flying under CBs is OK

[DFC]

IO540 made this comment on another thred.

I would like to throw that statement open to the whole Private Flying Forum and see how many people agree with IO540 that flying under or through CBs is OK.

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

Who said "through"?

[Timothy]

There is no absolutely correct answer, as there are CBs and CBs, but the hazards of flying beneath them include:

Hail damage
Lightning strike
Microbursts
Severe turbulence
Severe icing
Radio interference
Temporary blindness
Tornados

...each to his own.

[Earthmover]

Sirs or Madams, I have no wish to get into a personal argument between folks on this forum .. but after, well, nearly 40 years flying, you might forgive me for throwing in a few observations ...

I have the pleasure of flying both a vintage light aircraft and pretty high performance jet airliner. I also have the responsibility of teaching said jet, both in the simulator and in the aircraft. Part of the sim syllabus is a demonstration of the downdraft potential under large Cbs, which can easily exceed the vertical performance of the aeroplane, and for your info, we can often squeeze 5-6000 ft per min. rate of climb from this aircraft if it's reasonably light. There are some scenarios where it is impossible to escape, despite being in clear air with the runway in sight. This is why my colleagues and I hold off when there are Cbs on the approach or the take-off path.

Call me old-fashioned, but personally, I would rather eat my own leg than deliberately fly my light aircraft under a Cb, wherever the MSA is.

Of course, you will get away with it for a very large percentage of the time. But one day................

[Fuji Abound]

Under "large" CBs - very definitely one to always avoid. Only once experienced a micro down burst (and in fact it wasnt any where near a CB) and never again. A very unsettling experience.

However as Earthmover says there are CBs and large Cbs. I suppose as always it does depend on the actual size of the CB.

[bpilatus]

You have to decide on what cause a CB I think. A CB in a big cold front then maybe a problem but a bit of hot air from a hair dryer then I think is ok. But you stay away from CB in France. Those French CB they very tricky guys.

[Miserlou]

There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what a Cb is. Cumulo=fluffy cloud, nimbus=rain.

When it starts to rain then you have the dissipating stage which is the stage where microbursts and the rest of the Pandora's Box is unleashed. You don't want to play in this playground.

Cumulus are bumpy but rarely worse than uncomfortable.

Towering cumulus are somwhat worse (that's how they got to be towering) and you may also experience noticable wind shears.

Do note you don't need an anvil for a Cb.

Common sense should tell you that it can rain from a small cumulus cloud. This makes it a Cb but if there is very little vertical extent then there is very little chance of the more serious phenomena usually associated with the term Cb.

If you can't ascertain the vertical extent then one should steer clear. As I always say, "Discretion is the better part of valour, and cowardice is the better part of discretion!"

[Earthmover]

I wish I hadn't said 'large' - more likely perhaps, but research has shown that microbursts can occur near any vigorous convective activity. Oh, and it's not just a phenomenon confined to the USA - the 'European microburst' is less well studied, or known - but it most definitely does exist.

I have absolutely no misunderstanding whatsover about what a Cb is thank you - and if you think microbursts are just associated with rain, may I suggest you look up references to 'dry microbursts'. Google's a good start.

You pays yer money and yer takes yer choice. I took my choice a long time ago, and I'm not going to either argue the point or willingly take that risk in an aeroplane. I've said my piece for what it's worth and I'll leave it to you to scrap over!

Good luck guys!

[JonWhitehouse]

I wouldnt! If u follow the textbook exactly, it says that flying within 10k of CB is bad news. That has to cater for worst case scenario i guess, but with an advised 10k avoidance radius, flying right under one is just askin 4 trouble in my book.

[PPRuNe Pop]

I believe that Earthmover has succintly put the problem of flying near/under CB's. There is no reason why anyone would want to in my view. The dangers on offer are extreme.

Steer clear of them. A CB has the power to overide all you command. There is no argument in favour.

[Atlas Shrugged]

http://www.meteored.com/fotosrayo/CBX1.jpg
Flying under a CB is ok

Since :mad: when?

[M609]

I had to help a pilot that got caught below several CBs in a PA28 a couple of years ago. Trying to find a route between the CBs as well as the mountains. (It's a bit of a pain when you face 2 foes Cumulunimbus and Cumulus Granitus.......

