Gliders flying in cloud

[SkySailer]

I'm not a professional pilot. I fly gliders in my spare time. I've been doing that for 31 years so far. I don't have a grievance or a grudge, I've never posted to pprune before and I'm not asking to get swatted, I'm just curious.

Quite by chance I've recently noticed several comments by "gliding virgins" to the effect they didn't realise gliders are allowed to fly in cloud in the UK. I just wondered if this is a common misconception among power pilots?

For anyone who genuinely doesn't know or hasn't ever thought about it, cumulus clouds are caused by thermals, and gliders commonly circle underneath them in order to gain height. However, thermals don't stop at cloudbase (otherwise the cloud wouldn't be there). Gliders equipped with suitable instruments can continue to climb in IMC until the lift peters out, and it is legal to do so outside controlled airspace.

ChrisN mentioned in another thread that the amount of cloud flying done by UK glider pilots is decreasing, and I think that's right. Older wooden gliders were a lot easier to handle in cloud than modern slippery designs. Also, many gliding instructors nowadays don't cloud-fly themselves and so aren't able to pass on such a skill, or indeed the enthusiasm for it.

Contributors in another thread were apparently treating quite different cloud conditions as if they were the same. Cloud flying is most likely to occur if there are isolated and TALL cumuli with lots of blue sky between them, no water gushing out of the bottom, and if its a weekend day. At the other extreme, if there is solid 8/8 cloud cover on a Tuesday afternoon, with showers, embedded Cu-nims etc, most glider pilots will be earning a crust or digging their gardens.

Descending through cloud when it has closed up below you is a different matter. This can happen when you have been wave soaring, in or near mountainous areas. The advent of GPS has made such descents easier and safer, but even so, most glider pilots would not put themselves in that position by choice.

If you get the chance on a suitable day, listening for a while on 130.4 may give you some idea of what is going on.

[Blinkz]

I spent 4 years gliding before I started my powered training (on my way to a fATPL) and yes I knew that we were allowed to fly in cloud, altho like you say the glider has to be equipped with certain instruments, the minimum being a turn and slip I think :confused: ideally a AH obviously. The main problem of course then is powerinf them.

Personally I think flying glides in clouds isn't the best of ideas, and I don't think it should be encouraged, but I also don't think that it should be banned. It is sometimes necessary to fly in them, I have flown in cloud a number of times, usually when trying to jump wave bars and being caught out by the high rate of sink and plunging into the top of the next bar lol, altho I popped out within a minute into the lift :ok:

The thing that bothers me is that generally, (in my experience) is that if the weather is decent enough for decent gliding then it is pretty rare to have a good thermal to yourself and they will *usually* be other people about. If all these other gliders continue to climb into the clouds then you have a number of gliders flying close to each other in cloud. Now call me crazy but I think thats a pretty mad idea, even if they are talking to each other.

[Oscar Kilo]

....well I never, how interesting, I just assumed glider pilot's had to stay in VFR conditions. Given I often see swarms of gliders circling in a thermal, frighteningly close to each other, presumably there's a chance this could go on in a cloud too? ....sounds awfully dangerous.

Or is, as implied in the post, cloud soaring actually very much a minority sport only for those who dare?

Thanks for the post, I've learned something!

Oops - our replies crossed in the post.....

[Final 3 Greens]

Cloud flying is legal, so glider pilots are perfectly entitled to be there.

However, IMHO, it rates with storm chasing and hand feeding sharks on the common sense scale.

[Nimbus265]

...as one who does(occasionally)... it is very much the minority who, when the conditions are right, may use a cloud climb to provide them with an advantage. There are certain criteria which should be applied and these are defined in the Laws and Rules for glider pilots:

"No glider shall enter cloud within a radius of 5 nautical miles of a gliding site, except from at least 200 feet from below the lowest part of the cloud.

No glider shall enter cloud unless all its occupants are wearing parachutes and have been instructed in their use.

Additionally it is standard practice to announce your intention to enter cloud on which ever frequency you are operating on giving height (QNH), and location and then changing frequency to 130.4. Once on 130.4, this message is repeated and then the height called at every 500'QNH. Once clear of cloud call "[Callsign] clear of cloud' before changing to en-route frequency.

Cloud flying is not for the faint hearted or novice, and pilots really should be of sufficient standard that their general flying is intuitive - but there are times when it can prove useful, especially on log distance flights or in competitions.

However, not only do you need to have the skills to keep a glider in controlled and balanced flight on instruments (preferably turning to gain height) but also have a full of a number of other factors to consider - before you even enter the cloud:

At what height the zero degree isotherm is (when icing may start),

What other gliders were in the vicinity prior to entering cloud,

Does the aircraft you are flying speed limit below VNE with full airbrakes out and at what dive angle?

Is there any controlled airspace above you - to name but a few!

My first few excursions (as a P2) into cloud flying were scary, and resulted in my pulling the airbrakes out and descending below cloud. In terms of frequency, I've flown over 4000kms this year, but only taken 2 cloud climbs (although a 3500 ft climb in cloud, having entered it from a 3800 ft cloud base, was particularly satisfying, if not just a tad twitchy!)

[chrisN]

It is nothing like as dangerous from a collision viewpoint or informal as you might think.

The standard practice for a glider entering a cloud from below, if no other gliders are apparent in the area, is to announce reg or number, "entering cloud", position reference to a place on the 1:500,000 chart, and alt amsl, on 130.4. If no other glider responds, you know you almost certainly have it to yourself as far as gliders are concerned. It is my experience that GA is normally not in cu clouds on days like that, but if they are, and don't listen out on 130.4, they take the chance often described as big sky, little bullet, but with less safeguard than we try to practise.

Most gaggles of gliders in one thermal have no intention of entering cloud. They are usually intent upon going cross country by the fastest means possible, which rarely involves cloud flying, so they leave the thermal at or below cloudbase.

On the rare occasions when two or more gliders are at or approaching cloudbase and one or more wants to go up into it, the usual thing is for the highest to announce on 130.4 first. The next will generally either go away altogether, or leave at least 500 feet vertical separation before following, after which both call out heights at frequent intervals. It happens so rarely that incidents are almost unknown.

The only one in the UK that I recall was about 30 years ago. Two were in the same cloud, one using 1:250,000 chart for reference to a small village or something for position, the other a 1:500,000 chart and position relative to a different, larger ground feature, both calling out heights as they knew they were in the same part of the country. Eventually one realised they were actually in the same cloud and left, colliding with the other on the way. Both survived, and the BGA then adopted the practice I outlined above.

As I have posted before, power pilots who get excited about the collision risk with gliders are focussing on the least of our and their collision problems. Most power collisions are with the ground, i.e. CFIT. Those with other flying things are mostly with other power. GA power/glider collisions are the least frequent of all - only about 3 in the UK in the last 30 years, at least one of which was in the circuit of a gliding site which the power pilot infringed, and another was between glider and tug from the same site in that site's circuit area.

Most glider collision are with other gliders. Those with powered aircraft included the one mentioned above, i.e. with a glider tug from the same site as the glider. The least frequent type is one with a powered aircraft nothing to do with gliding, i.e. in the same 3 at most, I believe, in 30 years, all in clear air, the most notorious being a Rockwell flying straight into the back of a glider flying straight and level in his 12 o'clock.

Chris N.

Edited to add "from a collision viewpoint" in the first line. Cloud flying by the unskilled is certainly dangerous from a loss of control viewpoint.

[TheBeeKeeper]

I believe it to be pretty harsh when thinking about gliding competitions. How can it ever be a level playing field if say 5% of the grid would be prepared to take a cloud climb in order to fly across 'the big blue hole in the sky' to roar home and win the day?

Additionally, it's not really a problem in this country as we rarely get a (cu) cloudbase above 6000ft, however gliderpilots elsewhere have been wearing devices on the tip of a finger to measure the concentration of oxygen in the blood. On the principle that if they stay above about 95% they are fine to coninue climbing..... many of them upto 12500 even 14000ft.

I have recently done a hypobaric chamber run to these hights as an experiment. If something happens to cause stress and potentially hyperventilation (maybe you thought you saw another glider in the cloud), you feel all the symptoms of going hypoxic. I am sure the decision making process will be impared and the whole fact that you are up there without oxygen is highly dangerous!

As for competition, I believe there should be formal BGA training to fly in cloud, or all should be banned from doing so.

TBK

[Final 3 Greens]

ChrisN
As I have posted before, power pilots who get excited about the collision risk with gliders are focussing on the least of our and their collision problems. Some perhqps, but not me.

Many people chase storms and many people hand feed sharks. Few are killed or even injured.

All, again IMHO, are very low probability:high severity risks, so it is unlikley to happen, but if it does..........

Just because it has never happened does not mean it will not (or that it will in the near future.)

Anyway, glider pilots can legally cloud fly, so thats the end of the debate for me.

[Nimbus265]

I believe it to be pretty harsh when thinking about gliding competitions. How can it ever be a level playing field if say 5% of the grid would be prepared to take a cloud climb in order to fly across 'the big blue hole in the sky' to roar home and win the day?

