

EYES 99% OUTSIDE, 1% INSIDE!!!

LM, ex very low level Jaguar.

[Rod1]

“Did Rod ever publish the article mentioned on PCAS etc?”

It was published in the “Summer 2009” edition of Flyer. I have also been giving a series of talks on collision avoidance, including the recent Flyer meet for low hour pilots. If you have a local club that might be interested and you are not too far away, get in touch.

Rod1

[charliegolf]

and always the geometric fact that the plane on a collision course is the one least likely to attract your attention.

Knowing that a constant bearing is a serious threat ought to mean that it's the one thing that shouldn't get you.

Mind you:

Running out of fuel
not lowering the gear

seem to get people too!

CG