Dangerous Gliders (again)

[robin]

Saw this in today's 'Grauniad'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1333045,00.html

Another attack on gliders, using the standard buzz-words 'Uncontrolled Airspace' and 'No transponder'. Must frighten the poor dears in steerage who read this stuff.

[Sedbergh]

Dashed unfair those two gliders ganging up on a lone RAF Jaguar like that.

[robin]

Oh - but isn't that the Al Queida Gliding Club

[rightstuffer]

I think we should press for VCAS for every glider. It only weighs 150 kilos - and costs about £800K including fitting.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It's a fair comment though - there is a problem, and it's not just that anybody working hard enough to keep a Jaguar in the air will struggle to see and avoid a 747.

Gliders can't be painted in dark colours- which will attract UV and damage the composite structure. They can't carry transponders by and large, because there's no power supply. They can't fly standard IFR or circuit patterns, because they don't have engines that allow them to maintain fixed headings and altitudes. None of these are readily solveable.

There are a few things that could be done - glider pilots could be better educated in circuit patterns before they start cross-country flying. Also, I'm afraid that I've no sympathy for the "we're glider pilots, we don't have to learn RT" view - picking up a FIS on a handheld ICOM takes little effort, and is a big aid to themselves and everybody else. Similarly, there is no good reason why a diverting glider pilot has to join an airfield non-radio - standard circuit calls and a standard-ish circuit are entirely achievable.

The other thing that I'm surprised isn't done is carriage of a Luneberg lense - that is one of those strange right-angled metal things you often see hanging from the mast of yachts. It wouldn't be hard to build one into the fuselage of a glider and it would make a huge difference to primary radar returns. I believe that stealth fighters fly in peacetime with something similar - it makes life much easier for them, as well as the obvious advantage of making sure nobody knows what their wartime radar signature looks like.

Yes the rest of us can, must, and do maintain the best lookout that we can - but ultimately the glider boys and girls do need to help themselves a bit more.

G

Getting reactionary in my old age.

[robin]

So when a glider is hill-soaring the Black Mountains, probably below the tops, how does that help in avoiding a Jaguar.

I suppose you could say they shouldn't be there or they should be flying where they can be seen, but that rather defeats the object of hill-soaring.

A better bet would be to stick a Jaguar pilot in a glider from Talgarth and let his mates loose in the valleys to see how it is from the glider pilot's perspective and how well trained soaring pilots are.

[Genghis the Engineer]

If a glider pilot has asked for FIS and declared himself "manoeuvring below 2000ft at a particular location" or words to that effect, I'd expect the local FIS controller to have passed this information to the Jag - who should then either re-route or at-least know to stop ***ing around trying to get the No.2 electrical system to work after it's dropped out for the 3rd time in 10 minutes and keep his head outside.

I think that you'll find that a lot of military pilots have done gliding at some point, and are quite aware of what you're up to - but it still helps for them to know roughly where you are likely to be. (The same applying to the rest of us as well, whatever the airspace rules say about see and be seen.)

G

[stillin1]

Genghis the Engineer is making a lot of sense.
Before some of you jump on the high horses and gallop for his throat - get real. It takes 2 to collide. Anything that the no-engine brigade can do to improve the situational awareness vs other traffic is a huge advance over the oft blinkered "I'm in a glider so you have to avoid me" attitude.
You are right - I do have to avoid you. Now tell me how? Literally - tell me. get a radio fitted and use it. Get a FIS if you can, fit a transponder (if you can), get a Lunerberg lens fitted (they really do work). Stay the hell away from controlled airspace, airfield climb-out and approach lanes, MATZs etc etc.
Just like any airspace user - play your part in keeping it safe for all of us:cool:

Now count to 10, take a deep breath and really let me have it!

[MLS-12D]

I think we should press for VCAS for every glider. It only weighs 150 kilos - and costs about £800K including fitting. This was a joke ... right?

Personally I have no objection to installing Luneberg lenses in sailplanes; but it has to be kept in mind that these are purely passive devices, and will not trigger TCAS warnings.

[robin]

Sounds silly, but surely the Rules of the Air are quite clear on this point - power gives way to gliders who give way to balloons?

[Sedbergh]

I did an RT course once. Trouble was about 95% of it was irrelevant to gliding.

Permission to start up/taxi/take off? Not in a glider
Route deviations/diversions? - happens every 30 seconds in a glider.
VRP's?
PAN/Maday calls - not a huge relevance
Class D airspace ? Don't want to fly in it anyway.
etc etc

And then I was supposed to sit in a box and talk my way through an entire power flight (and I'd never flown power in my life)

And isn't there some issue about having a PPL medical to qualify for the RT licence? Not sure if thats true,but I head a rumour.

So I bottled out and remain legally confined to the gliding channels only, despite having a full ICOM in the glider.

Things could be made easier! (but don't worry chaps, by the time EASA has finished with us, there won't be glider in the sky - and not much else either!).

[Kolibear]

Legally thats absolutely correct, but in practical terms, if I was in a glider faced with an oncoming B747, I wouldn't rely on it too much.

[robin]

Having sat for many hours in gliders, we do hear aircraft coming towards us quite clearly (not having a noisy fan motor in front). We can even hear dogs barking on the ground. And as we are unlikely to survive a collision, we have a vested interest in trying to avoid being around you guys

But when you have power pilots head down in the cockpit pressing the buttons on a GPSIII, ignoring the words 'Intense Gliding Activity' on their charts and ploughing overhead a field with 'Cables up to 3000' we don't have a lot of faith in power pilots even trying to take on board the fact we are legally entitled to fly.

As for Jaguar and Hawk pilots, by the time they see us, we are a dent in their wings. Yet they still route through areas we use intensively and blame us for near-misses

Sorry, but if an area is promolgated as being intensively used for gliding, then power pilots should adjust their use of such airspace accordingly. They may be the only ones present at the court of enquiry. but it doesn't make them right.

[powerless]

Have there ever been any trials of the Luneberg lense in a modern glider? It would be very interesting to see the results of any tests. As a low hours glider pilot I am VERY interested in anything that gives me an extra change against the heavy stuff.

It isn't only GA and low level military traffic we need to watch out for in class G, now we are getting 737 traffic that cannot read about wires to 3000 and intense gliding!

The issue over the all white glider has been looked into and the trial indicated dayglo panels don't help either so who is going to produce the £500 5oz transponder that runs on a pp3 battery for 12 hours!





Still trying to keep it up!

[Aussie Andy]

I understand in some countries the gliders enjoy the benefits of reserved areas - whole chunks of sky - which are intended for the sole use of gliders. Maybe we need some of these?

Andy

[stillin1]

Lots of valid points guys.
I totally agree that powered guys flying near to glider sites have the primary responsibility to be somewhere else!
A lunerberg lens about 6 inches in size stands out on a fighter's and ATC's radar (if you are reasonably close to the radar head) just fine.
Airspace reserved just for gliders - where, how large and do you all promise to stay in it? = don't know, don't know and no in that order - so try to be constructive next time.
gliders vs airliners in free airspace - right, it is a problem that is here to stay - lunerberg lense = ATC may see you and vector the big boys around you. they just want to go in straight lines to save fuel instead of staying in the airways for the safety accrued.
Transponder vs wt and time issue. get a bigger and better battery and glide just a little worse, or just stay as you are - an accident looking for a place to happen.
Rules of the air. - can't apply it if I can't see you.

By the way I fly gliders, GA and pointy jets - no axe to grind, just would like to see us all playing for the same team. I want to get very very old. I ain't picking a fight or trying to wind anyone up
:cool: :ouch:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yet they still route through areas we use intensively and blame us for near-misses
Yet you keep on gliding in military training areas... Bottom line is that we need to be talking to each other, and everybody needs to understanding each others requirements. Civil + military + gliders = about 20,000 flying machines in the UK, that's actually quite a lot of airspace each, and we don't really need to clash - but there are ways and means.

Nobody's blameless here, I've frequently seen gliders join at several GA airfields I know, make no calls, completely ignore published circuit procedure, and in several cases stop on the runway as well. This is not big, clever, or safe.

On the other hand there are plenty of published cases of fast jets routing low over published gliding or hang-gliding sites, resulting in genuine risk to life - that's just plain unprofessional.



Permission to start up/taxi/take off? Not in a glider
True, but not relevant to most powered airfields either.


Route deviations/diversions? - happens every 30 seconds in a glider.

And in most light aircraft - but if diverting to an unplanned airfield we jolly well talk to them.

PAN/Maday calls - not a huge relevance
At various times I've seen (and reported on RT) road accidents and another (non-radio) aircraft make an emergency landing underneath me - that's just as likely to happen to a glider as something powered. It's also nearly as likely that your pax might suffer some medical problem in a glider as a Cessna, requiring a Mayday - similarly for a structural failure - a glider is hardly less complex than a light aircraft and maintained to lower standards.

Class D airspace ? Don't want to fly in it anyway.
Let's see, you've run out of lift and your choices are to ask for permission to fly into class D to divert to a sensible airfield, or to try and land on the side of a mountain? Do you..

(a) Talk to somebody, and divert to a friendly airfield in perfect safety.
(b) Land on the side of a mountain, hope to survive, then expect somebody to retrieve the bits of your glider from there. (Or even if it's intact, you'll probably have landed a mile from a road).
(c) Fly into controlled airspace without permission or nobody knowing you're there, possibly causing safety problems to other aircraft and in all likelihood attracting a CAA prosecution.



Plus, if you may divert to another airfield, don't you want to understand what the powered traffic is doing from their RT transmissions, for your own safety?

G

[Final 3 Greens]

Yet you keep on gliding in military training areas G, with the very greatest of respect, the military does not own uncontrolled airspace, they are a joint user. Of course, if a glider penetrated a restricted miltary area, that would be a different matter.

I have every sympathy with the gliding community (of whom I am not one), when fast moving jets whistle through at 360 OR 420 knots, and then they are made to appear dangerous and culpable in the press for the resulting airprox.

In my opinion, this is the same syndrome that caused some posters on this board to blame the pilot of a Cessna, when he was hit by a fast moving jet, with the PF heads down and the commander unsighted. I find it hard to be so black and white.

The rules are clear, see and avoid and give way to gliders and balloons.

Maybe we should listen to the plea to make things easier and push for a simplified glider radio license, that takes into account their more limited communication requirements.

[MLS-12D]

the military does not own uncontrolled airspace, they are a joint user. Of course, if a glider penetrated a restricted miltary area, that would be a different matter.

I have every sympathy with the gliding community (of whom I am not one), when fast moving jets whistle through at 360 or 420 knots, and then they are made to appear dangerous and culpable in the press for the resulting airprox.I agree 100%.

I've frequently seen gliders join at several GA airfields I know, make no calls, completely ignore published circuit procedure, and in several cases stop on the runway as well. This is not big, clever, or safe.There are limited exceptions (e.g., airshows), but generally speaking a sailplane will not voluntarily land at a GA aerodrome; the pilot only lands there if he or she runs out of lift. In such circumstances, it may well be essentially impossible for the pilot to fly nice neat circuits. Further, the pilot will have no time to look up "published circuit procedure" or the relevant frequency, even assuming that he has room in the cockpit to store such documentation. Finally, chastising an unpowered aircraft for "stopping on the runway" is just plain silly (apologies to Genghis if he was referring to glider pilots abandoning their aircraft on an active runway while they went to telephone for a retrieve).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAN/Maday calls - not a huge relevance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At various times I've seen (and reported on RT) road accidents and another (non-radio) aircraft make an emergency landing underneath me - that's just as likely to happen to a glider as something powered.A forced landing in a glider is very rarely an emergency, unless one is imprudent enough to fly over completely unsuitable terrain; and even then, the pilot would be better off keeping his head out of the cockpit and landing the aircraft as best he can, not wasting precious time communicating with people who are in no position to provide immediate assistance.

It's also nearly as likely that your pax might suffer some medical problem in a glider as a Cessna, requiring a Mayday.In the first place, the great majority of sailplanes are single seaters. In the second place, if one has a passenger with a medical problem, the prudent thing would be to land, not to waste time gabbing on the radio.

similarly for a structural failure - a glider is hardly less complex than a light aircraft and maintained to lower standards.Virtually all modern gliders are stressed for greater loads than are light airplanes; accordingly, they are less likely to suffer structural failures. I cannot say that sailplane structural failures are completely unknown, but such an unqualified statement would be 99.9% accurate.