Judging from his voice, flying below CBs are not OK at all!!!! :\

[bookworm]

First, for those who haven't participated in the other thread, I think DFC has deliberately quoted IO540 out of context. You've taken what was originally a statement of conservatism (that IO540 would cancel a flight where CBs are forecast with bases below the MSA) and re-quoted it to make it look rash. That's very low.

For those of you who spin anecdotes about CBs and what they can do, and post pictures of mean looking CBs... you could equally post a picture of a man-eating tiger in answer to the question "do you pet cats?"

Convective cloud is a continuum from small fair-weather cumulus to the meanest supercell. Meteorologists differ on when cumulus becomes cumulonimbus, but the best definition I've seen is that a CB starts when the upper levels glaciate. Since convective precipitation is predominantly born of the Bergeron process, that means that most showers are CBs. If you've ever flown in a shower, you've flown under a CB.

[OpenCirrus619]

Another thing to bear in mind is that you find gliders under, and sometimes in, cumulus. Unless you get a nice planform view they can be difficult to spot AND, if you've got a fan on the front, you're the one who has to do the avoiding :sad:

As for flying through the clouds it's worth being aware that gliders do occasionally take "cloud climbs". The ONLY requirement (apart from Rule 29) for a glider, in the UK, to comply with when flying in cloud is that "No glider shall enter cloud unless all its occupants are wearing parachutes and have been instructed in their use".

My own approach, when there are well separated Cu around is to avoid them (smooth ride and less chance of finding a gaggle of gliders) when I've got an engine. Of course, when I'm not converting money to noise, thats a completely different story :ok:

[Miserlou]

Earthmover,
Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound like I was refering to you but I have been following the other threads mentioned.

Just pointing out that due to the range of size and extent of a Cb some statements (by others) can be interpreted as extremely over-cautious.

Cancelling an IFR flight due to forecast Cb's might be considered thus.

[Fuji Abound]

The morning started early with a planned 8 am departure. A check of the TAFS indicated nothing untoward and the morning air was clear and the sky bright. There was bated anticipation among the young passengers (all three of them!) as this was the first part of the journey to Manston to meet up with friends to go and watch the open at St Georges. I expected an uneventful and relatively short flight.

As expected the air proved to be silky smooth and the aircraft settled down at around 3,500 feet I seem to remember. There was nothing much to do as it was to early to listen and spot the other traffic as most people were still not airborne and I was content to enjoy a lovely morning, watching the scenery pass by and listen to the chat between the passengers.

I suppose the scan of the instruments had become a bit lazy - that’s strange I thought something doesn’t feel quite right. Oh my goodness we appear to be descending quite rapidly. A more intense scan of the panel didn’t provide a solution. The rpm and manifold pressures were normal, but I had a distinct feeling the engine was losing power. An even more intense stare at the EGT and the oil pressure provided no more comfort that to confirm all was probably still well with Mr Lycoming horses up front. Time to work those horses a bit harder, but rather than full power arresting the descent, the rate of descent increased with the aircraft now at full pitch up and full power. Infact the ground was coming up to meet us quite quickly.

A quick glance over the left shoulder confirmed that a grass strip with which I was familiar was within reach. Rightly or wrongly I concluded if all else failed that would just have to do.

It was one of those occasions were at the time I distinctly remember convincing myself that I had run out of things to try and there wasn’t a great deal more to be done than see what happened next. I was still convinced that for some reason the engine was not producing much power.

At about the point I recall I was thinking it was time to make a right turn on to final to the by now rather inviting grass strip, the silky smooth descent was suddenly replaced by the most intense choppy turbulence. For those of you who have sailed, the best analogy is when you are driving a small boat through a very short chop. We were going uphill rather more quickly than expected!

The passengers had been oblivious to the events unfolding until now but the Gameboys temporarily came to rest by their sides and they developed that quizzical expression kids do before you drop from the top of Oblivion at Alton Towers.

The roller coaster seemed to last for an eternity rather as had the descent but in reality I suppose it was a few minutes or so. Almost as suddenly back came the silky smooth air of earlier. The journey continued uneventfully other than a quick call to London info to warn them of the rather unusual weather encounter.