The debate of whether cloud flying or not should be included in competitions is a debate which has been on going for a few years, and has yet to be resolved for international competitions...the debate continues. In the UK however it is still allowed, on the whole, for regional and national competitions.

If we therefore assume that it is legal, and allowed (as it is in the UK), we can turn to your comment about a level playing field.

100% of any grid are allowed (by law) to cloud fly. If that they have the aptitude, training, ac mandatory requirements and the desire to do so - then they can. For those of us who fly competitions regularly and wish to increase on National ratings or get higher up the leader board, then cloud climbing may prove one strategy that may just enable you to do so. But there really are such few occasions when you would actually do so. There’s nothing to stop any pilot on any grid acquiring the wherewithal and the skills for cloud climbing should he/she so desire. So it remains a level playing field. I just consider it another tool in the toolbox, which I can bring out when I need to.

In terms of danger, as anyone on who flies regularly in a regional or national competition will tell you, there is significantly more ‘danger’ in flying in a highly competitive gaggle of 30/40/50 gliders at the start of any stream launch multi class competition, than there is in cloud flying. But again, good airmanship, sensibility and innate responsibility to the safety of yourself and the others around you typically ensures that the collusions are very few and far between.

In respect of TheBeeKeepers comments on a formal syllabus for cloudy flying – I do agree. I maintain a currency in this respect through the use of blackout screens flying from the rear seat of a K21, with a competent and current BGA Full Cat sat up front, who also happens to have an IMC instructor rating (amongst others). Some form of similar guideline or recommended practice should be issued by the BGA.

[dublinpilot]

Well, that's something I never knew!

Is it burried in the AIP somewhere, or are gliders exempt from the AIP?

I take it from the posts here, that there is on further training or qualification necessary for a glider to enter cloud. ie no glider Instrument Rating? Obviously you'd want some form of training, but am I correct in my understanding that none is legally required?

Is there any other group of people who can enter cloud without an instrument rating?

Just curious

[ShyTorque]

The truth is that GA pilots transitting under IFR & in IMC in Class G airspace are highly unlikely to be listening out for gliders on 130.4. In fact I don't know of anyone who routinely does this. In general there are more appropriate frequencies, on which one can obtain either a RIS or FIS, depending on the circumstances.

Our company requires us to obtain such a service so we are always in contact with the local ATC unit. If our track takes us close to an ATZ, the published frequency for that goes on VHF box 2 so we are likely to be already working two frequencies. We are otherwise required to listen out on 121.5.

We are infrequently but very pleasantly surprised to hear glider pilots advising ATC of their presence, which seems a very sound idea, bearing in mind that most gliders don't show up well on radar and don't carry a transponder.

I can understand that a glider pilot flying in very close proximity to others might consider 130.4 the best frequency to use. However, whilst operating in an area where GA aircraft are likely to be transitting, it is in everyones best interest for the glider pilot to consider making contact with the appropriate ATC unit, to enable them to warn other pilots of their presence and allow some sort of co-ordination to take place.

Although CFIT accidents are more common (the ground is EVERYWHERE, so it's not too surprising) a mid-air is often just as fatal to all concerned.

[Red Chilli]

Completely agree with ST, I find it a little unnerving that I could be flying the correct quadrantal level under IFR in IMC minding my own business and get hit by some gliding bod spiralling up in the cloud in a completely indiscriminate fashion simply because he feels like it! Is it me, or is there perhaps a need for a bit more rigour when it comes to the combination of gliding and IMC? Surely there should be an obligation to announce on the most appropriate GA freq. (which may or may not be obvious I grant) that he is a non powered aircraft 'overhead x, intending to spiral climb into IMC etc....' at least we could all divert and get half a chance. Or maybe gliders should stay in VMC unless they squawk and talk to ATC etc?

[bletchleytugie]

Quote:
Surely there should be an obligation to announce on the most appropriate GA freq. (which may or may not be obvious I grant) that he is a non powered aircraft 'overhead x, intending to spiral climb into IMC etc....'

An interesting point and well presented, there is however one small problem. How many glider pilots hold a valid R/T licence to broadcast on a non gliding frequency? Perhaps Chris N would like to comment.

Regards

Bletchleytugie

[chrisN]

Re RT licences, I don't know, but the numbers are growing, I believe.

Chris N.

[Blinkz]

Most glider pilots I know would be more then happy to get a R/T licence, the main thing that stops them is that they have to learn so much that just isn't needed for them.

Ideally it would be great to have a seperate R/T licence for glider pilots that will focus on what they need, making it mandatory would be even better. Problem then of course is that gliders then have to all carry radios that cost money, and they have to be powered etc etc.

[Final 3 Greens]

Most glider pilots I know would be more then happy to get a R/T licence, the main thing that stops them is that they have to learn so much that just isn't needed for them. Everyone who uses RT needs to understand all of it, there is nothing that in the RT syllabus they do not need to know, since comprehension of other users transmissions depends on a broad awareness.

[Nimbus265]

Most of your points regarding RT are perfectly valid, and to be quite honest I don't know what the answer is.

If glider pilots wish to fly x-country regularly, then I would agree that holding an R/T license would be desirable - it is not currently essential or mandated. Whether EASA will change the rules in the future is open to debate, along with the same debate surrounding gliders being fitted with transponders. There is no moral argument against the use of transponders for instance; the practicalities of supplying sufficient power to a transponder on an aircraft that does not generate its own electrical power, is the practicality that must be overcome on this one.

As it currently stands, many glider pilots are happy to fly within the local gliding airfield area, and rarely fly or venture cross country (or until they have progressed to a point where this is something that they wish to do). Consequently, for these pilots there is no real need to know more than the basics to operate from their local field, which for the majority of clubs in the UK, operate on one of the dedicated gliding R/T frequencies. I fly regularly in the US in open FIR, and the same rules apply with respect to a ‘radio operators license’ there.

I for one, got my R/T license before my PPL, and subsequently am more than happy to advise local ATC of my position when flying x-country. Equally, class D zone transition or penetration requires the use of non-gliding assigned R/T frequencies, and therefore holding a valid R/T license is a prerequisite if you wish to fly in those controlled airspaces which gliders are allowed to fly.

If you want to see the current laws and rules pertaining to gliding, with relative extracts from the ANO then go here: BGA Laws and Rules 15th Edition (http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/documents/Edition15final.pdf)

[ShyTorque]

If a glider pilot wants to fly in the vicinity of a published glider field, which sensible GA pilots do avoid, then I don't see much of a problem with remaining on the glider frequencies or non-radio operations.

However, if a glider pilot wants to venture further afield, I think for his own safety (and everyone else's) he needs to consider the bigger picture before he goes flying in cloud without advertising his presence to others.

"Problem then of course is that gliders then have to all carry radios that cost money, and they have to be powered etc etc."

I really don't consider this to be a valid argument these days.

A hand held ICOM transceiver with a rechargeable battery costs about the same as four fill-ups of a car petrol tank. A lightweight gel type motorcycle battery could be used to prolong the battery life for soaring or cross country flights, at very little weight penalty.

As the old saying goes, "If you think flight safety is expensive; just try having an accident!"

Fly safe! :ok:

[robin]

Red Chilli

>>>>I find it a little unnerving that I could be flying the correct quadrantal level under IFR in IMC minding my own business and get hit by some gliding bod spiralling up in the cloud in a completely indiscriminate fashion simply because he feels like it<<<

and I find it unnerving when flying VFR along a line feature keeping to the rules of the air, but some twit flying a GPS route comes head on at me because he says to himself that he is navigating en-route by following the moving map.

If you are under IFR in IMC you are quite likely to be in receipt of a service who will let you know of even small traffic in your vicinity. It happens to me when on a FIS in VFR conditions.

As an ex-glider pilot, I still hold to the view that no-one has absolute priority. After all the ATCO will be the only one at the Board of Enquiry.

[Nimbus265]

Er... I think you missed the point ShyTorque...

99% of all gliders are fitted with radios; those radios, almost without exception, operate across the full Air frequency bands. Those that aren't, are normally old vintage aircraft which are very unlikely to fly x-country.

Most tranceivers are designed to draw as little current as possible when on TX/RX thereby providing maximum endurance for the battery or batteries. (Typically up to 8 hours)

The issue is regarding fitting a transponder not a tranceiver. Transponders consume significantly more power than a typical glider tranceiver, and the additional electrical load would significantly reduce overall endurance, without the need to add additional batteries (which add weight/Cof G changes etc). Most gliders are fitted with a single 12V7AH battery; some have 14V 7AH; some have a reserve.

When you consider that it is possible to fly distances of 500kms cross-country, with durations over 8 hours, then the overall electrical load needs to be as low as practicable to ensure sufficiant power is available at the end of a flight.

Once you start adding GPS systems, horizons (which can draw 1.5A on start and 1A in a steady state), Mode C transponders etc then electrical endurance for these long flights (where you may be more reliant on additional instruments) does becomes a issue.

You also stated that:

However, if a glider pilot wants to venture further afield, I think for his own safety (and everyone else's) he needs to consider the bigger picture before he goes flying in cloud without advertising his presence to others


As both myself and other posters have already pointed out; cloud flying is the exception not the norm. It's not done every time you fly ouside of gliding range of an airfield as you would seem to intimate. And as already mentioned in this thread, it is standard practice to call before, during and leaving cloud, when you do enter it using the en-route frequency and cloud flying frequencies.