In any case, in the unlikely event of a structural failure, the prudent pilot will bail out without delay, not stick around fiddling with the radio.

I am frankly baffled by the suggestion that gliders are not maintained to the same standards (perhaps this dichotomy is true in the UK, but it is certainly not a universal situation).

[Genghis the Engineer]

MLS, we are (I believe) talking about the UK here - where the airfield density is rather greater than in most parts of the world, and where gliders have been historically deregulated and legally speaking maintained by owners using non-certiifed parts (certainly not the case in most countries where they hold ICAO compliant CofA). Also our fields tend to be rather smaller than you are probably used to in Canada, and often rather less suitable for a forced landing - this means that gliders often do divert to GA or microlight fields, where most of the time they display superb airmanship and are given a friendly welcome.

The mainplane and other composite primary structure is stressed to higher values than light aircraft to compensate for the variability of composite materials. The flying controls are stressed to the same or slightly lower values.

As for glider joins, I'm afraid that in my own flying I see this 2 or 3 times a year - which is a lot. Charts are available with radio frequencies on them and it is perfectly possible (I've done it more times than I'd care to count when diverting for one reason or another) to call an airfield when very close, get circuit details and make a reasonable stab at informing the airfield / other traffic of your intentions, and most of the time fit in with prevailing circuit traffic. It's not hard, and since in the UK most airfields are surrounded by 2nm radius controlled airspace, that's at-least 60 seconds from entering the ATZ to setting up for a landing, quite enough to announce your intention - and a damned good idea at a busy airfield which might have half a dozen powered aircraft, some with students on board, in the circuit.

I'm not anti-glider, I've flown them, certified them, and been very happy to welcome a great many to various airfields I've flown from. I'm anti bad-airmanship, and I'm afraid that gliders are not immune from it - nor is any other branch of aviation, but this thread is about gliders.

G

[VP959]

Radar reflectors do work, but the device G described is an orthogonal reflector and not a Luneberg lens.

In a previous existence I ran a place that tested and measured radar cross section (RCS) and as a service to small boat owners conducted a whole series of measurements on various types of radar reflector. This was published in Practical Boat Owner magazine a few years ago, over about three issues.

Overall, a simple, adequately large, orthogonal corner reflector works as well as, and often better than, any of the expensive devices. The only merit that the luneberg lens posesses is that it gives an accurate radar cross section, making it useful as a calibration aid. Compared with a simple corner reflector it is heavy, expensive and gives virtually no real advantage in RCS.

Making a lightweight corner reflector is easy. Just get some 1" thick expanded polystyrene insulation sheet (styrofoam for our colonial cousins) and cut out three squares, as big as you can fit into the space you have available (big is good!). Cut slots from a corner to the centre of each square and very carefully glue them together so that the internal corners are exactly at 90 deg (this is important for best performance). When the glue has gone off, carefully glue aluminium cooking foil (aluminum for our friends over the pond) as smoothly as you can to the inside of every internal corner.

The result will be a very effective reflector that will be extremely light in weight. For best results, mount it so that one open face points upwards at normal flying attitude, rather than having it with one point up.

Take a look at pictures of the alloy corner reflectors in adverts to see how the thing should go together (a google search should hopefully show some pictures somewhere).

[Genghis the Engineer]

When Sir Humphrey Davey developed a process for extracting a new lightweight metal, he called it "Aluminum", he was then overriden by the Royal Society who re-named it "Aluminium". So the Americans and Canadians have it right, and we Brits have been inconsistent.

G

[MLS-12D]

Hello Genghis,

I'm glad to hear that most of the time glider pilots display superb airmanship and are given a friendly welcome. That being the case, I see little point in worrying about, or commenting upon, the rare exceptions (that prove the rule). In my experience, there are, and always will be, a few 'bad apples' in any activity or endeavour.

It's also great to hear that you've flown gliders. I infer that you haven't done much cross-country soaring, though; would that be accurate?

I do hope that any minor incidents will be accepted as the exceptional cases they are, and that the UK, with its magnificent gliding tradition (cf. Philip Wills, Ann Welch, Derek Piggott, et al.) will remain as hospitable as possible for future generations of soaring pilots.

[Skylark4]

Genghis.
Strongly object to your comment about gliders being less well maintained than powered a/c. I work on the licensed side (I do not have a license),and play with gliders. PFA aircraft and microlights do not necessarily use 'certified' parts. Are they dangerous too?
Most glider pilots will sense 'something wrong' with the aircraft long before a power pilot would. With all that noise and vibration he wouldn't notice the tail fall off until the stick went slack. Most glider owners are seeking perfection in all directions with their aircraft and I suspect you will find the MAJORITY of gliders better maintained than the powered sort. I also suspect that the average glider pilot will be much more familiar with the workings of his machine than the power pilot.

Mike W

[Genghis the Engineer]

Gliders and permit aircraft are not considered in-law to be as safe as certified aeroplanes; they aren't subject to the many and expensive restrictions upon certified GA - although by comparison with many activities all are extremely safe - the BGA regime is a good sound one, but based upon the minimum acceptable safety standards for private aviation - not the public transport standards imposed upon much of GA. The same is true of the PFA and BMAA - again superb organisations ensuring safe flying, but not working to PT standards and would be absurd to suggest that they either do, or should.

Incidentally I don't particularly agree that it's the lack of engine noise that means glider pilots are more likely to spot a fault than a powered pilot. Most glider pilots are far better stick and rudder aviators than your average spamcan driver and much more tuned to their aircraft. I'd expect a PPL or CPL flying 100+ hours per year to show the same sensitivity.


MLS - I've landed at a great many strips and gliding sites in the UK, Europe and US, where I have aways taken pains to understand and fit in with their local procedures on each occasion. I only suggest that glider pilots exercise the same sense and courtesy when away from their own local gliding sites, whilst making sure that other aviators are aware of the location of the intensive sites - it's not exactly a great deal to ask is it?

Incidentally, the late great Ann Welch was a good friend of mine, and until the day she died (or at least about a fortnight before when I last spoke with her) did not stop banging on about the importance of good airmanship and educating all pilots in best practice - and she was capable of being extremely critical (quite regularly in fact, there are a couple of people at CAA who still cringe when you mention her name :D ). This was not incompatible with her welcoming nature and belief that all varieties of private aviation should be encouraged. I'm not in her league, but hope to take the same tack.

G

[VP959]

G wrote:

"When Sir Humphrey Davey developed a process for extracting a new lightweight metal, he called it "Aluminum", he was then overriden by the Royal Society who re-named it "Aluminium". So the Americans and Canadians have it right, and we Brits have been inconsistent."

That's as may be, but I'm not sure it's inconsistent. After all, the stuff was named by a society with royal patronage, which makes it definitive in my book.

Anyway, I've been trying (in vain) to teach an Idaho-based friend to pronounce the word "aluminium" correctly for the past few years, and I'm not going to give up now..................

:rolleyes:

[DFC]

Genghis makes a very good point about Gliders operating at aerodromes.

As far as I am aware that while the rules of the air clearly require power to give way to gliders, they also require all aircraft including gliders to comply with the rules for operation in the vicinity of an aerodrome.

---

VP959,

As for Royal Patronage, Hapsburg sounds better when pronounced Windsor especially when one is at (First World) war with one's own family at home in the fatherland! :p

Regards,

DFC

[g0kmt]

The main thrust of this thread is of course collision avoidance, not who invented the corner reflector or whether aluminum or aluminium is correct. ;)

Whilst a corner reflector will increase the RCS of any plastic aircraft, its only of any use when it comes to collision avoidance IF and only if:

a) the intruder aircraft has radar and sees the returns, or

b) the intruder aircraft is in contact with a radar service that sees the returs from the glider.

Not all low flying fast jets are fitted or even designed to be fitted with radar, neither are many other aircraft that could pose a threat.

Although it is possible that the intruder is in contact with a radar service, there is no guaruntee of this., or the significance of the radar return.

What is needed is a lightweight handheld Mode S transponder/comms/nav unit that costs peanuts and needs microAmps of current to run so that you can carry it in your flight bag or stow it in the cockpit.

Only problem is no one makes one because no one wants one heheh. If we can have multi band mobile phones with video and voice and data comms, why not a tranceiver with a vor built in and transponder? ICOM do the first two so why not the last as well?

just my two penneth

Oh and why not fit LED strobes to increase visual conspicuity?

soz for any spelling/ grammar mistakes... :D

Ian

[chrisN]

With regard to strobes and transponders for gliders, I wish there were practical solutions available. Unfortunately, technology has not yet gone far enough to help, either with package or with battery power. Most gliders have one, or at best two, 12v 7ah batteries. I have just ordered a new glider which has one 12v 7ah battery and one of 12v 2.1ah, to drive everything. This glider has no solar cell augmentation, though a few very new gliders designs do. Those are barely adequate to drive the principle instruments I want, leaving nothing over.
Re strobes, I picked up the following on the (mainly American) soaring website - "ras":

One quote: " . . . the distance at which the strobe was noticeable during the day was so relatively short that there
was minimal benefit to the installation"

Another: "The other issue is power consumption. The Whelan Cometflash strobes in my Mooney draw about 7 amps at 12 volts. They're bright, perhaps even bright enough to be effective in daylight. On the other hand, the strobes in my Stemma draw only about 2 amps . . . nowhere near as bright, they would be next to useless in daylight."

For gliders with 7AH battery, the Mooney-type strobe would drain it in an hour, even without the other glider instruments taking any current. In practice a separate battery would be needed for the instruments etc. Some gliders have provision for two batteries, and/or a 12AH capacity, but even so there is little hope that present strobe technology would be practicable and helpful.

I wish there were an effective solution, but it seems that there is none yet.

Re transponders, Mode S will require fewer interrogations I believe, so average current draw will be less than most of today's technology. To stay within reasonable battery requirements, however. the ICAO requirement for 100w output needs to be reduced. That is one of the assumptions behind the "LAST" (low cost, light weight) developments which were started. I have not heard of any such change being approved by ICAO yet - does anyone know?

My guess is that either strobes or transponders will need at least one extra 12v 7ah battery each. Gliders are simply not designed with room or weight allowances to accommodate those. No good blaming the pilots for that.

One last comment. This thread was started following a newspaper reports of airproxes involving gliders and remarks by the airprox people. I have not yet finished reading all the airprox reports, but those I have read included one helicopter going right down the centreline of a gliding site runway at about 700 feet agl, when wire launching was active and a glider was on the downwind leg (the helo was using GPS for nav, and had not plotted the line on a chart to see what he might encounter); and a civil Hunter going through the Lasham area not seeing any of the several gliders he nearly hit.

Chris N.

[ShyTorque]

It is easy to cite examples of poor airmanship. How about the glider pilot who arrived completely unannounced in marginal visibility at an RAF airfield (despite having a radio, decided not to bother calling ATC), cut into the circuit pattern already occupied by 4 aircraft, flew over a departing aircraft cleared for takeoff on the duty runway, already rolling, and landed a few metres ahead of it? The pilot of the powered aircraft was unable to stop in time to avoid the glider and had to take violent avoiding action by yawing off the side of the grass runway to overtake on the left? Caused 3 more aircraft to go around by depositing his aircraft on the duty runway. When taken to task by ATC, the glider pilot answered that "powered aircraft must give way to gliders".

I was the pilot of the Bulldog that he landed ahead of. I lost some respect for glider pilots that day........

:rolleyes:

[chrisN]

The purpose of the final paragraph of my last posting was to counter an impression, that one might have got from the newspaper article, that all ten glider airproxes were caused by gliders being in the wrong place.

I do not suggest that glider pilots as a class include only those who reach perfection in their airmanship.

Nor would I class all power or other pilots as deserving of some lower level of respect just because some of them, too, fall from grace.

The main point I hoped to make was that while technology might one day help overcome some, if not all, of the imperfections of human performance, it cannot do so yet in the particular field covered by this thread, nor can some of the earlier suggestions yet be adopted.