Hindsight as always is a wonderful thing. I do recall by that point in the journey there was a high overcast but reasonably well broken. I don’t seem to remember there were an indications of build ups above. I do recall there was a relatively dark looking isolated storm cell well away to the south - I would have guessed at least 30 miles away. There was some high ground to the north, but I use high in a very relative sense, the downs north of the Weald I don’t suppose are more than a few hundreds of feet high.

I don’t know to this day exactly what caused the phenomena but clearly there was a very intense down draught proceed by a funnel of turbulent rising air. It sounds very similar to what other people have described around thunderstorms and large Cbs.

I do know that the down draught was way outside the performance capability of the aircraft. Had I had time to be scarred I would have been!

Sorry to bore you all with the story but I know had I read a similar account I might have woken up at that time to what was going on - not than I am sure I could have done a great deal more about it. However it does emphasise the comments made here that the type of down draughts associated with Cbs are best avoided.

I still think as ever with any weather phenomena as other have said there are occasions when the sky is lightly peppered with very small fair weather clouds that are technically very immature Cbs. I would not expect this type of phenomena to be associated with those conditions but I could well be wrong?

Finally I recall a trip to North Weald for what was the annual trade fair. Come going home time there was a very large storm cell off to the West. I was absolutely amazed at the number of pilots who departed towards the storm cell. IMHO opinion it was madness. Sure enough 15 minutes later there was torrential rain and hail. What were they doing?

[Aim Far]

Depends what you mean by OK.

Last summer, after a memorable trip round the Orkneys and Outer Hebrides, I flew back to London IFR through some generally mucky weather that turned out to have embedded CBs.

I survived just fine.

But it was extremely bumpy, the rain was so heavy it was coming in through the canopy seals, I scared myself and my pilot passenger ****less, we witnessed a lightning strike that was too close for comfort and the paint job on by aeroplane was slightly damaged.

So it was not OK and I won't be deliberately doing it again. If Cbs are forecase, I now specifically ask any radar service for information on the storm cells. But if I find myself in that situation again, I will know it will probably not kill me.

[MichaelJP59]

As for flying through the clouds it's worth being aware that gliders do occasionally take "cloud climbs". The ONLY requirement (apart from Rule 29) for a glider, in the UK, to comply with when flying in cloud is that "No glider shall enter cloud unless all its occupants are wearing parachutes and have been instructed in their use"

I must admit that's new to me - I didn't realise that gliders would fly blind like this!

A bit worrying though - what do they do to keep separation from other gliders? Are they just trusting to luck??

[Flyin'Dutch']

Are they just trusting to luck??

Yup

[S-Works]

CB's are not fun to fly through. A year or so ago Ludwig and I flew to Guernsey. The trip ended up with a vectored ILS through a thunderstorm, black as night and the airframe sounded like it was being shotblasted!

We would go from 1000ft sink to a 1000ft climb in seconds. Made coming down the glideslope hard work, I have never been so happy to see the runways lights appear in the rain.

I prefer to steer clear as the ride is not the most pleasant. But I dont see the need to cancel a flight when cb's are forecast on a 9999 day. I just take extra care to keep clear. Embedded is a different story.

[hasell]

Speaking to a pilot, who has now retired. He mentioned that the CBs in his part of the world (SE Asia) are generally to be given a wide berth (40 to 50 nm) as they can be very viscious. This from the relative safety of flying a B744.

Regards.

Has.

[stillin1]

IM(not)HO,
Flying under, in or near to a CB (not just a big cloud) is asking for a lesson in "Darwinism in action". Tis just plain stupid to do it on purpose when an alternative option exists. Why? = reread posts above. Dem CBs am a hell of a lot stronger than yer aircraft. I've been lightning-struck in, next to and below CB, had rate of climb and descent exceed controlability levels. It ain't fun KISS stay away!:ok:

Brown underpants are unattractive you know:(

[CosmosSchwartz]

Depends on the options. If you get caught out by the wx and have no escape route, I'd rather go under the CB than through or (attempt) to go over. Obviously if the CB base is only 1 or 2 thousand feet you're in trouble, but if it's 10,000ft or so it's safer than flying through.

Too many variables to say you should never go under.