The majority of the time we fly in Open FIR, not under control of an ATC - I'm not sure that there are too many other frequency options available?

Glider pilots just don't fly cross country willy-nilly and I can assure you we are more than aware of the bigger picture.

Before a glider pilot can even begin to fly x-country he or she requires compentancy and endorsement (At least 2 successful approaches into fields; planned and flown a triangular task of at least 100km (in a glider, motorglider or light aircraft) and having already passed examinations on airmanship, meteorology, principles of flight, radiotelephony and navigation).

[shortstripper]

Chilli ... Like robin, your post I find it a little unnerving that I could be flying the correct quadrantal level under IFR in IMC minding my own business and get hit by some gliding bod spiralling up in the cloud in a completely indiscriminate fashion simply because he feels like it left me feeling a bit hot!

Surely outside controlled airspace, you have no more right to be in IMC than any other person legally allowed to do so? Why are you flying IFR in IMC? is it simply because you feel like it ? or is it an aid to your goal (getting from A-B). Perhaps the glider pilot is using it to aid his or her goal (distance record perhaps). If you're not happy get an IR and fly in class A. Apart from crossing under permission there be no gliders there!

SS

[Final 3 Greens]

ShortstripperPerhaps the glider pilot is using it to aid his or her goal (distance record perhaps). If you're not happy get an IR and fly in class A. Apart from crossing under permission there be no gliders there! How do you suggest that BA continue their service into Newcastle then?

I am sure that the professionals will be able to confirm many other instances of commercial traffic being unable to make a whole journey in controlled airspace, let alone class A.

Gliding in clouds will continue to be legal, until a serious incident happens and the debris lands in full sight of her Majesty's Press. After that, I wouldn't be surprised to see a rapid change of the laws.

Then again, due to the low probability of two aircraft occupying the same piece of cloud at the same time, it could be a considerable time until this happens.

[ShyTorque]

Nimbus,

I haven't missed that point at all, but I hadn't noticed that transponders were being discussed until you mentioned the subject.

That's a different, even more contentious issue; I thought someone might mention it before this discussion was over.

I certainly DON'T think that gliders fly in cloud for more than a short while to gain height in a particular cloud. I'm not sure why you think I intimated that because it certainly wasn't my meaning. (Read that paragraph again - the word BEFORE is the clue).

We carry TCAS and it's an excellent safety aid, in all regimes of flight. We've heard the arguments about lack of sufficient electrical power in gliders for transponders before, which I do accept to some extent, but I think it could be overcome if there was a will (or mandate) to do so.

However, the main point of my contribution was about some glider pilots not even wanting to gain an R/T licence, and speak to ATC, let alone spend money on equipment!

Even in good VMC gliders can be notoriously difficult to see; in IMC it's a complete lottery if there is no co-ordination. I really can't understand the mentality of any pilot who pronounces: "I have a right to be here, I expect you to avoid me because the ANO says so, but don't expect ME to do anything to help YOU keep all of us safe!

That's what I meant when I referred to "the big picture".

I can give one example of how a conflict (or worse) might occur in Class G:

It's a hazy day, end of summer.
A GA aircraft is transitting towards London, VFR, in class G airspace to the east of Coventry at 2500 feet QNH and 145 kts. Coventry ATC is contacted because the track crosses the approach to runway 23, and a FIS is requested. The ATC response is a request for the aircraft to climb to 3,000ft QNH to give separation on a 737, inbound to runway 23. The Coventry conspicuity code of 0256 is selected as requested by ATC. The aircraft begins a climb and becomes marginal VMC shortly after level off, passing in and out of cloud. The crew advise ATC that they are changing to IFR and are climbing to the correct quadrantal of 3,500 ft. ATC identifies the aircraft via a position report off the DTY and upgrades the service to a RIS. All very well, separation is believed to have been achieved.

HOWEVER! In that same cloud, at FL 35 also, is a glider on a cross-country flight, not talking to anyone, not transponder equipped and not appearing on Coventry's radar........ :uhoh:

There's another glider, in the cloud, with a 737 approaching at 250 kts, in the descent from behind.......

It's potentially out there, waiting to happen, not just near Cov. If an IMC collision occurred, which pilot might be held to blame? Probably the powered aircraft pilot, if only the word of the ANO is considered.

On the other hand, most sensible folks wouldn't even consider crossing the road or loitering in it without looking, especially after dark whilst wearing dark clothing, even on a pedestrian crossing. What's the difference?

[Nimbus265]

Having just checked with my local ATC; most gliders actually do show up on primary radar, and the higher they climb, the better the return! Should show up on Coventry's then?

[windy1]

Interesting thread, but so far mostly about why, how, ATC, conflicts, and whether good or bad idea.
But I am intrigued by what this says about pilot training and qualifications. Power pilots are advised to treat cloud with the greatest respect, given 4 hrs of IF training, told about 180 degree turns and train on aircraft with at least an AI. We are advised to get an IMC asap and then only use it in an emergency. We are always reading about people who "lost it" in cloud.

So can someone explain how glider pilots manage with minimal training, minimal instrumentation and hardly ever seem to come to grief?

[Nimbus265]

So can someone explain how glider pilots manage with minimal training, minimal instrumentation and hardly ever seem to come to grief?

I like the change in direction on this thread!

I fly both power and glider; I'm an instructor on the latter.

I don't know that there is a definative answer but one thing, I have learned through experience, is how differently glider pilots are attuned to the attitude of the aircraft by feel, rather than instruments.

I can detect changes in speed as low as 5 kts by reference to the noise in the cockpit and attitude - not by looking at the ASI. My bum (through the seat) can feel a change in attitude and lift, before the instruments have time to respond. Consequently I can maintain a constant (ish) airspeed, without reference to the ASI; and that helps significantly in maintaining a constant attitude in cloud (or anywhere else)

Glider pilots learn to recognise the symptoms of the stall through feel and take the appropraite action - the stick goes forward. Flying in a tight thermal with fully flaps 45 degrees of bank, I am close to the stall: If I Sense, ease forward on the stick - carry on flying; no electrical stall warnings - just sense:

I don't need a T&S to tell me when I'm slipping or skiddiing when flying gliders - I have a yaw string.

With 15-20 meters of wing, I can tell (normally) on which side of the glider the strongest lift is, through my seat.

When flying cross country, even though I fly on QNH, I don't know the height of the ground, and hardley ever look at the altimeter when landing out in a field (its all done by eye)

(if fact the cross-country endorsement requires you to do field landings with the altimeter covered up/offset)

The basic controls of a glider and a power aircraft are the same: stick goes forward - cows get bigger.

Heads outs of the cockpit, a constant lookout; not looking at the instruments and flying intuatively all help.

But I think thats where the similarity ends; glider pilots are IMHO far more intune with the aircraft that power pilots, and maybee that has something to do with it?

[ShyTorque]

Nimbus,

As your friendly ATCO said, MOST gliders show up on radar, but from experience they might NOT. In any event, these days the UK doesn't have full LARS coverage. For example, Coventry can't always provide a radar service and some military radar units stand down during holiday periods.

Even where radar coverage IS available, a primary contact could be anything from ground clutter to airways traffic. Some radar units don't have secondary radar, Coventry being one example.

If an aircraft painting only a primary contact on radar isn't in contact with ATC (or not transponding mode C) there is no way of them knowing its altitude, whether it is IMC or VMC below and certainly no certain way of knowing if the contact is a glider.

This is a flight safety issue equally affecting all of us. It would be better if we all worked together in such cases, not adopt an unhelpful "us and them" attitude. If an accident were to occur in these circumstances, legislation might well be used to prevent a recurrence........ GA already carries radios, transponders and often TCAS and speaks to ATC, so where do you think any legislation would be aimed?

Or do you have an alternative solution to the concept of a glider pilot simply making a radio call to ATC? :confused:

I note your comments about glider pilots being more in tune with their aircraft. Can you also sense a 737 coming along behind you at 250 kts in the same cloud?

[englishal]

Personnally I think that anyone who flies in IMC should be equipped with a Mode C or better transponder........Whether it be a glider, a Cub or 737......Preferably in receipt of a radar service.

[Final 3 Greens]

I note your comments about glider pilots being more in tune with their aircraft. Can you also sense a 737 coming along behind you at 250 kts in the same cloud? only for the last foot! Ouch!Glider pilots learn to recognise the symptoms of the stall through feel and take the appropraite action - the stick goes forward Are you suggesting that power pilots don't? An electric stall warner goes off 5-10 knots BEFORE the stall break, therefore one learns to recongise buffet, sloppy controls etc .... if you didn't, I'd ask for a partial refund from your instructor ;) And by the way, most Cessna singles don't have an electric stall warner anyway.

[rustle]

There was also the fatal - AA5 out of Elstree with glider - accident/collision was near Wescott in the 1990s. VMC/VFR.

[chrisN]

I knew of one GA/glider accident over a gliding site, which sounds like WR's example, but not the other. Without more details it would take me ages going through old reports to find out for certain.