Chris N (an imperfect glider pilot)
====================

[Monocock]

I understand in some countries the gliders enjoy the benefits of reserved areas - whole chunks of sky - which are intended for the sole use of gliders. Maybe we need some of these?

What a fantastic idea. I've just been looking on my half mil' and I think I've found the perfect area for this. It's a 5 square mile area situated about 35 nm south of Sandown:E

[madman1145]

Interesting thread ..

Said shortly, I think the main problem is that sometimes one part of aviation have no or little idea of how the other part of aviation works if they haven't tried it - I'm saing some gliderpilots now nothing or little about powered flights, and some powered pilots now nothing or little about gliding and therefore have no or little respect for the other part in the sky ..

In other words ..
I don't know how things works in the UK, or other countries for that matter, but where I fly from, the airport is fairly busy with B-737/B-757/IL-76, Businessjets, GA planes, helicopters and ............ GLIDERS - and it works out just fine. Maybe because the gliders at this airport knows how to operate in a controlled airspace, it's normal to them and there is a mutual accept and respect ..

To say that at a RT course, 95% is irrelevant - that is bull, sorry my french :* ..
It is as much relevant to you as a gliderpilot as to a powered pilot - as a gliderpilot, you can also fly motorgliders with prop (and soon jet) in the back or the front and hey, they operate (their procedures for takeoff/landing etc.) just like a Cessna or Piper (or heli :)) ..
You might not use all the same procedures as a gliderpilot everyday when flying non-powered gliders and neither do they, but isn't it nice to know how your fellows in powered planes or heli's flyes in the sky - I think so - and it just might help accepting the other parts in the sky ..
Having the attitude "I only need this to know to fly, anyother information is irrelevant for me" is a bad attitude ..
There is many similarities reporting to an ATC, nomatter if you fly gliders or powered aircrafts - in my point of view ..

I'm not trying to blame everything on gliderpilots, not at all (I'm one myself beside airplanes and heli's), close to 100% of the gliderpilots in my country flyes with a proff attitude despide it's just funflying. At least as proff as any other GA powered pilot ;) ..
Have seen very poor airmanship with powered pilots too and I believe it's the same problem in both camps, just like we can see bad drivers and cyclists on the road - bad airmanship and lack of mutual accept is a personal problem, an attitude problem - they have to solve it themself ..... or find themself grounded, hopefully ..

I can only acknowledge Genghis's replys - well said :ok: ..
ShyTorque, scary example you gave :oh: ..

Transponders would be nice in the gliders, if they just weren't so damn expensive, space and power consuming :suspect: ..
A decade ago a mobile phone was as big as a suitcase, today one can hardly find it. Why the hell hasn't aviation followed with just half that speed - but hey, we just got the Diesel engine for planes, an engine that was invented in 1892. So maybe in another decade or twelve we can get transponders in the size of todays mobile phones :rolleyes: ..

[Say again s l o w l y]

I'm not anti-gliders at all, I know plenty who fly them, some are even nice people!, but there are massive problems whenever gliders and powered a/c of the larger variety are anywhere near each other.

I had an airprox with a 3 gliders whilst climbing out of a certain midlands airport whilst IN the London TMA! I only caught a fleeting view as we went in between them at well over 170 Kts. Not funny at all.

What were they doing there? They didn't show up on TCAS (obviously) and when we informed London they had no idea about them either.

To be honest as a confirmed powered a/c only pilot I find gliders a menace, I've lost count of the times they have wandered into the busy training circuits at airfields around the country where I happen to have been teaching, no radio calls or even a coutesy phone call to mention that this might be possible.

When I've phoned to mention this, only rarely has there been an apology or suggestion that they may change procedures, the usual response is the "powered give way to gliders, gliders give way to balloons" comments. This drives me insane, just because you may be technically correct, doesn't stop you being dead in a mid-air.

This sounds like a rant and I suppose it is, but the airprox scared the cr*p out of me. So I won't apologise for sounding harsh.

Get radios and transponders fitted and something that will reflect primary radar, until then in my (not very) humble opinion, gliding is a pain in the a**e.

(N.B. Many powered pilots are muppets, but at least we can usually see them and balloons aren't exactly difficult to spot and invariably inform ATC any way.)

ShyT, I'm amazed you didn't end up inside for GBH, what was the outcome of that "incident?"

Genghis, excellent posts, says it all really.

[Skylark4]

Shy Torque,
That was scary!! We do hear of far too many instances like that. The actual number is probably quite low really but the bad PR it generates should be counteracted by the removal of one or two round things from the pilot concerned.

Mike W

Edit to add:-

I wonder if it would be a good idea for some ATC people, probably particularly RAF ones, to visit gliding sites/ clubs/ safety evenings or whatever to give a talk on how to 'approach' a non-gliding airfield. All this business of radio licenses and proceedures etc probably makes the average glider pilot think he will be shot if he presses the Tx key on anything but the gliding frequencies.

Just a thought.

Mike

[ShyTorque]

The outcome was that he got an almighty bollocking from the SATCO who also looked up the maximum amount of cash the pilot could be charged for the landing. He was told never to darken the threshold again.

The really stupid thing was that the grass airfield was 3,000 feet wide from the direction this chap arrived yet he landed on the duty runway despite a light wind.

I never got to speak to him as he decided not to wait around although we were only gone for about 45 minutes.

I would think that if I repaid the compliment at his base glider field I might have been charged with endangering an aircraft.

[PPRuNe Radar]

I am sure if it was a Government aerodrome, something much more draconian than a large sum of money could have been implemented .. like escorting the gent off the premises without his glider and denying re-entry to retrieve it ;)

[englishal]

Unfortunately, technology has not yet gone far enough to help, either with package or with battery power.
Why not though? We used to use portable SART radar transponders. Small, portable and would fit in the pocket, designed to respond to ships radars.

Why couldn't someone produce a portable txpdr with a built in barometric altimeter, sqwarking one "Glider" code, which can be taken home in the evening and slotted into the charger, then brought to the aircraft and slotted into a holder on the dash? ATC could then see you, and advise participating aircraft. No doubt the Jag could even see you, maybe even TCAS could see you. No drain on your electrical system, and simple "on / off" opertaion.

I've been flying IFR (outside CAS) with a RIS and received "multiple returns, no height information, could be gliders". Now I was not passing over a "gliding" site, and was in and out of the cloud maintaining speed, altitiude and heading. As I passed over the area I managed to peer down through the cloud and could see gliders below (comfortably well away). I assumed I wouldn't meet any gliders in IMC......

[ChrisVJ]

Englishal.

'Cos then everyone would buy that instead of forking out an enormously immoral amount of money for40 yr old technology of course.

[ShyTorque]

A commonly quoted objection to electrical equipment on board gliders is their requirement for power. However, I'm certain it would be quite easy these days to use a miniature battery and a solar panel to power just about anything a glider might need with regard to comms and increasing the visibility of the aircraft.

For example, there are digital watches with altimetry built in so the miniaturised technology is around, even for mode C. I think someone could probably make a fortune in this respect.

Unfortunately, it seems compulsory regulatory action often has to take the place of airmanship in some cases.

[madman1145]

Englishal: ".. I assumed I wouldn't meet any gliders in IMC .."

Maybe you saw them below you just under the cloudbase ??
Anyway, you can fly gliders in IMC, if such glider is equipped for and pilot trained for IMC ..

[robin]

ShyTorque

You don't say whether or not the gliders were in VMC or not if they were below the clouds.

There was a similar discussion in an earlier thread about what happens when someone flying on instruments point to point actually routes the wrong side of a line feature, so bringing themselves into potential conflict with someone following the VFR rule. When the collision happens, who is at fault?

In the open FIR we all have a responsibility to avoid collision. Gliders try very hard to avoid collision - when we hear an aircraft nearby (C130's are always good value) our heads whizz round like a barn owl's trying to see where the plane is. I've never known a glider pilot of my acquaintance who would risk his life on the 'Rules of the Air'

As for the glider pilot landing badly at the aerodrome - I have seen this too - it could easily be a pilot on their first cross-country for their Silver badge. Just look at the behaviour of some student pilots on their QXC.

[ShyTorque]

Robin,

"You don't say whether or not the gliders were in VMC or not if they were below the clouds".

Sorry, I don't understand what I said to prompt you to ask me that. Do you mean the statement that Englishal made?

The pilot that almost landed on us was an experienced pilot, with his own glider. As far as I can remember he was taking part in a competition but his airmanship and sense of self preservation was far below a safe standard, whatever his experience. Had I not managed to take control from my student and avoid him (it was a close call, we were on the point of lift off and on the short runway) any one or all of three of us might not be here today.

[powerless]

Have to agree with Genghis that glider pilots should be encouraged to make use of RT although many will never stray more than 10 miles or so from their home base. I have found most people would rather a glider called on RT even if they don't have a license. Most modern gliders have RT or people carry a ICOM with them.

It would be good to get more of the differing 'sides' of aviation meeeting and talking as already suggested. Maybe organise a pprune fly in to a busy gliding site to get the everyone talking?

[robin]

ShyTorque

Sorry - it was the weekend. It was Englishal's message I meant.

Actually you are right about some competition pilots (sorry ChrisN) who press on too much. Some of them are not the nicest of people - you don't get to be good without some element of arrogance

[shortstripper]

Hmmm,

It's an interesting discussion and we certainly don’t have any good answers available to us yet. Perhaps when transponders are made available at icom size, weight and power consumption we might be halfway there. Even then, I doubt it will have the effect many of you seem convinced that it will. What we have at the moment in terms of electrickery is almost worthless in a practical sense. Strobes?... I can honestly say that in the air I have never consciously noticed another aircraft because of its strobe. Usually I see the aircraft and then notice it has a strobe. Maybe it does draw my attention in a subconscious way? but I really don’t think so. The transponders available at present are too heavy in both weight and power consumption, they are way too expensive (what cost life? risk/cost assessment is yours to make on that and something we have to balance in all aspects of life) and I doubt they’d have the desired affect on safety anyway. Radios are OK and a listening watch may improve your situational awareness of other traffic. However, one of the things I love about gliding is the freedom to escape all that and just fly. Irresponsible?... I don’t think so, outside controlled airspace a radio is not needed and IMHO unnecessary if airmanship and lookout are maintained.

If I sound like I’m burying my head in the sand, I am not. I’m all for any idea that is sensibly priced, workable and of real safety benefit. The transponder/TCAS is not in my opinion and is just a backdoor way to ease the introduction of airspace charging. As things stand I think perception of risk is possibly greater than the actual one … if good airmanship is used! There is no excuse for poor airmanship in ANY aerial activity and that is where good instruction and personal preservation come in.


SaS

Whenever I come across your posts I seem to be left feeling completely exasperated! We are all entitled to our views, and I respect yours even if I do find them rather pious. What worries me however is that you are teaching future pilots. I’ve no doubt you are very good at what you do in a technical sense, but you are also in a position to influence not only the way they fly, but also their attitude toward other airspace users. Your whole attitude to anything other than commercial aviation is awful. I get the feeling that if it wasn’t for the fact students and PPL’s are your bread and butter (for now) you’d like to see them banned from flight thus leaving the whole sky for CPL’s and above (note commercial not necessarily professional). Not a personal attack … just an observation, sorry.

SS

[Say again s l o w l y]

Now that's not quite fair SS, You see I really quite like the more relaxed side of flying, getting into a light tail dragger at a small private strip, having a bimble and just relaxing, nothing better.

BUT, I have no tolerance of anybody putting other people in harms way. My only experiences of gliding have been mainly negative, cutting up the circuit whilst I've had first solo's up is bad enough.
As I'm not "into" gliding, my perception may be skewed by my experiences, I know there are some very consentious glider pilots out there, in fact most likely the majority. (I have many friends who fly the things and those who fly both powered and gliders are normally pretty switched on and generally have excellent handling skills)

I certainly don't think everything but commercial aviation is awful. We take up too much space as it is, I'd love to have as wide a range of flying in the U.K as possible (apart from Gyro's, I'll fly anything that's fun)

Hopefully my ex-students would testify that I have tried to instill a "professional" attitude in them, no matter what they fly in the future. I think it's something that can help keep you and others alive. Lastly if flying isn't fun, why do it?? I eat, breathe and drink flying and because I take so seriously I have no time for putting other people at unnecessary risk, do what you like to yourself (go and buy a flying flea if you want) but others have a right to go home at the end of the day.