[justsomepilot]

How many of you have flown under an overcast sky and flown through a heavy shower? Where do the showers come from? Cirrus clouds at FL250 of course! :{

[Sensible]

I've been down the route of embeded CB's :( A most unhappy experience that I wouldn't wish to repeat so won't intentionally be going there again or recommending the experience to anybody else!!!

[Earthmover]

Miserlou - point taken and agreed, and no offence taken at all - you'll have to work harder than that - ask my ex-wife!

[Final 3 Greens]

How many of you have flown under an overcast sky and flown through a heavy shower? Where do the showers come from? Cirrus clouds at FL250 of course! ?????

Cirrus clouds are glaciated.

How about NS? That can get up to the 30s.

Also CB bases at 10,000? The only time I have seen that is when the mountains beneath were at 8,000.

The highestCB base I've seen was nearly 5K. Would be interested in knowing where you observed 10K baes.

[Timothy]

Cirrus clouds are glaciated.JSP, irony is a lost art, best avoided :rolleyes:

[MikeJeff]

Out of interest how many fatalities have their been from flying under/in CBs?

[Timothy]

Enough over the years for it to be a matter of concern.

I can't quote stats, but I have been reading the reports for 35 years and it comes up with monotonous regularity.

[Wycombe]

Well remember the (very good) "Black Box" documentary that covered the L1011 that was downed on finals, at Atlanta IIRC, by a microburst under a CB.

In the programme, they set a 757 sim with the weather parameters of the day and asked a Training Capt to fly the approach.

The result was a smoking hole :eek:

[Final 3 Greens]

JSP, irony is a lost art, best avoided And sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, usually used by those incapable of the higher forms. :yuk:

[englishal]

The highestCB base I've seen was nearly 5K. Would be interested in knowing where you observed 10K baes.

"Weather Flying" by I forget.....Bases can be up to 16,000'. If there is a Cb with base at 16,000' then it would probably be ok to fly under at 5000.

What scares me is embedded Cb's. On a nice jaunt around scotland we climbed on-top at about 5000' to see Cbs all around. Later we became IMC again, the radio was quiet except for the big boys deviating for weather, the storm scope was covered in little X's. We briefly popped out to see a monster in front of us, a few seconds later we were inside. It was rough, noisy (rain on the plane) and black as night. It really was an "oh sh*t are we going to get through this moment". We found a light spot and wen't for it (with what can be described as a steep turn) and luckily popped out into sunshine. 10 mins later we were on the airfield, drinking beer watching a massive storm. One of those tales you can laugh about later,. but at the time I was quite worried.

A friend of mine flies a citation in the USA and I heard the other day that even with radar they encountered turbulence so great in one of these things that they couldn't see the AI any more.....
:oh:

[Final 3 Greens]

Englishal

Interesting.

On the subject of CBs, I was paxing on a CRJ that diverted due to Wx in VA and talking to the capt during the disembarkation, he told me that the observed tops were 52k.

That is pretty scary, considering the amount of energy it must take to get the moisture up to that level.

[jokova]

Despite some posts on this thread saying that ALL Cbs are best avoided, there may be exceptions - such as using the power of the monster to obtain phenomenal height gains in sailplanes.

Out of Alice Springs, (Central Australia), around 1965-1970, Bert Persson in a Blanik got to 34,000 feet or thereabouts. He'd been trained in Sweden and had there acquired the skills to know what part of the cloud, (the front), was the "UP" elevator, and what part would rip him apart. Every few thousand feet Bert popped out to have a look, then went back in for more. He said he could have gone much higher, except that his oxygen was low and the grease freezing in his controls.

To read, on the other hand, a rivetting account of the destructive power within the Cb, it's effects on the unwary, and one of the world's most incredible survival stories, go to Anne Welch's "Accidents Happen". A South American glider pilot got sucked in, passing out passing 20,000, (and risin' mumma), had six feet of both wings torn off in the ensuing terminal dive, shedding ice, and shortly after coming to, 'Jose Don't Leave Home Without Your Saint Christopher', impacted a down slope and sat there in the wreckage, a puzzled look on his face and not so much as a scratch or a bruise.

His baragraph pegged at 50,000, so his ultimate height in what had to be a furiously fast rise and fall could only be estimated.

(Tony Bullimore - bite your bum.)