If Rustle and WR are both right, that makes 4 power/glider collisions in my 35 years of gliding (rather than 3 as I thought), including 1 glider tug/glider, the Rockwell/Cirrus I mentioned, and these two.

None in cloud.

I have no more wish to encounter something in cloud than anyone else, but it is the least likely source of collision, for power or gliders, based on density of flying things in types of air/where most things are/actual accident statistics etc.. I think I am more likely to have a collision in VMC than in cloud, because most gliders and GA is there, and we know that the eyeball is only partly effective. I have had far more close calls with other gliders at the heights we normally fly than with power in class G. So has every other glider pilot I have ever discussed it with.

If transponders and TCAS-type solutions were universally available and the power and package problems were solved, I personally would have one. As I have written before on similar threads, the glider (old, wood, no water ballast - a Ka6E if you want to know) I was flying until last July was already at maximum weight with its existing battery and instruments, and its panel was full. No way to get a transponder in.

My new one has a hole in the panel ready for a transponder, I await the CAA-inspired LAST with eager anticipation, and I am working on the battery storage problem.

It will do nothing to help significantly until there is a TCAS-type solution in every GA aeroplane. Once every glider is squawking, ATC will switch them off when they see over 1000 gliders in southern England, sometimes as many as 40 in one thermal. Transponders are mandatory in Holland, and it is mandatory to switch them off under the Amsterdam TMA because they clutter the ATC screens too much. With Mode S, ATC will selectively "switch off" their reception rather than making the gliders switch them off, but the effect for ATC will be the same. Only TCAS will pick them up and take away one source of conflict.

If anyone seriously thinks ATC could today cope with 1000 gliders all telling their positions, constantly changing heights and directions, and sorting out potential conflicts either with the other gliders or with passing GA in class G, please try to get at least 10 ATCO's onto this thread by random selection (i.e. not pre-biassed one way or the other) of whom at least 8 agree that they could handle it.

Last time I called Essex Radar, to warn them that they were working a powered aircraft round Stansted zone in class G who was telling them he could see no gliders, straight over Ridgewell gliding site, towards me over Haverhill, they would not talk to me when I tried to tell them I was manoeuvring in his 12 o'clock -- too busy. That was just one glider trying to communicate. You really think they could cope with say 50-100 in East Anglia, several hundred from Lasham/Booker/Dunstable etc., several hundred more from other clubs?

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

[Final 3 Greens]

ChrisNNone in cloud. This is not an indicator of the risk severity.

That is calculated by Probability x Impact (no pun intended.)

So, if the prob is 0.01 (ie 1/100th of a percent) x 100 (on a scale of 100), the severity will be 1, i.e very low indeed.

However, all we have proven is the limitation of of quantitative analysis, since qualitative risk analysis (as demonstrated by ShyTorque) illustrates the potential risk scenarios and how they can occur.

It then becomes a matter of taking a view.

Presently, it is legal to cloud climb in gliders, which suggests that the lawmakers take a view that the severity is very low.

But, and it is a big but IMHO, the laws were drafted years ago in an era where there was less traffic movements and some might argue that this should be considered.

As we tend to plan to fight the last war, we end up with a status quo and this is usually broken by an incident that compells us to take notice.

One argument is that cloud climbing is justifiable, whereas a contrary point of view would be that stopping cloud climbing would break a link in a particular accident chain.

However, glider pilots are entitled to climb in clouds and the4 rest of us must hope that they do so with skill and discretion.

[Nimbus265]

Are you suggesting that power pilots don't? An electric stall warner goes off 5-10 knots BEFORE the stall break, therefore one learns to recongise buffet, sloppy controls etc .... if you didn't, I'd ask for a partial refund from your instructor And by the way, most Cessna singles don't have an electric stall warner anyway.

I'm not suggesting that at all, and perhaps I should have phrased that slightly differently. I'd reitterate that I fly both power and gliders and can see both sides of the argument.

What I was driving at is that IMHO glider pilots are more sensitive to changes in small attitudes through feel than power pilots, and this may be because on average glider pilots are exposed to greater ranges of the aircrafts flight envelope - and this may in some part answer Windy1's last question.

A glider is just a different type of flying machine, but it needs a different set of skills to fly it. The generalised style of flying is also very different. When I fly GA I generally taxi, take off, transit to somewhere on a pre-determined course at a fixed speed and land again, with minimal risk of a PFL. Generally I don't deviate too much from planned course and if I can avoid it, don't go anywhere near the stall, VNE or make 60 degree banked turns - I don't lke pulling much G either. (Perhaps I'm a boring power pilot!!)

Totally different when I'm flying gliders; I'm happy to spend an hour or 2 flying cross-country, or staying locally and never being outside of gliding range of the airfield. To spend 2 hours locally and never go anywhere far, means that you use the time flying gliders very differently to that of a powered aircraft; by their design and the way that they are flown, glider pilots are therefore exposed to a greater percentage of the flight envelope and become more atuned to the aircraft sensitivities:

Thermalling to stay up (at various bank angles and G loadings)/ various techniques to increase the rate of climb (near to or beyond the stall!) practicing inter-thermal flying, aerobatics etc are all 'the norm' and just to use the time up I'll throw in a normal stall, hammer head stall, mushing stall, high G stall - then find some lift, climb away, go and do some spinning then finish the flight with a sideslipped landing into the undershoot for good measure... and why not? - its just different.


It's also worth mentioning that the ETPS course have for the past few years included a week of gliding in the course, to enable the ETPS students to understand how different a glider is when compared to a normal aircraft, how much more of the flight envelope a glider uses, and how a different set of skills are needed to fly one.

[shortstripper]

I often wonder with these sort of "dangerous gliders" threads, just what some on here would really like? It almost seems a case of "If we can't do it, why should they?" .... "best try to make enough noise to bring them into line eh?"

Or am I just being too cynical? :suspect:

SS

[rustle]

If Rustle and WR are both right, that makes 4 power/glider collisions in my 35 years of gliding (rather than 3 as I thought), including 1 glider tug/glider, the Rockwell/Cirrus I mentioned, and these two.chrisN I know you weren't suggesting it wasn't true, but HERE'S (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_502371.pdf) the accident report for the one I mentioned -- 1996.

[Final 3 Greens]

ShortstripperI often wonder with these sort of "dangerous gliders" threads, just what some on here would really like? It almost seems a case of "If we can't do it, why should they?" .... "best try to make enough noise to bring them into line eh?" With the very greatest of respect, I think that this is one of the most asinine comments I have read for some time.

What we have on this thread is, IMHO, a constructive discussion between some glider pilots (some or all of whom also fly power) and two commercial pilots who are expressing their reasonable concerns about the practice of cloud climbing.

Let's repeat it, THEY CAN LEGALLY CLOUD CLIMB, no one is saying that they shouldn't. Personally, I have never fancied flying in IMC and do not envy glider pilots their privilege.

Like flying a light single at night, cloud climbing causes a potential risk and pilots like ShyTorque, whose opinions I respect, are sharing the reasons why they are concerned.

ShyTorque says "This is a flight safety issue equally affecting all of us. It would be better if we all worked together in such cases, not adopt an unhelpful "us and them" attitude"

What could be more reasonable and less like your assertion?

With regard to the perception of risk, I also used to own three pistols and shoot in competitions, until my mindset was altered by Hungerford and I withdrew from the sport. After Dunblane, the government altered the law and a formerly respectable sport suffered from the severe restriction of gun ownership.

Yet the risk of being killed by a licensed gun was still statistically very low. Very often it is the perception of government and/or society that drives the qualitative analysis of risk and leads to conclusions that some feel are fair and others feel are unfair.

If a cloud climbing glider collided with a 737, per one of ShyTorque's scenarios, then I bet the law would change overnight, hopefully that thesis willnever be tested.

For your information, I am an ex glider pilot, as well as a PPL.

Nimbus

I do understand what you are saying and glider pilots are definitely better at using the footrests, err whoops, I mean rudder pedals ;)

[chrisN]

Rustle, thanks for the link, which I have now saved. I now realise that my memory is primarily of collisions fatal to the glider pilot(s), which I believe power/glider collisions usually are. The one you pointed out was fatal for the power pilot and for some reason had not lodged in my RAM.

It was another case of power-flying-into-the-back-of-the- glider, both flying straight, in VMC.

None of my comments should be taken as dismissing dangers, nor of suggesting that power pilots are more likely to fly into the back of things than glider pilots. We all suffer from the fallibility of the eye, attention spans, etc.. I have written before, and still firmly believe, that only technology is going to make much difference, i.e. the poorman's TCAS - at least a proximity alert, preferably one indicating distance and direction of a threat within roughly the same height band. And it needs everyone to have the sender and the receiver to be fully effective, though the chances of avoiding collision will be improved with increasing levels of take-up. I am far from convinced that transponders are the entire answer, but if most people had them at least the heavy metal could avoid gliders and other GA (much of the non-glider GA also lacks any or all of radios, transponders, and paints on primary radar).