If that's holier than thou', sorry, but I take my duty of care to students and pax very seriously, if someone else jeapordises that then I'm not a happy camper. Airproxes really are scary when you catch a glimpse at the last moment, I estimate if we'd have been 20ft left or right then I wouldn't be typing this and gliders would probably be grounded by the authority. So SS if you and your family had been with me and had that experience, would you be forgiving??

P.S. Instructing is not my bread and butter, never has been. I do it as I enjoy it, very rarely now unfortunately, but I still end up in the club houses for a coffee and chat whenever I pass.

[cubflyer]

I quite agree with what Shortstripper has said on the general subject. I dont think the extra burden of equipment will make any difference. More it is training that is needed of the few that cause the problems. Surely already Glider pilots have no right to fly into Class D or other controlled airspace without speaking to someone on the radio. They should be outside controlled airspace unless they have permission to be inside it, just like I should be.- thats not to say that maybe some controlled airspace is too big and needs to be reduced!
I wonder if some of the gliders wandering through "busy training circuits" have actually been outside the airfield ATZ, its those people flying "bomber command" circuits that are in the wrong! But on the other hand I cant really see a problem if a glider comes into the ATZ and lands without radio as long as he uses good airmanship, after all we should all be looking out. And we do check what is on the approach before we line up and take off dont we- and not hang around on the runway for ages before going, leading the the possibility that someone who wasnt on final when you checked, has now turned short final and you are in his way on the runway. Ive had to go around a few times when someone has lined up with plenty of time to go and for me to land, only to have them sit there, gliders dont have the chance to go around.

I wonder if the radio license is a problem. Certainly when I did mine it was very complex and much of it irrelevant and all based on a lot of old fashioned RAF procedures. That was 20 years ago, so maybe its improved now. But perhaps there needs to be a basic radio licence without all the stuff needed for IFR across the Atlantic out of radar cover with all these position reports- that we never use when flying around Europe even IFR. Just a basic course of what to say when joining the circuit etc.
IF you just listen to new student pilots telling their life story over the radio every time they call up, thinking that everyone needs to know all of this. I also wonder why, when I call up 10 miles south of the field routing overhead towards X, I get asked for my point of departure and destination. Surely totaly irrelevant to the controller or anyone else, just adds to the radio chatter and I guess gives him something to write down in his book for the audit by the bosses?
If the radio license was simpler, then Im sure more glider pilots would use their radio. I wonder what the microlight people do, a lot of them seem to have radios?

So lets improve the airmanship of a few glider pilots as well as a few powered pilots and also learn to live with each other, I find gliders no problem at all, I flown one on a few occasions, had a great time, but got no ambition to have a glider license.

[robin]

SaS

Surely when a glider cuts in on the circuit, it's because they are low and have to land. We can't fly neat square circuits, and are trained not to.

If you have gliding on an active field like, say Booker, then there are site rules for both gliders and power. I would have thought even a first solo pilot would have had a lot of briefing about glider (and power) traffic.

It makes for a better pilot having to keep your own look-out.

It is a great shame you say your gliding experiences (or is it experiences of gliders?) is so negative. We need to get you soaring..........

[Kolibear]

On the very few times when I've been gliding, I've invariably be asked 'how much do you weigh?', followed by the answer 'One hundred and mumble pounds'. at which point someone has reached into the cockpit a removed/added some ballast.

Why not substitute inert ballast with useful radio and batttery?

In winter, the local gliding club returns from their summer grass strip to join us on the hard runway. This causes no problems, they circle and fly circuits on one side of the runway, we powered people use the other side.

The only time the heart rate rises is when a powered and a glider both decide that its time to land and at this point realise that "its good to talk".

I'm fully aware that the concept of a go-around is unknown to a glider pilot, and that 'finals' means 'finals' , so faced with that situation, I'll cheerfully go around. But it would be safer if the glider and the power-pilot both knew the others intention.

Its all down to self-preservatation, cyclists don't need lights, reflective jackets and a helmet to ride a bike, but on a dark morning, they might save their lives. Glider don't need a radio to fly, but a quick call ' Glider XYZ turning base for landing', might prevent tears before bedtime.

[Say again s l o w l y]

First solo's should always be well briefed, but unfortunately when the adrenaline starts flowing, much of it can go out of the window!

I keep meaning to go and have a go in a glider, maybe this thread is the impetus I need to get it organised.

Actually the major problem at one airfield was not gliders coming into land, but cutting across the ATZ to the nearby glider site. Coming into land due to losing height is fine, just let others know you are there, Gliders can be a nightmare to spot unless they are turning and even if you know roughly where they are.

I've operated from a couple of places that have had 3 ccts going at once. One for gliders, one for microlights and heli's with the last for fixed powered machines. It seemed to work very well, since everybody knew what was going on and what was expected. That to me is the ideal situation, all working together so that everybody can enjoy the air safely.

Unfortunately the comments about cessnas doing Bomber ccts are very valid in some places, highly annoying!!!

[Wide-Body]

Lots of reliance being placed on electronic equipment. One of our aeroplanes has none. Nil, zip, nada and the only time we have had a problem is when for one afternoon we had full air traffic. When a validated Atco lined up another ac in front of my other half landing from her display. Normally our air ground system puts the responsibility in pilots hands, without much trouble.

The problem here seems to be lack of understanding and comms on both sides. At the very busy airfields where multi functional aerial activity takes place, there does not seem to be a problem. Places where powered, gliding, para etc take place at the same airfield can and do co-exist. This is done by common sense and co-operation. It is not done by the inclusion of thousands of pounds of electronics in each aircraft, forcing pilots heads IN.

I like the idea of a fly in at a gliding site, perhaps we can get a jump plane, microlight and parasailer together.

You will always get the 5% of prats who will just plough on, regardless of thoughts to others. For the rest of us the answer is perhaps much more simple.

Regards

Wide

[Airbus Girl]

"In one case an RAF Jaguar in the Black Mountains in Wales passed within 100 metres of two gliders. The pilot told investigators that if he had seen them one second later, he would have hit them."

A Jaguar pilot showing off - I could have got him!!!!
:O

Now, the serious stuff.

If power pilots cannot look out the window sufficiently to see other aircraft, be they gliders, other light aircraft, jets or balloons, then they are not obeying the rules of the airspace.
I have flown with numerous power pilots who have no real ability to look out the window. Even when they reckon they can. As a glider pilot, when I fly power in VMC I only use the instruments for a brief glance to cross check every so often. My power-only friends claim they do the same. So I tried an experiment - I covered up their instruments close to an airport. You should have heard the outcry!!!!

Anyone flying in uncontrolled airspace should be capable of seeing and avoiding other traffic, regardless of speed. It is a problem having airliners flying in uncontrolled airspace - they have enough of the airspace already, without using the only bits left to glider pilots.

As for radios, I think many power pilots have got to the point where they seem to completely rely on

radio
GPS
instruments
huge square circuits

I have flown in all kinds of airspace, loads of different countries, and have flown all sorts of aircraft.

The most interesting responses from other power pilots is when I fly:-

my very slow, non radio, powered aircraft at my local airfield (yes, it is allowed to come in non-radio, though you'd hardly believe it the way other people act)

gliders where it IS allowed


I think we need more tolerance, more knowledge and better airmanship on ALL sides. We should all know the rules. I AM including glider pilots and power-pilots here.

I fly gliders, light aircraft and commercial jets.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

AG, you make some interesting points. But you have to admit that the both shape and colour of gliders don't exactly contribute toward the see & avoid principles. I wonder how much more visible gliders would be if they were painted a colour other than white? (Yes, I know this is currently an impossibility).

PS. How can gliders be allowed to get away with flying in cloud?

[bookworm]

Anyone flying in uncontrolled airspace should be capable of seeing and avoiding other traffic, regardless of speed.

That's not the way that airspace is designed. The whole idea of uncontrolled airspace is that you can fly IFR in IMC in it without an ATC clearance. It relies on the low density of aircraft flying IFR in IMC to keep the risk of collision acceptable.

It could certainly be argued that anyone flying VFR in controlled airspace should be capable of seeing and avoiding other traffic, regardless of speed. (Those who cannot should be IFR and separated from each other by ATC.) DAP's faith in this principle can be examined by looking at the ratio of class E to class A airspace in the UK.

However, those rather abstract principles need to be tempered with a rather more pragmatic approach that when you get up to speeds that are quite moderate even in GA terms, the chance of avoiding a collision visually gets worryingly small. See-and-avoid may work for manoeuvring gliders, but it doesn't work for something doing 200 knots -- and you can scream that pilots "just aren't good enough at lookout" until you're blue in the face but that doesn't change human performance.

Thus the choices seem to be between:

a) the status quo,
b) radically changing the UK airspace system to incorporate more controlled airspace or
c) imposing a see-and-avoid based speed limit in class G and writing off 2/3 of the UK's lower airspace to recreational activities like gliding.

I'm not putting my money on Joe Public writing to his MP to demand option c, are you? ;)

[robin]

All good points. But it is worrying that such a small group of individuals as GA and recreational pilots is arguing over such fundamental principles.

Surely people like SaS and others can accept that gliders and low/slow types are entitled to flying in UK airspace. Others, such as myself are OK with pilots who prefer the high-tech end, although we may have difficulty in understanding why you might want not to look out of the window.

In both cases, we need to accept we aren't all perfect - that's the nature of the beast. Technology may help, but we've all flown with batteries about to give up, or with a piece of kit not switched on, or tuned to the incorrect frequency

Other pilots are always our problem. We can't control what they do - look at the errors made by ATPLs under ATC control.

I think a bit of live and let live is appropriate here

[Sedbergh]

Actually the orginal posting which started off all this disussion was a bit of a journalistic red herring.

In 15 years I can't remember any actual military/glider midair collision.

I can recall one light aircraft/glider midair (near Haddenham, with a brightly coloured wood/steel tube glider, not a white one)

but unfortunately I can remember quite a lot of glider/glider midairs - too many gliders, not enough thermals. Neither FIS nor transponders would have helped those incidents

[MLS-12D]

I've landed at a great many strips and gliding sites in the UK, Europe and US, where I have aways taken pains to understand and fit in with their local procedures on each occasion. I only suggest that glider pilots exercise the same sense and courtesy when away from their own local gliding sites, whilst making sure that other aviators are aware of the location of the intensive sites - it's not exactly a great deal to ask is it?
No, I don't think that it is. But I do think that perhaps you misunderstand the soaring environment and the constraints under which soaring pilots operate. Possibly you have all kinds of x-country soaring experience, in which case I apologize ... but as you didn't respond to my previous query re such experience, I infer that don't have any to speak of (?).

Excellent post by Airbus Girl ... clearly she has experience in both aircraft types. :ok:

[EESDL]

So are you telling the girls and guys who have to try and spot you (remembering of course that to abide by the rules of the air, we have to be able to see you first), that you cannot spare some of that 600lb water ballast to make way for a box that could help to,ultimately, protect your pink body.

Strange isn't it, that glider technology has advanced to the point where they fly for over 3000km and a strange number of hours - and yet they have not put the same effort into flight safety...ust a thought!

[chrisN]

There seem to be a number of different issues involved in this correspondence. My understanding of some of the issues, repeated here in some cases, for clarification, is:

1. Conspicuity markings: (a). Trials have shown that they are ineffective. That may be contrary to expectation, but a single uniform colour is more visible at distance, apparently, than a mix of colours which break up the outline and actually act as camouflage. (b). Modern materials allow nothing other than white except on the very tips of the wings, nose and tail. (By the way, I expect that will be found also to be the case for light aircraft in composite materials when they come into wider use.) If any of the critics of gliders here know better, please feel free to enlighten me.

2. Transponders. There are several potential problem with transponders, not all the same for all gliders. (a). Older gliders did not have 600 pounds of water ballast capacity to give some up for a transponder and batteries. E.g., my old Ka6E, built 1968, has no water ballast, and the max. AUW and the max. cockpit load were already used up by me and the existing batteries and instruments etc.. Nor was there room on the instrument panel for anything extra. To carry a loose transponder in the cockpit would have been hazardous as well as taking me over the max weight limit.