[MikeJeff]

Personally, I've got within 10 (ish) miles of a CB in a C150.. I won't do it on purpose again!

However, to play devil's advocate a little. 2 anecdotes.. First off last Feb I was flying by the wonderful Kulula.com from J'burg to Durban there were storm cells all over the place. It was night, but the land below was light up clearly and continuously. Lightning was raining out of half a dozen CBs at once.. The clouds were much less than 10 miles away! We actually went into cloud (although I can't tell you if it was a charlie banger or not!) the whole journey was remarkably smooth. I'd equate it to departing Shoreham and passing to the windward side of the south downs.. a couple of gentle bumps lol!

Second anecdote regarded controlling aircraft in CB weather.. Nice new 737, vector it around the cloud. Cr@ppy old DC9 with no wx radar.. send it through.. apparantly complaints were few and far between!

:}

Like I said, my one not so close experience with a CB had me turning around, my comfort levels were compromised long before the aircraft's!

[chrisN]

Just spotted some posts about gliders, which included [snip]
As for flying through the clouds it's worth being aware that gliders do occasionally take "cloud climbs". The ONLY requirement (apart from Rule 29) for a glider, in the UK, to comply with when flying in cloud is that "No glider shall enter cloud unless all its occupants are wearing parachutes and have been instructed in their use"
[snip]
and [snip] I must admit that's new to me - I didn't realise that gliders would fly blind like this!

A bit worrying though - what do they do to keep separation from other gliders? Are they just trusting to luck??
[snip]
and
[snip]
Yup
======================
To clarify a little, (a) almost all UK glider cloud climbs are in isolated cu or (rarely these days) cb, not in embedded cb - we are unlikely to be flying far on days when it is overcast with embedded cb.

(b) It is usual, though not mandatory, to call out on the UK glider cloud flying frequency (130.4 - for gliders only, though others can listen out) before entry, to see if anyone else is there. Further calls are made if others are nearby, and a call when returning to VMC. There are some conventions, e.g. refer position to places on 1:500,000 chart. If more than one is in the same cloud, height separation from each other is maintained, with the aid of further periodic calls - though in my experience it is rare to get more than one in the same cloud these days.

For what its worth, cloud flying is anyway much less done nowadays than hitherto - high performance gliders need it less and are also less suited to it.

Chris N.

[englishal]

Surely a glider cannot enter IMC for the same reasons a permit aircraft or other unsuitably equipped aircraft cannot enter IMC? I.e. lack of suitable equipment, and possibly lack of suitable qualifications?

If an unrated PPL decided to blindly ignore the rules and fly in IMC in a Jabiru , then wouldn't they be open to prosecution by the CAA? Why should a glider pilot be excempt?

EA

[Final 3 Greens]

Englishal

I've often wondered why it is legal to drive a car, when holding a burning object in one hand (cigar/cigarette), whereas it is not legal to hold a mobile telephone.

Personally, I think that both increase the risk off driving and I also think that glider "cloud flying" conventions increase risk too.

However, as I understand it, it is legal and one needs to remember that the BGA controls the qualifications and training requirements for gliders, not the CAA and that there are differences.

Fortunately, the low probablility of two aircraft being in the same place at the same time is low and this is reflected in the safety records, although I do believe that gliders have collided in IMC in the past and that some gliding clubs insist on parachutes being worn for that reason.

Iit is not totally comforting to know that there mght be a glider lurking in a cloud that an IFR flight may transit, not painting on radar, not talking to ATC and not using a transponder.

One can only hope that the glider pilots flying in clouds are experienced enough to use a good degree of common sense in deciding whcih clouds to fly within.

[englishal]

Hmm...interesting....you learn something new every day ;)

[Ultralights]

talking on a mobile phone while driving can be proven, hence it is illegal! i have bene pulled over driving eating a sandwitch, but he thought it was a phone! when he discovered i was eating instead of talking, he went his own way and never booked me!

[Bob Stinger]

Dont start us Brits on that people have been prosecuted for driving and eating, just recently a woman for taking a bite of an apple! Anyway CB's not for me thanks.

[chrisN]

English Al, the exemptions for glider pilots from IMC or IR ratings, and for gliders re CofA etc., are in the legislation.