None of these will help the 40th glider avoid the other 39 in a thermal - only the eyeball, and airmanship using existing guidance for good thermalling practice can do that, I believe. Just as something similar will be the only way power in close formation, air-air photography etc., will avoid collisions in that sphere.

Meanwhile, the greatest danger to me of a collision is with another glider, in VMC, based on accident figures, incidents I and others have experienced, and my own analysis and judgement of the various scenarios and the relative lengths of time I am exposed to them.

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

[Phororhacos]

I was walking the dogs on Devil's Dyke (nr Shoreham for the uninitiated) last Sunday and I thought I saw one of the paragliders climb up into the low cloud above the ridge.

Are these allowed to cloud fly? I didn't see him come back down through the cloud but I must admit I wasn't really paying attention as I was being followed by a rather belligerent looking sheep at the time.

[englishal]

Here is a conversation I had with a LARS unit a couple of years ago:

"Traffic 1 O'clock, 3 miles,opposite direction, a Bonanza at FL45 under my control, multiple targets 12 O'clock, 4 miles, no height information, could be gliders or ground clutter"

I was IFR in IMC with a RIS (obviously), and not near a gliding site. My rational was "ok, the Bonanza is under his control, so I will maintain altitude and heading and all will be ok. Could be gliders ahead, but I'm not near a gliding site on the chart, so it is probably spurious echos. Besides I am in IMC and likely that if it is gliders, they will be below the cloud base with is a good 1000' below"

It WAS gliders, as I passed over the "echos" the cloud was breaking and I could see them below me. Possibly had I known at the time that gliders could legally enter IMC then I may have thought a bit harder about the concequences. I didn't know that gliders could enter IMC, but a reasonable assumption, and it is clear that I am not the only one who didn't know ("clear of cloud and in sight of the ground" I seem to remember from air law).

I have no problem with gliders being allowed in IMC, from a qualification point of view (they can do what they like as far as I am concerned - though I don't think a glider pilot is any better at surviving the "Leans" than a powered pilot seeing as its a physiological thing you can't be "trained" out of), though I really don't want to run into anything at 120 Kts especially as I don't wear a parachute!

I appreciate the problem with 1000 gliders sqwarking, though couldn't they use one code, then ATC could have told me "Gliders 12 O'clock 4 miles, no height information" and I would have definitely altered course......

Cheers

[Red Chilli]

Robin, Shortstripper - absolutely no intention to offend, it was simply news to me (and I'm sure it would be to a lot of power folks) that whilst flying along in IMC I might meet a glider. I am not saying I have any more 'right' to be there than your goodselves, just a bit shocked that having just spent thousands of pounds, sat an exam and flight test and then following the procedures to the best of my ability, I could still encounter an aircraft that would not be flying a quadrantal level or even talking to anyone :confused: Doesn't make any sense to me and I was just suggesting a simple way of helping the situation.

An enlightening thread - I'm in agreement with englishal, ST etc. I do appreciate your problems re: kit, number of aircraft etc. but feel we must work together for the safety of all concerned. So how can we crack it? To avoid a myriad of transmissions could the gliding club simply inform ATC re: activity and likely cloud climbs? This info could then be relayed via the FIS/RIS etc.

As an aside, last year my climbing buddy and I had finished a session in the High Sierras with a number of days to spare. 'Let's try gliding' says I, so Ron and I went to Truckee Soaring and had a thoroughly good time, quite an art I thought, finishing with a hammerhead for good measure :ok:

[windy1]

Nimbus 265

I must respect your capabilities, but PPL training tells us the earhole and backside cannot be depended upon when the eyes are out of the loop. Recall the party trick of standing on one leg with eyes closed and falling over after a minute, and the Instructor telling us to shut eyes just before recoveries from u/p's. I've tried that CAA revolving chair and that did for me as well.

If these misleading sensations can be ovecome by being more intimately in tune with the machine, maybe power pilots should go up high, chop the power and practice some gliding to get used to those subtle sounds and sensations.

[Nimbus265]

Windy1, thats exactly the reason why it's been included in the ETPS course. Ever tried it?

[ShyTorque]

Shortstripper,

Please make no mistake, my only agenda here is to live long enough to collect my pension.

I have absolutely no objection to gliders in clouds, as long as I can avoid flying through the same cloud at the same height!

I too would reconsider my "collision avoidance plan", such as in my Coventry example, if I knew for certain there were gliders ahead and some of them might be in cloud. A radio call from just one of "the swarm" to ATC would be enough to alert everyone. So PLEASE do it!

BTW, I'm an ex glider pilot, too - that's where I began flying. Went solo at RAF Swanton Morley thirty four years ago.

[Nimbus265]

All national, and regional competitions in the UK, as well as some inter-club league competitions are NOTAM'd.

Any decent task setter worth their salt generally sets tasks away from areas of potential heavy traffic, and routes are normally set with good horizontal seperation from controlled airspace. Airspace infringements are another topic altogether!

It's very unlikely that in any field of say 40 glider that any more than the odd one or two, will take or risk a cloud climb, and thats only if the conditions are right. As I have said in earlier posts, it really is the exception - rather than the norm.

A system called FLARM has been introduced on the continent, which is aimed at providing a collision avoidance system for light GA and gliders.

It uses integrated I-band tranceivers and GPS to provide visual and audio feedback on aircraft on collision courses (360 degrees). Unfortunately, as I understand it, the frequencies used for FLARM, are allocated for other purposes in the UK. I for one would fully support such a scheme in the UK, given the relatively low cost.http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html

[henry crun]

Philip Wills competed in the 1956 world gliding championships, and tells of being one of 25 gliders in the same cu-nim. :D

[shortstripper]

F3G's

I too am an ex-glider pilot and once the kids are grown will be again. I've just seen so many of these threads on various forums and there are always some that come across in the way I described. To be fair, this thread is developing a bit more sensibily than most, so forgive me for being too cynical. After all that is what I asked (tounge in cheek) "am I being too cynical?"

SS

[jayemm]

This thread is a real eye-opener. I did not know that it was legal for gliders to fly into cloud. As a PPL who flies in IMC often I have always assumed like englishal that provided I was clear of the cloudbase there was no risk of encountering a glider in cloud. I am not clear how to respond to this new information!

Presumably it doesn't really matter whether you are a glider pilot or powered pilot, any venture into cloud risks collision with another aircraft. The difference for gliders is that they will not have a radar service. Does this mean that there is a greater risk of gliders colliding with one another?

I am trying to work out how I would manage flying in IMC differently/better with this knowledge. Do the instructors on this thread have any suggestions?

[ShyTorque]

Jayemm,

There is no easy answer. That's why the glider pilots need to consider speaking on an ATC frequency to advertise their presence. Otherwise it's a lottery, albeit one where you don't want your number to come up! :\

[Final 3 Greens]

being one of 25 gliders in the same cu-nim Anyone who flies in CBs for fun needs certifying, IMHO :E

[ProfChrisReed]

I'm (cautiously) practising cloud flying in my glider.

ShyTorque suggests that I call an ATC frequency, and I'd be happy to do so - but which one? And how often?

So far as I know, all the glider collisions in cloud have been with other gliders, and they appear to have been in competitions prior to the mid-late 1970s when cloud flying seems to have been much more popular - this is (I think) because the lower-performing wooden gliders benefitted much more from cloud climbs than modern glass machines.

My biggest risk (and the biggest risk I create) seems to be from/to other gliders, so I need to monitor and call on 130.4, which is the BGA-allocated cloud flying frequency.

I could call ATC when about to enter cloud, but as I'll only be cloud climbing in class G airspace I'd like to know who to call. Near my home club the obvious candidate would be Lakenheath, but would this lead to powered a/c being alerted if in the area?

In other words, if you're flying IMC in class G airspace, who would be advising you about my activities?

[And, BTW, I don't think any (sane) glider pilot flies in CBs these days. Since we found out about wave, seriously high (say 10,000 ft plus) flying is done that way).

[chrisN]

Prof, best of luck if you want to call ATC first. Today I was listening out to Essex Radar for a while and heard the following:

A glider (from Wethersfield, I believe): Essex, Glider XXX
ATC: Glider XXX, stand by:

[Time passed. ATC talked to various airliners or whatever for several minutes]

Glider: Essex, Glider XXX standing by;
ATC: Glider XXX, I'll get back to you;

[Time passed. ATC talked to various airliners or whatever for several more minutes]

ATC: Glider XXX, pass your message;
Glider: [Unintelligible];

ATC: Glider XXX, I received only carrier wave, say again;
Glider: [Unintelligible];

ATC: Glider XXX, I received only carrier wave, stay out of controlled airspace.

I changed to 130.4 soon after, so I heard no more - I was going cloud flying between Stansted and Bury St. Edmunds, to get high enough to cross to Tibenham without descending into the Mildenhall/Lakenheath complex or needing to thermal near the extended centreline of any of their runways.

You asked which ATC to talk to. You could consider Essex, Lakenheath, or I suppose London Info. None will know all the others' traffic, I expect, none will know of other gliders, and if you try Essex they will almost certainly be too busy. Lakenheath was fairly busy today too (I listened out to them for a while when near their area). If you do try ATC, make sure you have a good radio and well-charged battery - I can't imagine it improves our credibility with them if we can't sustain transmissions like the chap today.