(b) There is an issue with present transponder specifications of transmit power and effects on pilots. Recent correspondence on Flyer Forum has shown various power pilots saying that the radiation at 70-200w output power is like sitting with your head (or whatever) in a microwave oven. I asked why this is not an issue for power planes, and the reply came that they normally have enough metal between the aerial and the pilot to shield it. Few gliders are made of metal.

(c) There, however, some metal and/or carbon fibre bits on glider which can shield the aerial from ground SSR stations. A colleague has fitted a transponder on his glider, with the aerial far enough away (he hopes) to avoid being cooked, but he reports that it is intermittently unreceived by SSR in ATC. (I don't know how he solved the instrument panel space problem). If anyone knows how to square this circle, please make your expert knowledge available - I think the CAA would love to be able to rely upon your expertise, because they are trying to get (d) as a solution instead.

(d) in the absence of somebody's expertise, the CAA have for years been trying to get developed a lightweight, low cost transponder suitable for gliders, microlites, balloons etc.. They need (i) a manufacturer who will do it, (ii) a change in ICAO requirements to allow very low power output which will enhance battery life, address the radiation safety issue, and make package into confined cockpits/instrument panels easier. Trials have shown it should work at lower power outputs, but as yet there is not one on the market. AFAIK, the only "glider" transponders on the market now are to ICAO standards which lead to the safety and battery power problems.

(e) Various glider manufacturers pay varying amounts of attention to safety issues in their designs. Most fatalities and serious injuries in gliders arise from hitting the ground, and primary safety (making gliders less likely to have an accident from e.g. handling problems) and secondary safety (e.g. by cockpit design etc.) have been their priorities, it appears. I am aware of only one collision with an unrelated power plane in the UK in the last 34 years - a Rockwell Commander flew straight into the back of a glider it caught up. It would have been equally fatal for a power plane if he had hit that instead. But such accidents are mercifully rare. It seems to me that until there is universal TCAS or something, power/power, power/glider and glider/glider collisions will remain with us - of the which the first and last two are far more prevalent than power/glider. (There have also been a few power/glider collisions between gliders and tugs operating from the same aerodrome, but present transponder technology would not fix those either.)

(f) Meanwhile, there is rarely an excuse for glider to make a mess of circuit and landing at a power airfield. There might be the occasional emergency, just as there might be for a non-radio SEP. When I have needed to land at a power aerodrome (or chosen to, rather than pick a farmer's field with a greater degree of risk), my efforts to comply with their practices have been successful and I have not had a poor welcome. I see no reason why others could not do the same. I don't excuse those whose airmanship is at fault. The gliding movement does have training in these things, which works for most, but a minority still sin. I believe there are parallels in the power world, of less than perfect behaviour. If you know a magic solution to stop human imperfections altogether, please bottle it and sell it to the rest of us.

Chris N.

[robin]

Well said Chris -
by the way, do you have the Ka6 still?

[chrisN]

Robin, the Ka6E is sold to someone rebuilding it after we found a bit too much glue deterioration - entailing wing fabric removal and recovering - for me to want to fix.

I am temporarily flying a Lak 12 which is now also for sale.

I have a new glider on order, and am exploring having a transponder aerial installed in its fin. I am hoping that is far enough away, and/or shielded from the pilot (me!) by enough carbon fibre in the fuselage, not to be a safety issue, but I don't know for sure.

Also I don't know if a transponder antenna of today will work with any transponder of today or future - if anyone on this forum knows (based on expertise, please) I would be pleased to hear.

I have in mind perhaps fitting one of the cast-off Mode A/C transponders presumably being ditched in their hundreds by power pilots needing to replace them with Mode S for 2005. I could then try it out, at least within the limited battery life which present technology uses.

(I have in any case ordered an extra 7AH battery to be fitted, partly for this and partly for other ancillaries - so its shared use will give perhaps 2-4 hours transponder operation, based on information I have received so far. I would use it mostly when near CAS likely to have heavy stuff with TCAS entering or leaving it in the Class G that I would be in. Also, Essex Radar have a habit of talking to power pilots flying just outside the Stansted zone, though they rarely find time to talk to glider pilots - but at least they could see my squawk and tell the other guy if they see a potential conflict arising.)

Chris N.
-----------------------

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Airbus Girl, you make some good points but I take exception at some.

Jag pilot "showing off" get real, do you really think he flew within 100m of two gliders for the fun of it, dont think so.

I have flown both gliders and fast jets and have no problem with gliders using the see and be seen principle, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to see a glider when you are doing seven miles a minute at low level?? Didnt think so, maybe you could consider your posts a little more before making sweeping statements about how it is all the powered guys fault for not doing enough look out. Effective lookout is indeed the key, but there is lookout at 120 kts in your cessna and there is lookout whilst trying to navigate at low level doing one mile every 9 seconds. If you look inside for a few seconds (which you have to do) to check fuel/hdg/time etc then where you were and where you are can be 0.5-1nm apart.

I hear all points made and it appears to be a difficult problem to resolve. Glider pilots can hear people coming but can not easily get out of the way. Rest assured, fast jets do not do it to make a point or becasue they cant be bothered to avoid you or any other inane reason that has been inferred on this thread.

Robin, we dont actively plan to fly through an area promulgated for high gliding activity, it sometimes happens due to poor weather, fuel, being bounced........the list goes on, the flip side to your argument is why would you plan to fly a glider in a military LFA? Unless you actively promulgate an avoid with the standard 2nm/2000' dimensions then it is game on and the responsibilty resides with all professional aviators to see and be seen.

DS

[PPRuNeUser0172]

With all due respect Mr Skylark, you are rather stating the obvious with your reference to maintenance of Gliders vs powered aircraft, lets face it what is there to go wrong with a Glider? You kind of have the luxurious advantage of having very little mechanically to worry about. Also, to claim that most powered pilots wouldnt notice if their tail fell of or some such tripe really demonstrates the inane nature this thread is taking on.

I think we are missing the point of why this thread was started.

If you dont have anything sensible to contribute then stick to what you know best..............whatever that is.

[Skylark4]

Dirty Sanchez.
Pull your neck in big boy. you are talking through the wrong orifice. What I know is mending aeroplanes, including the types you say you have flown. The modern Glider is far more sophisticated and complex than your club 150 and the average silver C glider pilot knows more about aerodynamics than you do unless you are a very unusual jet jock.
Don't bother to respond to this. I shall not respond further.

Mike W

[D 129]

When I took up power flying after 20 years of gliding ... an "old and wise instructor" urged me to tell all my glider friends to carry a packet of "bake-o-foil" when they went up.

Apparently this can greatly increase the primary radar return on a glass glider. (It would be of interest to know if this is true or folklore).

Of course primary radar coverage is patchy and if its a poor weather day where the PPLers need a RAS or RIS then the gliders probably won't be up anyway ...

Fitting transponders to gliders (Mode S Climb - unable to comply !) is not economically realistic. Quite a few gliders are worth less than the cost of a new transponder.

The power lads really need to route study for glider sites before they go. AND - If there is a glider comp on - THEN READ THE @#&^%$ NOTAMS !.

[Kolibear]

Quite a few gliders are worth less than the cost of a new transponder.

Are the occupants of the glider worth less than the cost of a new transponder?

[ShyTorque]

Quote: "Fitting transponders to gliders (Mode S Climb - unable to comply !) is not economically realistic. Quite a few gliders are worth less than the cost of a new transponder."

Is someone is setting himself up for a joke similar to the one about doubling the value of a rear engined Skoda by filling the petrol tank, I ask myself.....?

Another quote: "Of course primary radar coverage is patchy and if its a poor weather day where the PPLers need a RAS or RIS then the gliders probably won't be up anyway ..."

A totally false statement and a false hope. Accepted, I'm not "a PPLer" I'm an ATPLer but it makes little difference, especially as our type of aircraft travels at an airspeed between 50% and 75% faster than the smaller club aircraft and weighs 10 times as much. We need as much warning as possible so we can take timely avoiding action. We carry TCAS too, to help us but if you aren't on it because you don't carry a transponder, that's one less chance of us being aware of your presence in good time.

Gliders present a tiny visual image until very close, especially if not turning. Sometimes, depending on the light conditions and contrast against the background, they can be seen from a few miles away, sometimes they most definitely CANNOT, even with a prior warning from ATC from a radar return in excellent visibility. Before anyone asks, I have a sight test every six months and I have 6/5 uncorrected vision. ;)

Bearing in mind that the rules are see and BE SEEN, it is everyone's responsibilty to do their bit, including glider pilots. Anything a glider pilot can do to assist the pilot of a powered aircraft to "see and avoid" him should be done. The mentality of someone who thinks that "it's totally the other pilot's responsibility, so he can take care of it" is plain stubborn and plain stupid or he just doesn't understand the problem!

It's ALL of our necks up there, and it's no good being in the right but dead!

ChrisN,

I'm very pleased that at least ONE glider pilot is willing to help himself stay safe. Is it possible to boost the proposed battery by use of a solar panel?

[Say again s l o w l y]

Couldn't a metallic weave be laid into the glider during construction? Not sensible for gliders already built, but for new builds what's stopping this? This would at least help primary returns somewhat.

Is the fitting of transponders more a case of will not rather than cannot?

The power of a transponder signal is surely not as large as some seem to be saying. 200W is a lot of juice, not as much as my microwave however, that reckons it puts out 800W!

[chrisN]

In reverse order:

SAS, I don't know if a metallic mesh could be laid into a new glider. I should have thought so, but with mandatory Mode S coming, would the manufacturers bother with the R&D necessary to prove it out?

Another approach to passive reflectivity, I have been told, is that the sort of three-way-right-angle reflectors used by boats for improved radar detection would need to be about 1 metre in dimensions to be worthwhile, which is far too big to fit into a glider. I am sceptical that it needs to be that big, but again there seems nobody both motivated and in a position to do the research.

ST, re solar cells, I am no expert but I am led to believe that even the CAA-desired LAST (sub 70 watts output power) would draw an average of say 1/2 amp or more from typical 7AH battery. That would last a glider all day. Present transponders draw more like 1-2A average (depending on the number of SSR or TCAS interrogations etc.)

One answer I have received from a New Zealand glider pilot included: "I use 2 batteries linked together giving 14 amp/hours as well as 7amp/h one in the tail as back up. The duration depends on Type. I have a Terra 250D with Mode C encoder, Transponder draws 750 milliamps, the encoder 250 milliamps. The Duration depends on how many Interrogations the Transponder Replies to. If you are getting talked to by several radars it will reply to them all, as well as any TCAS equipped aircraft. They seem to like at least 12 volts so as your batteries start to drop you will disappear if you start talking on your radio etc.. I can get up to approx 4-5 hours, Temp can also play a part in duration. ie in the wave at 20000ft at -25 degrees your batteries start to play up a bit.
I mostly use it for about 1 or 2 hours on a cross country . . . "

On that basis, the unit plus batteries would add several kilograms weight, need the space, and still only give 4-5 hours duration at low levels - less at higher altitudes. We might also need 14v nominal batteries rather than 12v.

The space for solar cells (on top of the fuselage in the only installations I have seen) limits such boost to a fraction of an amp - sorry I don't have specific figures. So it would help, but not be a total solution. If solar cells could be made in a curve, the wing upper surface would provide a huge possibility, but that needs lots of R&D, the temperature under the cells would be a problem for the structure if glass or carbon fibre, and I can't see it happening for years if at all. Pity.

If gliders were designed from the outset for all this, it would be a different matter, but they aren't, and I know of no manufacturers showing any signs of change. That is a fact. Another fact is that the existing fleet (several thousand in the UK alone) is not going to be retro-designed to accommodate such things. The most you can expect is a few idiots like me risking their sex organs by fitting a transponder today, and everyone either grounding their glider or getting Mode S in 2008 by whatever means is then available.

D29: If when I fit mine, I will try to put a sheet of bacofoil between me and the antenna - which might serve as a protective shield (does anyone here know?), and also improve primary radar reflectivity to some extent. If the 1- metre size for an effective reflector is anything like right, however, I doubt if a wrinkled piece of foil will be much use in that respect.