As I have posted elsewhere in the past, re GA collision with gliders:

I doubt if anyone has the statistics. For what it's worth, my information on UK gliding collisions, and much less reading on power in the UK, led me to post this on a gliding web site, after an ATPL recently come here, and doing some gliding too, asked about collision risks in cloud:

13.9.04 to uras:
". . . gliders that cloud fly normally call out on 130.4. It is not a legal requirement, but most conform. Power pilots could listen out on that, but I believe most don't. That is their choice.
Power in IFR in class G is taking that risk. They also take the risk of colliding with each other - there is no one frequency that all power without exception will be using in class G IMC, and there may be some non-radio power anyway (just as some cloud-flying gliders may be non-radio). That's how things developed here, and there is no significant accident rate from these causes - unlike VMC/VFR where there are more frequent collisions between G/G, G/P and P/P.
Take care out there - especially in VMC. Based on actual collisions, the most likely place for a collision when glider flying is in VMC close to a gliding club - with other gliders, tugs, or cables. The next is in VMC on a cross country, with other gliders. After that, with other gliders in cloud. The least likely is with a power plane not connected with gliding. I know of none with power in cloud.
The most frequent collisions for power planes are with the ground, in IMC. I understand that there are usually several every year in the UK. The next most frequent (excluding tugs) is with other power planes. Tugs can and have collided with gliders at the gliding site they are based at - in VMC. The least frequent power collision is with a glider on a cross country - only one that I know of since 1970; that was in VMC when the power plane went straight into the back of a glider, neither front seat person having seen it in front of them. (A Rockwell Commander/Cirrus, IIRC.) "
- - - - - - - - -
I would be interested to know if there are data available re power/power collisions in the UK . Short of analysing all the AAIB reports for it, and reading the details to get class of airspace, and recategorising the older ones to equate to current classes, I would not know where to start.

Chris N.

[englishal]

It was no so much the risk of collision I was noting but why a perfectly good permit aircraft with suitable avionics are not allowed in cloud in IMC in class G, yet gliders with minimal instrumentation and / or qualifications are...?

cheers

[chrisN]

Al, sorry, but I don't know! I believe that the gliding exemptions dated back to before there was any legislation, and the CAA (or Board of Trade or whatever) saw no case for covering them with legislation when powered aircraft became controlled. As far as gliders were concerned, it was legislation with a light hand, nothing was broke, so they didn't fix it.

I don't know if "perfectly good permit aircraft with suitable avionics" existed when the legislation came in - I suspect not. Meanwhile, however, the powered world suffered considerably from CFIT, and other accidents from loss of control, from its early days, in VMC and IMC, and I guess controls were put in reflecting that. PFA types got swept into it later by default, perhaps.

It seems to me that it remains true that much greater numbers/proportions of powered a/c get into trouble in IMC than gliders, whether measured as per flight, per hour, per pilot, per flying unit or anything else (my subjective impression based on many power a/c CFIT - and unCFIT - accidents and almost no gliding ones of that type).

Behind the lack of gliding accidents of that type, I am aware of one factor at least which might explain (partly?) the different accident rates. Old fashioned gliders were draggy, and since WW2 have mostly if not all had speed limiting brakes. Loss of control in IMC can then be countered by opening the brakes, sitting back, and waiting for clear air to appear; then recovery is relatively easy. Gliders are rarely flying when cloud base is close to the ground.

Modern gliders are not draggy and don't have speed limiting brakes mostly, so are rarely flown in cloud. Few "modern" pilots have had the advantage of "old" gliders to learn cloud flying on, so it is less practised than it used to be. Old fogeys like me who learnt the old way are declining in numbers.

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

[Ultralights]

would this be considered enough clearence for a small to medium Cb?

http://home.exetel.com.au/pamuva/FLYING!!!/downburst.jpg

[Skylark4]

english al and others,
I do wish you wouldn't keep on about "gliders with minimal instrumentation and pilots with minimal qualifications".
the instrumentation will be as good or better than in your Spam Can and the certification of the pilot will be different not less than yours. A keen glider pilot will quite likely do 10 or more hours in a suitable weekend so he probably has more experience than you unless someone pays you to fly. Anyway, glider pilots are better than power pilots so there!!!