If you do cloud fly,. for goodness sake use 130.4 while doing it - as I have pointed out before, the biggest risk to a glider is another glider - and it might be me in that area!

I can't convince the power pilots on here (and I'm not going to try any more) that talking to ATC is impractical and anyway addresses the least of our risks. If you monitor Essex or Lakenheath for a bit, however, you will understand why I wrote earlier that if all gliders in East Anglia did so, they would be swamped.

By the way, the only powered aircraft I saw were in VMC, well below cloud. The closest was a few hundred metres away, at my height - about 1500 feet, just south of Ridgewell, and it looked like he had just flown over Ridgewell - where we were winch launching, and displaying the correct signal for what its worth. And they think we take risks!

Regards - Chris N.
============================

[Milt]

Gliding in Cloud in the 50s.

Extract from memoirs.

One Saturday afternoon at Farnborough I found myself sitting in the right seat of the ETPS Sedburg glider with Bill Bedford, the Harrier test pilot, in the left. Bill was an enthusiastic glider pilot and at the time held several British gliding records for height and distance. We released from an aero tow somewhere near Guildford under a growing cumulus cloud and were soon rapidly gaining height in the cloud. The air temperature kept reducing with increasing altitude and we began to wonder how much colder we could become before leaving the cloud.

The glider had a battery driven artificial horizon and direction indicator and Bill had been doing a good job with these instruments. But without us realising it initially, the battery was going flat and the AH started to lean over. Bill followed the AH until I noticed that the turn indicator was not making sense. Soon after we entered a steep spiral dive and speed rapidly increased. I watched in horror as the airspeed went on up over the red line speed of 92 Kts. Markings around the dial of the ASI were from 20 kts to 110 kts with a gap around the bottom 30 degrees of the dial. I watched the needle go around through the gap and continue until it was showing 25 Kts the second time around.

The airflow noise was very high and I was using both hands pulling on the air-brake lever with the feeling that if I pulled any harder I would break something. We hurtled out through the cloud base still well nose down and directly over the city of Guildford. Bill slowly brought the nose up and as the speed thankfully reduced we zoomed up to cloud base again. By now the AH was unusable and there was no way we were going to re-enter the cloud.

We recognised that we were now too low to glide upwind to Farnborough so Bill elected to try to glide downwind to the airfield at Dunsfold just visible in the distance. We hoped to be able to pick up some rising air on the way. Our gliding angle was obviously too high for us to reach Dunsfold directly so we headed off a little towards another cumulus hoping for some lift beneath it. But we were disappointed and realised that a forced landing was now most probable.

It was the time of the year when all of the wheat fields in the area were being harvested and there were bales of straw all over. We spotted a green field beyond a small forest and decided that this was to be our place to land. Having committed ourselves to this green field, there was then nowhere else to go. Alas we soon began to see that it was a wheat-field ready for harvesting.

I tightened my harness as much as possible expecting a sudden stop and that was just as well. Bill levelled off the glider just above the wheat and it brushed us loudly underneath. Eventually stalling we sank down into the wheat until our sight line was below the wheat. Suddenly the wings sank into the wheat and we stopped immediately with very rapid deceleration. The last foot or two was a vertical drop on to the ground with a teeth jarring crunch.

Suddenly all was silence except that in the distance we could hear a few people yelling to each other. We had disappeared from anyone's view and local observers all believed from the noise generated by our arrestment that we had severely crashed.

Bill and I looked at each other in relief and having assured ourselves that we were alright we climbed out to find that we were just tall enough to see over the top of the wheat. We carefully made our way along the rows of wheat in the general direction of a farm house not far away with Bill explaining that it would be normal for the farmer to extract compensation for that portion of his crop knocked down.

Soon we were being treated to a cup of tea in the farmhouse whilst curious locals turned up from all directions. Someone had reported a crash to police and soon several police cars approached. Two policeman turned up on bicycles. One came on a horse. Then came an ambulance and Bill was able to talk the ambulance crew into giving him a few swigs of medicinal brandy. The policemen were eager to help so we used them to help manhandle the wings off the glider and move them and the fuselage into the farmer's barn ready for retrieval next day.

All that remained was the completion of an incident report and a structural inspection of the glider for overstress. It was pronounced airworthy. Two weeks later it was used to give the Duke of Edinborough his first flight in a glider.

--------------------------------
Then there was the time when I was enjoying the challenges of glider flying in the ETPS Olympia over Farnborough seeing lots of green ball as I climbed in a growing Cu. Niggling buffet at the normal soaring speed gradually increased in intensity and demanded my attention. A quick glance away from the instruments was enough to see extensive ice accretion along a wing leading edge and around the nose. I could not believe that the extent of icing had not reduced the gliding capabilities of the Olympia to that of a brick.

Straightening up soon had me out of the side of the cloud, now with maximum red ball, plunging down to below freezing level. Big chunks of ice started to break away creating another hazzard and I was much relieved that none of the chunks hit the tail. It occurred to me that the chunks of ice were probably big enough to reach the ground so I endeavoured to avoid overflying built up areas for a while as I made my way back to Farnborough.

----------------------------------------
Then again in the Olympia in cloud over Farnborough I was startled to hear 4 engines with noisy props approaching. I wanted out of that cloud in a hurry but not soon enough before the roar of the close pass of an aircraft reached a crescendo and then slowly died away at about the same rate as the lowering of my racing heart pulse rate. I now wonder why I didn't roll over and pull through away from the approaching menace.

I am now cured of flying gliders in cloud!

[WorkingHard]

I have never flown a glider so would not comment on gliding but I have to say it was totally unknown to me that i may well meet a glider in IMC in the UK. I fly a fair amount of time in class G in IMC and always plan a route to get a LARS service for safety reasons. Now that I may encounter a glider in cloud (very rare I understand) which probably is not painting on radar, how do i plan my routes to be safets possible?

[Final 3 Greens]

ChrisN

If you persist in your current approach and attitude, I would not be surprised to find an article on the lines of the following in one of the tabloids somtime in the future.......

"Reckless Glider Pilots Endanger Airliners

By A. Reptile, Staff Writer

Passengers travelling on airliners expect the highest possible levels of safety and may assume that they are travelling in an environment where risks are reduced to the minimum.

However, research by the Daily Bugle shows that there is a serious risk to airliners, caused by a reckless minority of glider pilots who deliberately fly in clouds without establishing radio communications with air traffic control.

Airlines are equipped with electronic devices that show air traffic controllers where they are and what height they are flying at. When aircraft are flying in cloud, the pilots rely on air traffic controllers to instruct them where to fly safely.

However, some glider pilots refuse to talk to air traffic control, because they say that the rules do not oblige them to do this. They also decline to carry the electronic devices that allow air traffic controllers to track them like airliners, because they are said to be too expensive. Also, glider pilots do not have to train for an instrument rating to fly in clouds, unlike airline pilots, which we find amazing.

This means that your airline flight could be endangered by a reckless glider pilot and the Daily Bugle has discovered that the law currently allows no action to be taken against them.

The Bugle is starting a petition to change this archaic law, which dates back to times when there was a lot less air traffic than today and we encourage you to complete the coupon below and send it to us.

We will make sure that this petition is delivered to the Prime Minister and we will not remain silent on this issue until he takes positive action to close this legal loophole and bringing gliding under the control of the CAA, just like airlines are."

[Flap 5]

The main danger is between GA light aircraft and gliders. Being an airline pilot and a glider pilot I would say that the possibility of conflict between an airliner and a glider is minimal. Airliners usually climb rapidly through the lower levels and their departure routings are well known to glider pilots. However the Coventry approach scenario mentioned earlier is more likely where a GA aircraft is climbed to avoid a 737 with the potential conflict of the GA aircraft with a glider.

The main point to come out of this thread is the need for educating power pilots that they could conflict with gliders in cloud. I have to say that when I am gliding it is apparent that power pilots don't keep a good enough look out in VMC, let alone the problems of look out in cloud! When you are close to cumulus clouds at lower altitudes keep a good look out, there will be gliders around!

Also I would not consider flying in CB's in a glider or an airliner! It's those fluffy white cotton wool clouds that glider pilots go for!

[rustle]

Final 3 Greens someone could write a much more scary story about commercial traffic encountering fast-jet [military] traffic, other commercial traffic or GA in uncontrolled airspace in the north-east if they wanted to...

Infact they did - you can find quite a few examples in the Airprox bulletins.

I didn't see many (2) glider -v- commercial ops reports in there though :hmm:

See HERE (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/423/Bk%2013%20CD.pdf)

This is from that report (I hope they don't mind me posting it)

The grid at Figure 4 shows which groups conflicted and how often.

The yellow column shows the pilot group (or their air traffic controllers) that filed Airprox while those in the green row represent the other party.

Positioning in either grouping does not imply being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – it is just how they met.

For example, ‘GA Helicopter’ pilots met ‘GA Private or Club’ pilots on five occasions, the latter group meeting each other 20 times.

The largest change on results from 2003 was experienced by pilots of scheduled passenger airliners who filed on 10 more occasions.