Re relative values - I can't be bothered to respond in what I am trying to keep a sensible discussion.

One last point - this glider-bashing thread and its power-flying adherents seem to be strangely silent about the legions of SEP owners who face similar problems. When I was involved for the BGA, in negotiations about Mode S etc., the PFA and BMAA at least were similarly exercised. In fact, IIRC, I was the only one in the room, from the lighter end of GA, who seemed to see enough merit in transponder technology to want an affordable, packageable, powerable, device at least on a voluntary basis.


Chris N.
============================

[Genghis the Engineer]

As I understand it, PFA and BMAA are quite clear on the point - that they're happy to encourage the development of any such device, they just don't want it mandatory.

G

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Skylark my dear chap, obviously struck a chord there. However just to defend myself if I may, I am quite happy about my knowledge of aerodynamics having studied it in some depth for several years at a higher educational establishment if you catch my drift. So I guess that makes me "unusual". I think you will find that most guys who fly high performance aircraft have a decent knowledge of what keeps them aloft, which again kind of blows holes in your comment.

So less of the sweeping statements and rather trite responses, but then again, who am I to comment, being only a "jet jock"

Blunty by any chance?....................thought so;)

[MLS-12D]

(1) Yes, air safety could be improved by compelling gliders to adopt all sorts of expensive and/or impractical modifications.

(2) similarly, air safety could be improved, by a rather more significant amount, by prohibiting all IFR flying (sorry, no exceptions for military or scheduled airlines).

In both cases, the authorities have apparently decided that the risks of the status quo are outweighed by the inconvenience of the proposed changes.

The only road to 100% perfect safety in aviation is the permanent grounding of all aircraft. That is not an excuse for reckless flying, but it should be a sufficient truism to cause one or two people to rethink their fixation with the very modest risk posed by glider traffic in shared airspace.

[Teddy Robinson]

Interesting dabate folks, and the object here is surely to avoid people getting hurt/killed whilst engaged in legitimate use of our crowded airspace whatever we happen to be flying.

Wire mesh and aluminium foil : those days have gone. FIS/RIS is now so geared to secondary radar that one has to ask the controller very nicely to drop out the primary filters if you need advise on weather, or other targets.
Unless you have the frequency to yourself, the answer will almost certainly be a polite no.

See and be seen cuts two ways, and requires an appreciation by all airspace users as to the most likely places for an encounter.

White gliders circling in a tight pack under a white cloud are more likely to be spotted if one appreciates that the cloud in question is particularly attractive from a gliding point of view.

If that attractive cloud happens to be over a much used waypoint such as a VOR, perhaps some appreciation that ones silent flight may be punctuated by another airspace user effecting transit over that waypoint may dictate the prudent choice of another cloud.

Until and unless a suitable electronic solution is found and adopted, education has to be the way, and that includes READING THE NOTAMS !!!, looking out and the admission that nobody owns the sky, we just occupy parts of it.

[hollywood285]

interesting chat everyone!!!!! Gliders are a pain in the butt as we all know but they do have a right too be there as they keep saying!! even a good look out sometimes dont see them, the easiest way is a flashing beacon or wing tip strobes!! eveyone sees them and they stand outin the bottom of a clouds were all you glider boys seem to hang out, im sure they dont draw that much power and even new lyium ploy batterys have high current and weight next to nothing, come on lets make it safe for everyone........

[chrisN]

Hollywood, did you read what I wrote about strobes on 23.10.04 ?

Chris N.

[MLS-12D]

Strange how so many people with little or no soaring experience feel qualified to express opinions re the practicality of various procedures or equipment for sailplanes.

I have never flown a B52 bomber, but I read a magazine article about it once. :rolleyes:

[Wot No Engines]

A few observations from one who used to fly gliders in the UK - now flying both gliders and SEP in Australia.

The licensing requirements for radio use in the UK are very intimidating to someone who has not gone through a full power PPL training - I would have loved to talk to ATZs, etc, but was regularly told that without that license I risked prosecution, so I stayed quiet - I also avoided all ATZs, class D, etc. I would have prefered to have a restricted glider radio license though.

Any glider pilot showing poor airmanship and not complying with the rules of an ATZ should not just be spoken to - it probably won't do any good, but take it up with their club CFI.

My understanding is that in the UK, all flying is baned unless specifically permitted - this makes it a privalege, not a right. Pilots abusing their privalege to use any airspace are bad news for all, whatever they fly.

Flying in Oz, I'm terrified by the fact that most power pilots seem to believe that RADIO is the principal means of providing separation when VFR. I also know from experience that a lot could be done to improve the effectiveness of lookout for all, but especially power - I re-trained my power instructor in this at his request as I was always seeing many more other aircraft than him whilst getting used to all these new controls and instruments.

What really confirms this reliance on radio is seeing a pilot instructed to go-around by the tower use the radio before reaching for the power !

I was taught to Aviate, Navigate and Communicate in that order. If i'm too busy doing the 1st 2, you won't hear from me until safe to do so, not forgetting that I've probably screwed up to get to that point, so sorry in advance if it happens.

Most flying here is at common fields, with set circuits, radio calls, etc. It doesn't cause a problem, however, I will and must cut inside if the powered plane in front insists on a 747 style circuit. Usually, ALL fly the same circuit (left hand.

Finnaly, new gliders can be critical on weight, even if that can carry 200kg of water - the issue is not max all up, but max landing weight - big commercials have the same problem - they are usually too heavy on takeoff for a normal landing

[Genghis the Engineer]

Here's a tale to set it all into context.


A few years ago, I was enjoying a non-radio flight at around 900ft on a perfect day off the West of Scotland. It was a permit aircraft (which was yellow with a 30ft wingspan), and I was flying without radio. I had QNH set - being defined as "the altimeter read zero halfway between the low and high tide marks on the beach from which I took off". Visibility was as good as it gets (in Scotland anyhow) - there were islands and towns 30+ miles away that I could see clearly.

Appeared, somewhere around 5-10 miles away, a dot on a reciprocal course, which slowly resolved itself into the shape of a PA28. In between enjoying the scenery, I kept an eye on him - his path would take the PA28 about 500 metres to my left.

Then when he came level he turned left, and flew straight at me. A steep descending turn was all that avoided my making an appearance in the AAIB reports that year. He then continued his turn and came back for a second go - this time passing about 100m in front of me, but helpfully close enough to get his registration.


So, I filed an airprox. The Airprox board report was fairly clear on the point that I'd done nothing wrong (the actual phrase used was "the board members had considerable sympathy for the permit aircraft pilot"). According to their report the PA28 pilot

- Reported 5km visibility (balls - probably trying to cover his backside)
- Wasn't looking out because Prestwick (about 40nm away) from whom he was receiving a FIS hadn't reported anything to him (hardly surprising)
- Only saw me once, and then too late to take avoiding action.


My point is simple, I was in an aircraft with similar size, primary radar return, and visibility as a glider. I was in the right. And had I not been keeping a thoroughly good lookout, I'd be dead.

In the right, but dead doesn't work for me.

G

[robin]

... and the message is what we have been saying all along. Keep your eyes open and don't rely on the technology or a ground-based ATCO to maintain your separation for you in the open FIR

A d*ckhead at the controls, like this PA28 pilot, can mess up any of the TCAs, Mode S and ATC

[MikeGodsell]

Hello
Have followed this thread with interest.
I regularly fly from Haverfordwest to Gloucester through the Brecons. My weather comes from the Wendywindblows glider beacon at Blorenge. So I have good local weather conditions, and know when gliders are likely to be airborne on my route. I generally phone the glider clubs before t/off but seldom get a reply. So on route with transponder on, and FIS with London or Cardiff, and they confirming no known traffic. Abeam the first glider club I call them on the published glider frequencies 130.4 & 130.1, with no response. But the weather is good for gliding and I just know they are there somewhere. So a good lookout for gliders that are difficult to see at the best of times, that do not keep a listening watch on radio (don't even HAVE a radio!) who can't be seen by radar, and don't have a transponder. and who expect ME to see and give way to THEM! Sure enough just under a cloud ahead of me is a glider, and another glider! how many are there? impossible to know which way they are going. WHAT a nightmare, they are not talking to anyone, and I can't let them know I am there. No wonder glider pilots wear parachutes!
Seriously this situation is grotesque, all aircraft should carry and use a radio as the very minimum. To wander about the sky without any means of communication was fine in the 1930s but not in today's congested sky.
Sincerely
MG

[Rocket2]

MG
I fly power & gliders & can sympathise with you about spotting gliders even when they're nearby but there is little that can be done about that. As to calling on 130.4, it would be better to call on 129.975 as this is the air to groung frequency & probably the one that is selected more often than not (130.4 being used supposedly solely for cloud flying). Most gliders these days carry radios & are switched on but pilots don't make a habit of transmitting as it saves on precious battery power & avoids bunging up the overcrowded frequency. The reason there is no answer to your telephone calls is that probably everyones out flying if the weather is that good.

[Tugpilotsmiffy]

Oh dear seems to me there's a lot of people on here seem to think the radio is good substitute for a decent lookout and airmanship.
To the guy who flys through the Brecons its nice to hear that Gliders not talking to you actually gets your head out of the cockpit and actually loking for other traffic, and its not Glider pilots who expect you to see and avoid them its air law that doe's that.
Really guys we all share the same sky, all encounter the same problems, whether I'm in a glider or a powered aeroplane, I still look out the window, lot of miltary traffic out there not talking on VHF, but I don't whinge about I lookout for it.
The Radio will not save you, see and avoid means exactly that, in the area where I fly, (southern england), there are a substantial amount of military helicopters, very few of which are talikng to a civilian ATC unit, a very busy GA Bizjet airfield again on a seperate frequency and a large commercial airport which like to drop its commercial traffic out of controlled airspace and into the open FIR along with one of the busiest Gliding sites in the country and a number of airfields where non radio PFA type powered aeroplanes and microlights fly from, and without one common frequency between us and sticking our heads out the window we normally avoid banging into one another, its not unsafe to operate in this manner.
One last thing flew from Fairoaks to Lasham once moving an aeroplane for for a maintanence organisation, had to go Lasham-Fairoaks pick up owner Fairoaks-Lasham, a pretty short trip, didn't bother speaking to anyone on L-F leg as vis not bad, picked up owner left Fairoaks, me flying owner right hand seat non-flying, I didn't want to talk to Farnborough, he insisted I did, so made initial call and was instantly put on standby, after a couple of minutes Farnborough put out the call "All staions All stations Farnborough ATC LARS cloising down due to intense controller workload", seems I was the straw that broke the camels back and forced to do it by the guy who didn't want to fly his own aeroplane, I could have just looked out the window operated see and avoid and left the service to those who really needed it.

[MikeGodsell]

Hmm.. thanks guys
Its late afternoon, and I am returning home to Haverfordwest. My windscreen is spotlessly clean, but the sun is in my eyes and my lookout is seriously degraded. Cardiff has me on radar, they have no known traffic. I have reduced my cockpit workload to the asbsolute minimum to concentrate on looking out. How much chance do you think I might have to see & avoid a glider under such conditions?. And surely if the gliders and I were able to use the radio this risk would be much reduced?
For those who read French, the BEA (French accident investigation agency) have a most interesting report on the midairs for 1989 / 1999 and conclude that while a good lookout is essential, so also is efficient use of radio. Did you know that there is a blind spot in each eye, and it is essential to move your head when looking out.
MG

[Genghis the Engineer]

I don't think that anybody has suggested at any point that radio is a substitute for a good lookout - but it is a useful supplement.

G

[Tugpilotsmiffy]

And surely if the gliders and I were able to use the radio this risk would be much reduced?
Sure it would be reduced to a small degree, after all if you look through the mid air collisions between powered aircraft in this country a fair number were recieving a Lars service of some description right up to the point they failed to see each other.
Mr Godsell sugest you go and fly a Glider, look at life from a different perspective, get a feel of what your criticising, and don't fly into sun, be a good boy throw in a dog leg, airmanship and all that.
Course while your looking for that Glider that transmitted on the radio, one of those pesky Tornadoe's cold creep up on you, bugger me man there be planes everywhere.
As for the eye thing yeah I do know that and most glider pilots and I guess most power pilots are taught to move their heads around as part of their lookout, however I am having problems sucking eggs, you couldn't show me how to do that could you.
Like I said before, we are all sharing the same sky we share the same problems, were not that different and the reality is there are a lot of aircraft out there not just non radio that will not be on the same frequency as you, will not be known to the air traffic unit you are working and you will have to see and avoid.
Anyway enjoy your flying stay safe have fun, kinda bored with this now, but take up my suggestion to go to one of those Gliding sites and go fly a glider, expand your mind and capabilities.