Mike W

[englishal]

Its amazing how sensitive some people are ;)

I was just curious as to why the CAA deem that the average "spam can" requires FM immune nav equipment and pilots with at least an IMC rating to go flying "out of sight of the surface" where as gliders seem to be allowed to pop in and out of IMC willy nilly. Same sky after all.

No offence meant, I am just curious. Also from a self preservation point of view. I've had, when flying IFR, on an IFR flight plan, in IMC with a RIS and the controller tells me "multiple targets along your route of flight, no height information, could be gliders" what do I do, do I expect to meet one in there or not? I always assumed gliders were restricted to VMC and hence I was safe, but now I know I'm not ;)

Glider pilots may be better "stick and rudder" pilots than your average PPL, but they need a Powered plane or elastic band to get them up in the first place ;)

[Skylark4]

Al,
Not sensitive at all. just pointing out that you are regurgitating a comment you have made before which indicates a lack of understanding of the conditions and rules under which you and others fly. You didn't know that clouds could have gliders in them? That's a very dangerous lack of knowledge? If the controller says his targets are "probably gliders" the chances are that you are routing through a gliding site. Powered aircraft operate non radio non txpdr too you know.

In fact, if you are flying IFR one assumes it is because you are in solid clag and you are not normally going to find gliders about in that. Gliders will usually be inside clouds which are "Freestanding" Cu in an otherwise clear sky in which case you do not need to fly through the cloud at all. You are just going to be thrown around all over the place and make yourself sick.

I suggest that. if you are worried, give a call on 130.4 and ask if anyone is in cloud near englishal. (I know its illegal but I'm not going to snitch on you). If you get no reply go into the cloud and anything you hit will have an engine.

Chris Ns post has more information much more eloquently put than I could have done.

Mike W

[ProfChrisReed]

englishal wrote:

"Also from a self preservation point of view. I've had, when flying IFR, on an IFR flight plan, in IMC with a RIS and the controller tells me "multiple targets along your route of flight, no height information, could be gliders" what do I do, do I expect to meet one in there or not? I always assumed gliders were restricted to VMC and hence I was safe, but now I know I'm not"

If you're in controlled airspace, there should be no gliders taking cloud climbs.

Outside controlled airspace, there might be a glider climbing (or in my case, more likely undertaking forced practice in "recovery from unusual attitudes") in isolated cumulus. I think your biggest risk of meeting such a glider would be flying through a series of these clouds - but is this what power pilots do? I would have thought the constant transition from VMC to IMC and back would be tiring and disorientating, and it would be more pleasant to fly round. Only asking, because I don't know.

So far as I can discover there have been no collisions between powered aircraft and gliders in cloud, and gliders have been cloud flying in the UK since the 1930s. The risk seems pretty low. I'd say you're at greatest risk from gliders if you do what at least one pilot most weekends does by overflying our winch launch site at 1500 ft, as we're regularly chucking 3000ft of wire into the air with a glider on the end of it! So far we've seen them all in time ...

I think the handful of glider/glider collisions in cloud have all been in major competitions when the competitive instinct takes over from self-preservation by obeying the rules (which are essentially not to enter until the preceding glider reports on 130.4 that he's 500 ft above cloudbase). I wouldn't fly in the same cloud as another glider, and if I'm attempting a cloud climb you'll hear me yelling out my height and position at regular intervals on 130.4 to keep other gliders away.

And on the topic of flying under Cbs, readers might have missed the fact that a few years ago a glider from Dunstable was flying 2 miles or more to the *side* of a Cb when a lightning strike blew the wings apart. Fortunately both pilots parachuted to safety.

I won\'t even fly *near* a Cb, let alone under one.

[Lowtimer]

EnglishAl,
You don't need FM immune avionics to fly IFR in the open FIR, only in controlled airspace.

[Skylark4]

Thanks Prof. That is the killer argument You would normally only be IFR in controlled airspace and . Gliders do not fly in controlled airspace. Not strictly 100% true of course, but in that case they too, are controlled. If you have to fly IFR in uncontrolled airspace then all sensible Glider Pilots will probably be in the bar.

Mike W


Edit: Just thought I would help out. I'm feeling good today ;)

PPP

[englishal]

If the controller says his targets are "probably gliders" the chances are that you are routing through a gliding site. Powered aircraft operate non radio non txpdr too you know.