Whilst this is an increase over the preceding year, the 2004 total of 64 is 12 less than the 2002 figure, illustrating the variability of such data.

http://www.tdrs.co.uk/aviation/airprox2004.jpg

[shortstripper]

I see from your post, Final 3 Greens, that I'm not being over cynical after all! I assume rightly or wrongly that your post reflects what you think should happen?

I've flew my Swallow glider in cloud years ago, had no problems (even without training "there is a world of difference between gliders and powered aircraft"), and considered the risk was tiny then and now. I consider the risk of collision far higher in an overhead join on a busy day than ever it is between a glider and powered aircraft in cloud outside controlled airspace. But then I'm a realist, not an alarmist :hmm:

SS

[Nimbus265]

I'm really baffled by the attitude of some people: It's no good shouting you need to contact ATC...blah blah blah.... on which frequency do you suggest? There is a dedicated cloud flying frequency... 130.4.. If people are so worried by the relatively low risk, then why don't YOU switch to 130.4 and ask if there is anyone at a location flying in cloud or just listen - you'll soon hear.

As I said in my earlier posts, those of us who do fly in clouds follow a set protocol, regardless of how infrequent we do it: Call on the enroute freq before entering; change to 130.4; State call sign, location(!), height (QNH) and entering cloud.... Then height info (QNH) every 500', announcing clear of cloud at (whatever) height then change to enroute!

I did a quick 150 km route yesterday, and the conditions were actually right for a 1500' cloud climb, in a single solitary isolated cu. Within a 25 nautical mile radius of the point I entered cloud I had the following possible ATC stations:

Middle Wallop
Thruxton
Boscombe Down (shut at weekends)
Popham
Farnborough
Lasham
Benson
Booker
White Waltham
Blackbush
Sandhill Farm
Abingdon
Upavon
Salisbury DAIS
Rivar Hill
oh and London Information

Apart from being able to identify where I actually was at the time by this list; what ATC would anyone like to suggest that I notify?

I also had some class A above me at FL65 (but didn't go anywhere near this high (obviously;))

While I was on 130.4 yesterday I heard at least 1 power pilot blind call 130.4, and state that he was enroute from somewhere to somewhere else stating he would be going IMC at Oxford at approx 4800 on the Cotswold QNH and ask if there was anyone in the vicinity climbing in cloud?.

I must admit that it's the first time I've heard it, but I don't tend to spend too long in cloud anyway!!

For me it was however a revelation.... there is a frequency to check if anyone is climbing in cloud...130.4

[Flap 5]

Unfortunately Nimbus many people here only hear or read what they want to. I thought I wrote a reply to Finals 3 Greens but it has been ignored. You are clearly an experienced glider pilot and have made some very useful contributions to this discussion. I have found that having experience in other areas of flying is very useful in my main job as an airline pilot. Too many pilots have too narrow a view and that can compromise their flying safety. For example the lack of knowledge of some power pilots of what glider pilots can do in or out of cloud.

[ShyTorque]

Nimbus,

With regard to choice of which agency to call on the radio, don't forget that GA pilots have to make that very same choice on every flight in Class G!

(I'm not sure what you mean by "enroute frequency" in view of your question about which agency to call. It is possible that what I write below may be exactly what you do already, if so my apology for trying to teach you to suck eggs).

It sounds like in the particular circumstance you quoted, the best choice in Class G would probably be Farnborough Radar but without knowing your exact route I'm not certain. I'm sure you are aware that Benson can also offer a radar service, as do Brize Norton. Transitting GA routinely works those units as appropriate. All you would need to give is present position, altitude and route so it could be passed on to other traffic. I'm NOT suggesting you give up 130.4 altogether, btw.

Do emphasise that you would be going IMC because that is the whole point of the discussion, otherwise it's the usual rules of "See and avoid" in Class G.

GA pilots routing IFR / IMC near Farnborough are highly likely to be working them. ATC would treat you just like any other aircraft (hopefully you WILL appear on their radar) and they would advise other pilots working them of your presence. Obviously, it's your decision after calling them whether you stay on that frequency or change back to 130.4. If you become VMC and / or leave the area it would be great if you could call them back and say so. Safety improved for everyone, just a couple of quick calls.

Your profile says you have a PPL and fly IFR capable helicopters; there must be IMC rated / IR qualified pilots around your neck of the woods. Why not discuss this locally or ask for some local advice?

Thanks for at least discussing it here, some valuable inputs. :ok:

[Keef]

I was well aware that gliders fly in cloud - because ChrisN told me so many years ago. I discussed it (and many other related topics with him), and learned a lot from a highly experienced and concerned pilot.

Those who wish to impose restrictions on glider pilots are, in my view, missing the point. The risk of collision with gliders in cloud outside controlled airspace is very low - far lower than the risk of hitting another powered aircraft flying in the same IMC.

Commercial aircraft really shouldn't be there at all - they have all that dedicated controlled airspace that we need permission to enter. That risk should be zero.

What frightens me far more is watching power pilots blunder through gliding sites blissfully unaware of the chaos and distress they are causing. Surprisingly, I can't recall ever having read of a MOR or Airprox filed by a glider in those circumstances. Perhaps they are too forgiving of us power pilots?

[ProfChrisReed]

ShyTorque wrote: "With regard to choice of which agency to call on the radio, don't forget that GA pilots have to make that very same choice on every flight in Class G!"

I think this inadvertently misses the point. The non-glider pilots are looking for some kind of service from whoever they call, so have some idea who might give them that service. This helps them make the choice.

If I call an agency, I'm looking for no service from them - I'm merely giving them information (glider entering cloud, position and height) so that they can improve their service to other aircraft.

This arose from someone (maybe SkyTorque) suggesting that a glider pilot should make such a call, and my request for information on who I should call.

If I call e.g. Lakenheath, because they're close to me, but another IMC pilot is speaking to Essex, I gather that my call will be useless to him/her because it won't be passed on. Or vice versa.

I'd be happy to make one, possibly two calls to ATC before entering cloud, but my priority has to be 130.4 because, as ChrisN points out, the main risk is other gliders. If there's no single point of contact where I can alert other GA, it seems rather pointless for me to call at all.

One thing which does come out of this thread is that any GA pilot who wants to be sure that there is no glider traffic in cloud should listen to 130.4 for a few minutes. Gliders in cloud call frequently as their height changes, so nothing heard means (or should mean) no gliders.

If anyone can suggest an effective way to alert other GA traffic to my cloud flying I'd be delighted to use it.

[ShyTorque]

Keef,

"Those who wish to impose restrictions on glider pilots are, in my view, missing the point."

I've just re-read the entire thread from start to finish. Could you please point out where "restrictions" are mentioned? I couldn't find them.

[Edit: Keef, I've read your post again; you stated:
"Commercial aircraft really shouldn't be there at all - they have all that dedicated controlled airspace that we need permission to enter. That risk should be zero."

Sorry to say, that comment shows you do not understand the UK aviation regulations or how GA works. GA cannot use dedicated controlled airspace if it doesn't exist at the departure point and the destination, or in between. Would you like to have more regulated airspace that you would need permission to enter? I think not].

ProfChrisReed,

"If I call an agency, I'm looking for no service from them - I'm merely giving them information (glider entering cloud, position and height) so that they can improve their service to other aircraft."

Do you seriously NOT consider that using ATC to help avoid a mid air collision with YOUR aircraft an improvement in the service to yourself?

If not, and if this reflects the general view of UK glider pilots (I can't believe it does), it is probably a complete waste of time trying to put across any alternative viewpoint over what some of us consider a serious flight safety issue.

"If anyone can suggest an effective way to alert other GA traffic to my cloud flying I'd be delighted to use it."

Certainly. Buy a transponder with mode C. Then GA with TCAS can avoid you. We've been there before, no joy.

[Keef]

Could you please point out where "restrictions" are mentioned? I couldn't find them.

I refer to the veiled inferences in comments such as:

"We will make sure that this petition is delivered to the Prime Minister and we will not remain silent on this issue until he takes positive action to close this legal loophole and bringing gliding under the control of the CAA, just like airlines are."

"some gliding bod spiralling up in the cloud in a completely indiscriminate fashion"

There are more. If my point is missed, forget it. This is only a debating forum, after all.

[Red Chilli]

Keef - I don't see the logic of your collision risk analysis. GA is separated procedurally by quadrantal levels, there is absolutely no procedural separation from a cloud flying glider. I for one will start to listen out/ask nicely on 130.4, at least it's better than zero protection!

[Keef]

Red Chilli - I don't see your point. I didn't provide any collision risk analysis - just stated that it's low. How many accidents have there been with gliders in cloud? Compare that with the primary causal factors for aircraft accidents.

Shy Torque -sorry, I don't follow your logic. Controlled airspace needs permission to enter (doesn't it?). Commercial aircraft are the primary beneficiaries of controlled airspace. They don't need to be in uncontrolled airspace in the busy areas for gliders and GA. So take them out of the analysis.

What exactly is it that I do not understand about the UK aviation regulations or how GA works? I think you have misread my posting.

Your PM mailbox is also full, so nobody can write to you off-list to attempt to defuse some of the issues that are best handled that way.