[MLS-12D]

As has been pointed out, there are so many frequencies that in uncontrolled airspace, radios are of little or no use for collision avoidance purposes.

Another option for reducing the chance of collision would be to require the grounding of all cabin-type aircraft, on the basis that their design unduly restricts pilots' vision. Of course, that would eliminate all of the spam cans and airliners, leaving us with gliders, 'warbirds', and open cockpit biplanes. Hmmm ... now that I think of it, I could live with that!

[ShyTorque]

"don't fly into sun, be a good boy throw in a dog leg, airmanship and all that."

So next time I'm flying my employer's £50 a minute machine full of passengers from Oxford to Cardiff anytime after lunch perhaps I should route via Exeter or East Midlands? Right, thanks for the advice, I'll give that the attention it deserves i.e. not a lot.

Consider the big picture. Some people are flying for reasons other than just for fun.

[Tugpilotsmiffy]

Alternating a couple of degrees left or right of the track that puts you into sun is all it takes after all we are talikng about flying under VFR here, and according to air law and not you, its your responsiblity to see and avoid gliders, so your not arguing with me your arging with air law, that said irrespective of the law, its in everybody's interest to see and take avoiding action.
Don't seem to remember suggesting routing via the Isle of man just using a bit of airmanship, a quality very lacking in fat dumb and happy world.
At Lasham the amount of times we have had 50 pound a minute aircraft go through are overhead at less than 3000ft agl,have a look on the chart I've lost count of, big picture and all that, As to ignoring not flying to sun which will drop your real vis down to that less than pescribed to less then that of VFR , I admire your honesty, suggest you paint aircraft red with white stripes and get one of those confederate air horns, and as for big picture again yeah I know there are people who fly not just for fun, nice to se you just caught up with the fact there are a hell of a lot more who fly for recreation.
Under VFR look up in air law what it says, then fly accordingly, it ain't hard, for some anyway,others seem to be struggling though.
As said we all share the same problems, were all in the same sky, we all operate under the same rules, although some people on here seem to choose different.
If you want controlled airspace you all know where to find its on the charts, go use it, if you want to fly VFR in the open FIR then do so stop confusing the two, use some common sense and find that thing called airmamship,would you really drive home in thick fog at 80mph, from this thread I'm judging some of you do.
But then I guess you got CB seperating you from other known traffic, fat dumb and happy world reigns supreme.
Having read the messages on this thread it would seem to suggest poor lookout and bad airmanship coupled with a lack of understanding of air law and how it affects you and other air users around you, is what actually leads to late sighting of gliders or for that matter anybody else, and I'm guessing the miltary don't fly for fun who just happen to be in the same peice of airspace as you, just not under any form of ATC service, as said before you want controlled airspace you know where to find it.

[bookworm]

Sure it would be reduced to a small degree, after all if you look through the mid air collisions between powered aircraft in this country a fair number were recieving a Lars service of some description right up to the point they failed to see each other.

Cite one, please.

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Tugpilottype,

You really are one of the most inarticulate and illiterate people I have seen post on PPrune.

Then again, why use 1 word when 18 will suffice. ;)

DS

[Genghis the Engineer]

Gents, please - no flame war. We can all live without it.

G

[Tugpilotsmiffy]

Dirty sanchez thanks for that, and yeah your right, I have to say that when it comes to spelling, punctuation and so on I'm pretty crap, so excuse my smelling pisstakes, I just can't help it.
That said one incident of a mid air betwen two aircraft using an ATC service requested, so heres one
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_500580.hcsp

And thanks for that strangely it made me smile, far from flaming I think his comments were probably the most factually correct in this entire thread.

For those of you bored with this now

javascript:ol('http://www.jokefrog.com/flash/splash-baby.shtml');

[ShyTorque]

Tugpilotsmiffy,

Thanks for the second in your series of lectures to other pilots. You are obviously a fine instructor. I don't know how I've managed so far without you, but, starting from right now I'm going to try to do so. :rolleyes:

[Final 3 Greens]

Having spent a little time analysing Tugpilotsmiffy's unique prose, I do find myself in sympathy on one point.

And that point, ShyTorque, is that your employer choose to route your aircraft through uncontrolled airspace, which undoubtedly increases the risk profile of the flight.

To completely dismiss airmanship due to commercial reasons is both uncommercial and, in my opinion, unethical.

Your aeroplane may cost £50 per minute to operate, but how much does a middair cost your company? Some companies have been taken down by such incidents.

Furthermore, what about the responsibility to the pax of reducing the risk to reasonable proportions?

I note in your posts, many of which are well argued based on deep experience and an obvious passion for aviation, that you tend to adopt an absolute position. I really think that you would do well to reflect on the perils of taking that view, in this particlar context.

[ShyTorque]

FTG,

You said "To completely dismiss airmanship due to commercial reasons is both uncommercial and, in my opinion, unethical..."

Absolute bigoted rubbish. You have NO idea of my level of airmanship, especially my standard of lookout. You aren't qualified to make a statement like that unless you have at least flown with me.

"And that point, ShyTorque, is that your employer choose to route your aircraft through uncontrolled airspace, which undoubtedly increases the risk profile of the flight."

If you are intimating that Class G should be the absolute domain of recreational flyers and everything else should be protected by controlled airspace, you have little understanding of general aviation in UK.

[Final 3 Greens]

ShyTorque

Please look at the following extracts from the exchange following...

Tugpilotsmiffy

don't fly into sun, be a good boy throw in a dog leg, airmanship and all that.

ShyTorque

So next time I'm flying my employer's £50 a minute machine full of passengers from Oxford to Cardiff anytime after lunch perhaps I should route via Exeter or East Midlands? Right, thanks for the advice, I'll give that the attention it deserves i.e. not a lot.

Consider the big picture. Some people are flying for reasons other than just for fun.

Tugpilotsmiffy,

Alternating a couple of degrees left or right of the track that puts you into sun is all it takes

ShyTorque

Thanks for the second in your series of lectures to other pilots. You are obviously a fine instructor. I don't know how I've managed so far without you, but, starting from right now I'm going to try to do so.


So I am talking absolute bigoted rubbish am I? To be honest, your comments in the exchange above read as polemic to me.

I found the original posters comments to be quite inflammatory in nature, so perhaps your response was driven by emotional reaction.

Let me also clarify that I do not believe that you would dismiss airmanship in the operational environment, so I am only commenting on what you said in the thread.

I am not suggesting that uncontrolled airspace is the absolute domain of anybody, but I am suggesting that it has a higher risk profile than controlled airspace, especially when mixed traffic is operating under a variety of services (or none for that matter). If you, as an ATPL, disagree, then you can quite validly say that your qualifications are greater than mine and you disagree, at which point I will then quote the ATPL IRE TREs who helped me form my opinion when I worked for a major airline (in a business role) and was lucky enough to undertake a significant number of LOFT hours in a full motion sim. The ATPL, line training captain who lives next door has also expressed similar opinions.

Over to you. By the way, I see no reason for calling you any unpleasant names, I do find your point of view on different threads to be interesting and informative, even if it differs from mine sometimes (although there are many more points where I agree with you) - can we keep the debate reasonable in tone?

[ShyTorque]

F3G,

I suggest you re-read TPS's posts again. They are full of vitriol.

Emotional? Me? No, not really, my responses on this thread are as much of a wind up as anything. However, I do sometimes get rather exasperated by folk with limited experience spouting off with a holier than thou attitude as if they are the only one with a right to be in the sky or having an understanding the rules of the air.

I really don't think the sky is full of "fat, dumb and happy" pilots blundering along in a straight line, head in cockpit, expecting ATC to keep them safe in class G airspace; if there such pilots then I certainly am NOT one of them - but some posters on here would prefer to believe that this the case. The real problem with gliders is that the human eye has trouble picking them up against the background, as I said in an earlier post.

Perhaps it would help if I state my view, based on experience rather than emotion, in more detail?

Firstly, LOOKOUT has always been and remains the prime means of avoiding an airborne collision in VMC, irrespective of the type of airspace or ATC service provided.... PERIOD!

Knowledge, experience and common sense coupled with effective, sensible flight planning, can help to avoid possible high risk areas, such as published GLIDER SITES. En route, recognition of "glider magnet" clouds or terrain is a very good idea, and I certainly do this when appropriate. (I used to glide a little - went solo at 15, that's how I started in this business - over 30 years ago now - I do understand them to some extent).

ATC (LARS or a local unit in it's absence) can assist greatly to locate SOME possible conflicts. ATC services have limitations, due to poor radar performance (or lack of radar), weather, terrain and at times human limitations such as high workload. ATC can SOMETIMES give warning of gliders, due to a fleeting appearance on radar, often they don't. Glider pilots don't often talk to ATC and they seldom (if ever?) carry a transponder. Our company SOPs require us to obtain at least a FIS, or a RIS if available and we do so. Doesn't make us want to stop looking out of the window.

TCAS is also of great asssistance. Not only does it display the presence of transponding aircraft i.e. SOME possible conflicts, it verbally warns pilots of an enhanced proximity risk, especially if another aircraft changes its flightpath. When used correctly, as part of a lookout scan, it reminds us just how many aircraft there are out there. One thing this particular piece of equipment does is to remind pilots to LOOKOUT, converse to the opinion of some who think pilots of so equipped aircraft neglect the basics of airmanship.

We fly two pilots, eye tested iaw the CAA requirements every six months in my case, (still 6/5 vision) but we do realise we can't see 'em all out there. We do occasionally get ATC or TCAS alerted targets that we can't locate visually, usually due to lack of aircraft contrast against the background. If this happens and it's a possible conflict, we put on the forward facing searchlight and hope that helps the other aircraft to see US while we get some horizontal (oops, edit here, I meant to say VERTICAL separation, not horizontal - TCAS isn't too reliable in the hozontal plane). We also carry high intensity white strobes, these are always selected on in flight.

Finally, LOOKOUT has always been and remains the prime means of avoiding an airborne collision in VMC, irrespective of the type of airspace or ATC service provided.... PERIOD!

P.S. Did I mention LOOKOUT? :D

[Final 3 Greens]

ShyTorque

Thanks for such a comprehensive posting - there are some fundamental points of good practice that are good to revisit.

I hope that many who read this board will read your comments and learn from them.

[Tugpilotsmiffy]

Knowledge, experience and common sense coupled with effective, sensible flight planning, can help to avoid possible high risk areas, such as published GLIDER SITES. En route, recognition of "glider magnet" clouds or terrain is a very good idea, and I certainly do this when appropriate. (I used to glide a little - went solo at 15, that's how I started in this business - over 30 years ago now - I do understand them to some extent).

So you do throw in dog legs then, whilst flight planning.

ATC (LARS or a local unit in it's absence) can assist greatly to locate SOME possible conflicts. ATC services have limitations, due to poor radar performance (or lack of radar), weather, terrain and at times human limitations such as high workload. ATC can SOMETIMES give warning of gliders, due to a fleeting appearance on radar, often they don't. Glider pilots don't often talk to ATC and they seldom (if ever?) carry a transponder. Our company SOPs require us to obtain at least a FIS, or a RIS if available and we do so. Doesn't make us want to stop looking out of the window.

A lot of Glider pilots don't hold RT licence's, those that do will use them if they feel the situation requires it, transitting controlled airspace, or operating close to active airfields, just out of courtesy, assuming as stated above they actually have an RT licence.
I'm sure the day is not too far away when transponders become light enough and don't use up too much energy to to make it impractical for glider pilots to make use of them.