Not controlled airspace and not over a gliding site. The scenario was that we had been in frontal IMC, and broken out of the back into 6/8's cumulus between about 3000-5000.....we were of course at 4000'. It was bumpy of course, but we were limited to about 4000' due to class A along route, and didn't want to scud run. Ideally I would prefer to be in CAS while IFR but the unique UK systems means this is not possible without a JAA IR.

You are right of course, I really didn't know gliders could fly in IMC legally, and thats because a) I wasn't aware and b) I assumed that they were not allowed due to restrictions with other types. With powered a/c it is very unlikely to find a non radio, non txpdr aircraft in the cloud.....Permit aircraft are limited to day VFR.

Anyway, thanks for the info, I think I may have a go at a spot of gliding, one of my mates (in Norway) is a pilot as well as a glider pilot and he reckons he'd rather be gliding any day.....and we just happen to have a club 5 miles away ;)

[Skylark4]

englishal,
Yes, give gliding a try. It really is "better" than power in many circumstances. If you fly to get from point A to point B then power is the thing but if you fly to FLY or to look at the scenery, or to escape the Wife/kids/MIL or, even, just to prove you can, then gliding is the thing. It is a much more social event as well. You need the help of others to get you into the air but once there then it is all up to you. You will never meet a more resourceful bunch of people than a gliding club. If you want something invented / made / modified / mended, ask at your Gliding club. there's bound to be someone there who can do the job.
Final point, Gliding is cheaper.(if you don't count the time involved)

Mike W

[ProfChrisReed]

Skylark 4 is right up to a point.

Gliding is cheap, until you buy your own aircraft.

And if you like it, you *will* buy your own glider, 'cause this is the only way to guarantee you unlimited access to the few really good days when you are able to fly!

[justsomepilot]

I've never even tried gliding, but I know a few that have done a lot of it, and they did say that you do get to know the other people rather well - because you spend most of the day waiting to go up!

If that's true then the sport would appeal to a limited range of people. Mainly those with plenty of time, or keen to get away from somebody...

[DFC]

Interesting point about Gliders cloud flying.

Since most glider pilots can get away without having an R/T licence provided they stick to the dedicated glider frequencies does this not cause a reduction in flight safety by discouraging glider pilots who intend flying in cloud from obtaining a service from an appropriate ATS unit that will perhaps also be providing a service to a powered IFR aircraft in the vicinity.

After all, if a glider anounces it's intentions to climb up through a Cu at position xxxx, then if a powered aircraft talking to the same ats unit is made aware of that fact then that powered aircraft can be given the best oportunioty to comply with the rules of the air (power give way to glider) by avoiding that position/ height band.

The option of an IFR enroute powered flight calling up on 130.4 is simply not sensible in most cases.........why leave the frequency providing radar information or advice to a frequency where no service is available. Would the "advice" for glider pilots to legally call up on the local ats frequency and let everyone know not be a better option?

Regards,

DFC

[egbt]

DFC

I have a fealing that radios to be used by glider pilots without R/T licences are preset to the gliding freqs. Don't know if they need a radio licence for the glider but they certainly would if they carried a transiever (even a mobile) that works on "normal" freqs, at least that's what the iCom guy told me at the PFA do on Saturday.

[redsnail]

Back in the Kimberley I used to see bases of smallish TSs at about 8000'. Didn't have to fly under them as they are isolated.

As the wet season progressed, the bases would lower to about 500' or less. These were quite well developed CBs with a height often above 50,000'.

I have flown under a cell that had a base of 3000'. Our LSALT was 2000' and we were in IMC. Fortunately it was a soft cell and was more or less dissipating by this stage. Some occassional sparks but lots and lots of water. So much rain that the alternator belt was slipping and causing gen fail lights to illuminate. Not nice. Not too much turbulence which was good.

In Europe the is a risk of hail pouring out of the base of the cell. You don't want to be in that I can tell you.

It does take a while to work out what cells are "ok" and which ones to avoid like the plague. I am talking about flying near them, as opposed to under or through them.

For more info, I recommend highly Archie Trammel's book/video on the weather radar. Even if you don't have a wx radar on board, the info about cell interpretation is invaluable.