Never suggested ownership of the sky for anyone, I think what I said was we all share the same problems, and that includes Gliders, Light aircraft, Military guys, Commercial operators, Paragliders and so on, and if you choose to fly in in the open FIR you choose to except the rules that come with it and as for having a better understanding of the rules, again never suggested that, just established what the actual rule was, in practical terms in means very little, because quite often I adjust my track to avoid aeroplanes that never change theirs, so I guess they don't see me, and before I get accused of being holier that thou, I've had to make my apolgies to people that I either saw late or never saw at all.


Experience of what, as this thread is about dangerous gliders and how to see them and avoid them, my experience as the name would suggest, was as a Tugpilot and as such have somewhere in the region of about 8000 take offs and landings from glider sites, the majority from one glider site, where routinely we would have over one hundred gliders plus Tug aircraft all within a few miles radius of the site, so I developed a few ways of avoiding them, experience means little if it ain't relevant, and flying directly into sun wasn't one of them, I don't know how much my plane cost to operate, but I always judged my life as having a higher value.

I apologise to anybody who I may have offended didn't mean to, its just the way I write, which as can clearly be seen, is less then conventional and not that well put together or checked for errors, so for that I'm sorry, genuinely.
Anyway at least we agree on something Lookout.
You take care Shytorque, appreciate your viewpoint and comments.

[IO540]

I am with MikeGodsell on this - it should be easy for gliders to contain, within their fuselage, a radar reflector. Without Mode C, the RIS wouldn't know their level but a powered pilot could correctly assume they will be below, probably just below, the cloudbase.

As a separate matter, the technology to make a low power transponder is straightforward. The #1 reason they aren't on the shelf is that not being mandatory, few glider owners are going to buy one. The #2 reason is that (if/when they become mandatory) they would have to be Mode S and it would then be relatively trivial for Garmin or Honeywell (Garmin in particular) to generate a low power design and, marketed worldwide through their well established avionics channels, it would push whoever developed the original product out of the market.

[ShyTorque]

Thanks TugpilotSmiffy,

I think and hope that in truth we are in general agreement , as we both probably knew all along ;)

Sorry - I probably got a little too bunched over your dogleg suggestion - it had been a very long day and I felt that I was being tarred with all the worst misdemeanors you have experienced in your time at Lasham.

However, it just isn't practical for bigger aircraft to plan doglegs for sun avoidance or to zig-zag across track by a few degrees (actually to avoid the sun from ahead it would be more than a few degrees). We fly too many sectors in a day to plan doglegs in advance to take into account the sun's position - in any case, let's face it - it's not often too sunny in UK! However, we do have an excellent glareshield on the front screen and coupled with a good pair of sunspecs we can cut out most of the glare. Alternating across the planned track isn't a good idea at all because the pax would feel sick in short order, especially if you bear in mind that we often fly from one end of the country to another and back a few times in a day. Our operation is VERY different to flying a light aircraft and we do have different things to take into account (if that sounds rather patronising, my apologies).

We can't use often controlled airspace because it doesn't often go where we need to go to and because of our constantly flexible and often very short notice itinerary we couldn't file the required written flightplans in time, especially when sat in a field! We often fly more than a dozen sectors a day and transitting Class G is the only way we can do it. At this time of year icing is a problem if we tried to get up into the routes, although we do cross through class A and D airspace (and land therein, including Heathrow / Gatwick / Luton, Stansted / Brum etc) on a very regular basis. Just as often we land where there is NO airspace protection at all, not even an ATZ or an aviation site marked on the chart.

We certainly do NOT blunder through glider sites - a midair would be just as dangerous to us as to the other aircraft, and sudden manoeuvring for avoiding action could injure our passengers, who are secured by a lap belt at best. We go around or very well above marked glider sites and we do of course read the daily NOTAMS (actually we carry a copy with us in flight). In addition I personally check for signs that the site might be active, including looking for the winch or other vehicles and aircraft on the ground, considering the weather and wind direction and consider the possibility of tug launches. I also recently went against the grain within our company and asked for a new letdown procedure to be amended because it took us too close to a glider site for my liking.

Fat, dumb, happy? I keep trying with the diet. I'm not dumb, although I think I'm reasonably happy because I know I'm using all the airmanship I've gathered over 30 years of professional flying and trying my damnedist to reach retirement age without busting my fairly uneventful career or my ar$e.

I have certainly never given cause to upset the folks at Lasham, the British Gliding Centre, by flying over below 3000ft, not least because the CAA chart shows possible activity to 3700ft.

However, regarding aspersions of my knowledge of the different types of airspace, Lasham does NOT have an ATZ so don't be surprised if aircraft sometimes give scant avoidance based on the chart marked circle alone, which they are quite entitled to do, provided of course that they see and avoid gliders and obviously, the launch cable. If they encounter a light aircraft tug, tow cable attached or not, on it's way down, normal rules of the air apply!

P.S. Talking of airmanship, is that Lasham tug pilot whom I often watched severely pushing his luck by landing with the tow cable attached and dragging through the trees in the woods on the other side of the road still alive? :ugh:

[Wot No Engines]

IO540,

Nice idea, however there is just about nowhere in many single seaters it could go safely so as to be clear of all controls, etc - the biggest area would be behind the wing spars towards the rear of the fuselage, an area that is generally inaccessible except for inspection.

Having used and tested many designes in the past on boats, the largest that could be accomodated would give a return smaller than the glider in general. Actually, with the boats, we found that damp sails gave the best reflection - I wonder if water ballast would do the same ?

The problem gets worse for the more modern gliders that are built using carbon fibre. This will prevent a transponder arial from working, so it's bound to stop a reflector.

ShyTorque,

Good to read your comments, however as a warning to all, aircraft that fly into a winch cable rarely survive, the glider being launched usually does - based on a very very small number of accidents. I hope I never read of such an accident again.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Nice idea, however there is just about nowhere in many single seaters it could go safely so as to be clear of all controls, etc - the biggest area would be behind the wing spars towards the rear of the fuselage, an area that is generally inaccessible except for inspection.

Actually it would be very easy to incorporate, like many design features, in new-build aircraft. That is the usual way of bringing in new safety measures - bring them into the new rules, but don't make it mandatory retrospective.

G

[robin]

Interesting sets of comments, which go back to my original thoughts.

In my view, there is legal and there is sensible. As ShyTorque says, just because Lasham doesn't have an ATZ it doesn't mean it is sensible to blat through it.

My issue, though, remains with those, possible in the minority, who think that

a) gliders are able to fit the sort of hi-tech fit required to fit in with TCAS
b) are GPS-fixated and enjoy 'join the dots' -flight, irrespective of the areas they are flying through, cos they are in receipt of an ATC service

In my 40 years of flying, I was taught never ever put your all your faith in technology - not even a fuel gauge.

[UV]

Interesting thread.
However, how many mid air collisions actually happen in the UK between gliders and transitting powered aircraft? Obviously there are more glider/glider collisions.
I can only think of one recently and that involved the tug, the glider it was towing and another glider.
I cannot recall any others, anyone any idea?
UV

[robin]

there was the 'bang' at Aston Down with conflicting circuits, but there have been very few gliders knocked out of the sky by a powered aircraft, in comparison to the mid-airs between powered aircraft such as

The Cessna hit by a military aircraft when low and photographing
The microlight hit at Brookman's Park

There have been the similar noises about all aircraft being techno-kit equipped to stop this happening

[MLS-12D]

Actually it would be very easy to incorporate, like many design features, in new-build aircraft. That is the usual way of bringing in new safety measures - bring them into the new rules, but don't make it mandatory retrospective.Well, this is more or less the reason why most people make do with 30-year-old Cessnas and there is such a limited market for newer airplanes certified under more onerous (and therefore more expensive) regulations.

The last thing general aviation needs is (yet more) idiotic regulations aimed at solving non-problems.

[140cherokee]

A very interesting thread, albeit a little personal and partisan at times.

I'd just like to add my two-penny worth as both a power and glider pilot...

It's been said before on this thread and yes, the rules of the air say see and avoid in vmc, but gliders are very difficult to spot even when you know they're there. Glider pilots that assume that power pilots have seen them and will avoid them, because they have right of way, are guilty of woeful airmanship.

We all must do whatever is necessary to enhance flight safety, and anything that improves our visibility on radar, or better still SSR, should be recommended. Fitting a transponder might cost a few thousand to install, but what is that spread across the average syndicate? My life's worth more than that, isn't yours?

To those that have commented on power pilots with their heads inside checking their GPS/whatever, I'd just like to remind you that if you're above 3000', and within 1000' of cloudbase and/or 1500m of cloud horizontally, you are IFR (regardless of what you are flying). In this case, the 'I' stands for Instrument - that's probably why their head is inside!

Which brings me round to my final issue. I've lost count of the number of glider pilots that do not know the difference between VFR and IFR, their obligations in differing airspace, etc. Perhaps the best thing that EASA will bring will be a standardisation of groundschool, licencing and RT for all pilots (just why does gliding need its own frequencies? - get a FIS/RIS from a local station and benefit everyone). This really will improve flight safety.

140

[Tugpilotsmiffy]

Not been on here for a bit so thanks shytorque, peace love and happiness established, if this thread as proved anything, theres good and bad in all forms of aviation, we can probably all learn from each other, and the internet is not really a good way of discussing things, sure if we'd been face to face it wouldn't of got so personal, and nobody would have seen by bad grammer, and thats probably spelt with an a instead of an e.
And out of the sixty odd tug pilots at Lasham there isn't one who doesn't at some time drag that rope through the trees, course I don't do it anymore.
You take care and enjoy your flying.

[MLS-12D]

There's good and bad in all forms of aviation, we can probably all learn from each other; and the Internet is not really a good way of discussing things, if we'd been face to face it wouldn't have got so personal.There is so much truth in these two statements.

It's been said before on this thread and yes, the rules of the air say see and avoid in vmc, but gliders are very difficult to spot even when you know they're there. Glider pilots that assume that power pilots have seen them and will avoid them, because they have right of way, are guilty of woeful airmanship.Yes, I agree. Any pilot (power or glider) who blindly relies upon the rules of the air risks being 'dead right'.

We all must do whatever is necessary to enhance flight safety, and anything that improves our visibility on radar, or better still SSR, should be recommended.I don't have a problem with recommendations per se; but they have a nasty way of becoming mandatory.

Fitting a transponder might cost a few thousand to install, but what is that spread across the average syndicate? My life's worth more than that, isn't yours?It's nice to say that every possible thing that might increase safety should be done; but the fact is that there are only so many dollars to go around (and for most pilots and aircraft owners, aviation is almost prohibitively expensive enough as it is). By way of analogy, shouldn't BRS parachutes be fitted to all aircraft (it might cost a few thousand, but itsn't your life worth it?).

To those that have commented on power pilots with their heads inside checking their GPS/whatever, I'd just like to remind you that if you're above 3000', and within 1000' of cloudbase and/or 1500m of cloud horizontally, you are IFR (regardless of what you are flying). In this case, the 'I' stands for Instrument - that's probably why their head is inside!True enough, although I suspect that all-too-many pilots (not necessarily just power pilots) have their 'heads inside the office' in VMC conditions.

Which brings me round to my final issue. I've lost count of the number of glider pilots that do not know the difference between VFR and IFR, their obligations in differing airspace, etc. Perhaps the best thing that EASA will bring will be a standardisation of groundschool, licencing and RT for all pilots (just why does gliding need its own frequencies? - get a FIS/RIS from a local station and benefit everyone). This really will improve flight safety.Careful what you wish for: you might just get it. IMHO, the last thing power pilots would want is the elimination of specific soaring frequencies. For better or worse, huge numbers of soaring pilots use the radio for chatting back and forth, and it would not be at all helpful to have that blocking up other frequencies (of course, one could credibly say that soaring pilots should simply learn better radio discipline, but that's another story).

[Genghis the Engineer]

Interesting question there - given that the definition of IFR.v.VFR in a powered aeroplane depends upon flying speed, altitude and pilots qualifications - what does it do to a glider pilot. Presumably the speed and height rules don't change, but qualifications?

G

[140cherokee]

I'm not aware of any specific qualifications required for IFR flight in the UK when in VMC. Vanilla PPLs can declare IFR provided they remain VMC.

The problem appears to be when pilots confuse VMC with VFR. Flying near a cloud above 3000' is not VFR!

140