[astir 8]

Guys, the whole issue is being blown totally out of proportion.

Cloud flying in gliders was common in the 50's & early 60's because:-

A lot of the pilots were WWII RAF trained and could even do spin recovery on instruments. Alternatively the pilots could teach themselves cloud flying because of the aircraft factors below (See Peter Scott's book "Eye of the Wind" if you don't believe it)

The old wooden gliders had totally speed limiting airbrakes - they won't go past VNE even in a vertical dive

Even without the brakes the old wooden gliders took a long time to accelerate to VNE because of the built in drag.

The amount of wind noise generated is a very clear indication to the pilot that something nasty is developing.

The old wooden gliders needed a lot of height to do decent distances.

Their performance didn't alter that much if they collected a bit of ice in the process.

Wave wasn't widely known about, Scotland was far away and height diplomas had to be done in clouds.

With glass gliders these days very little of the above applies.

Airbrakes are only speed limiting to about 45 degrees dive angle

They accelerate very quickly and are very quiet at all speeds

Performance goes to worms with dead insects stuck to the wings, never mind ice.

So while technically gliders can fly in cloud, only an extremely small number of pilots these day choose to do so, and normally very infrequently.

"Don't panic, Captain Mainwaring"

[Nimbus265]

Astir 8,

What you say is very true, and perhaps I or someone else should have pointed that out earlier. I have been saying all along that the incidence of cloud flying by gliders is very very small in real terms and therefore, the main thrust of the discussion appears to be centered in the extreme minority of cases when glider pilots do go in cloud.


Risk, as any safety engineer will tell you, can be quantified by probability (likelyhood of occurance) X severity of outcome. There are levels of acceptable risk and there are levels of unacceptable risk which require mitigation in order to drive those risks to an acceptable level and ideally As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). Is one in a million acceptable? is one in a thousand acceptable? Or one in ten million accepatable? It would frighten many of you to know some of the levels of accepatble risk applied to aircraft, systems and procedures in use by civil and military manufacturers and authorities.


It would be an interesting study, rather than just a difference of opinion, which would perhaps provide the best focus for discussion on the perceived level of risk associated with the likelihood of a catastrophic event (GA/Glider collision) whilst flying in IMC - but that ain't going to happen in the short term. Therefore, what we have is a difference of opinion of perceptible risk.

I could sit and do the sums - but I'd then end up having to justify those figures and it would all get really messy, suffice to say that if the risk was 'unacceptable' to the CAA, then they would have introduced procedural mitigation years ago. Therefore, and as the statistics would seem to bear out (ie number of incidences over time) the level of risk is acceptable to the controlling authorities. (by the way level of acceptable risk of a catastrophic event can be as low as 1 in 100,000 (1x10^-5).


It would therefore appear that this thread centers around that fact that the perception of risk is different for power pilots and glider pilots:

My perception is that there is greater risk of colliding with another glider in cloud than that a powered aircraft, and the overall risk is incredible (so small as not to be an issue). By that it MY perception, It is based on the fact over the last 600 flights I have only taken 9 cloud climbs: I spend probably less that 5 minutes in cloud (climbing at say 400ft/minutes); My current (2005) average flight length is around 55 minutes, in which I have logged 79 flights this year to date.

So over the past 600 flights. 0.015% of those flights had a cloud climb and on those flights I spent less that 0.09% in cloud (and used the radio every time). Rounding up, then one in a thousand times I fly I come into the Cloud Flying risk zone. (thats a hell of a lot smaller than the risk of being hit by/collision by GA in VFR, of which the risk zone is 999:1000!!!!

Don't forget thats just the risk zone..... then you add the likelihood of collision, and I'd bet my bottom dollar that the figures are better than 1:10^-9, which is more than acceptable TO ME!

[ProfChrisReed]

This is a naive but genuine question for non-glider pilots who fly IMC in class G:

Can you be sure that you are aware of other pilots doing the same? In other words, if another pilot is also flying IMC but speaking to a different ATC service, would you receive that information?

And as a supplementary, do all non-glider pilots flying IMC in class G inform ATC of their activities, or are there some who merely monitor one or more frequencies without transmitting?

[ShyTorque]

ProfChrisReed asked:

"This is a naive but genuine question for non-glider pilots who fly IMC in class G:

Can you be sure that you are aware of other pilots doing the same? In other words, if another pilot is also flying IMC but speaking to a different ATC service, would you receive that information?

And as a supplementary, do all non-glider pilots flying IMC in class G inform ATC of their activities, or are there some who merely monitor one or more frequencies without transmitting?"

My responses, in order:

1.) Not necessarily BUT if he is operating IFR he should carry the legally mandated minimum equipment, which includes a transponder. If he requests a radar service from ATC he will be required to squawk a code for identification. We carry TCAS to help identify other aircraft, whether on the same frequency or not but transponding. Despite costing more than some gliders (!) it is by no means infallible. Aircraft not transponding don't appear on TCAS. The LARS system is there and pilots are strongly encouraged to use it but there are some gaps in coverage.

2.) Impossible to answer. Airmanship / survival instinct makes me obtain an appropriate ATC service where available, preferably a RIS.

[rustle]

We carry TCAS to help identify other aircraft, whether on the same frequency or not but transponding. Despite costing more than some gliders (!) it is by no means infallible. Aircraft not transponding don't appear on TCAS.
Who is "we" in this context?

I would doubt the majority of IFR capable GA aircraft have TCAS. Of the people I know who regularly fly IFR/IMC in G airspace only one has TCAS in his current aircraft AFAIK...

[Final 3 Greens]

RustleFinal 3 Greens someone could write a much more scary story about commercial traffic encountering fast-jet [military] traffic, other commercial traffic or GA in uncontrolled airspace in the north-east if they wanted to... I agree with you. My post was merely to illustrate what one of Her Majesý's Press' finest could do with the content of Chris Ns post and frankly, Mr Reptile and his colleagues could do it rather more efectively than me.

In this modern world of spin and perception, it is easy to make a story and a campaign out of very little and the fun police are all around us.

I think that collaborating is the way forward, since the airspace that we share is valuable to all of us, so lets assume rightly or wrongly that your post reflects what you think should happen? Wrong actually, but I can understand why you would draw this inference from my post.

Flap 5

I have just read your post, have been travelling for a few days, so not ignored.

[Nimbus265]

As I understand it, there is no requirement for aircraft below 5700kg MTOM to be fitted with TCAS: Surely at this weight that excludes most private light GA?http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/DAP_TA_Consultation_ACASII_2.pdf



We carry TCAS to help identify other aircraft, whether on the same frequency or not but transponding. Despite costing more than some gliders (!) it is by no means infallible. Aircraft not transponding don't appear on TCAS.

Exactly what percentage of GA aircraft are fitted with TCAS?, or is the use of the royal 'we' a little too regal? If TCAS costs soooo much, it would be cheaper to fit another transceiver on a fixed frequency of 130.4, and then you could permanently listen out :E

[WorkingHard]

I am somewhat surprised that for the majority of posters here the term GA equates to light private aircraft. Do not assume GA is all single Cessnas/Pipers. The definition covers anything from a C150 to a 747 that is not Commercial Air Transport. I think many of us who fly GA just expect a level playing filed so that we all hope the skills for a certain type of flight are equally taught and tested. I cannot see the reasoning behind a glider pilot flying IMC without IMC or IR quite legally whereas the powered a/c pilot cannot. Not suggesting more regulation just would like to know the reasoning.

[shortstripper]

I cannot see the reasoning behind a glider pilot flying IMC without IMC or IR quite legally whereas the powered a/c pilot cannot. Not suggesting more regulation just would like to know the reasoning.

I think it all comes down to history. Gliding in this country was never formally licenced (not sure what the situation is now), whereas powered flght always has been (except in the very beginning of course). Powered flight gives you the ability to go where you want without relying on the lift available, whereas gliders need to use any lift available. Certainly in the pre and early post war days this meant thermals and cloud flight to use the thermal to its limit. Back then wave wasn't really understood and ridge soaring was quite obviously localised. Also private and even commercial transport tended not to fly in IMC so gliders were the only ones likely to be in cloud anyway. Once a precidence is set it is not easy to remove. This is especially true when there is no evidence of realised danger to take a priviledge away. I suppose the CAA decided that gliders could be excused a formal rating as there was no licence to attach it to, and as few accidents have occured, why change things?

Incidently, Cu nims had a slight problem back then, in that the lift often outpaced the gliders ability to dive, so the odd pilot quite literally got sucked up to his death!

SS

[Lowtimer]

Still no licence required to fly a glider in the UK, unlike in the USA.

[Nimbus265]

Still no licence required to fly a glider in the UK, unlike in the USA.

This is correct - to a point; while a license is not required in the UK, all gliding clubs in the UK are regulated by the British Gliding Association. The laws and rules for glider pilots issued by the BGA, contains recomended Rules, extracted from the ANO, BGA rules and recomended practices. While not actually required (in law) the BGA/FIA certificate process provides equal status:

I hold a UK Glider Pilots License and a US Glider Pilots License: The latter was issued on the basis of my UK pilots license; I became eligable for this following by Bronze + Cross-Country Endorsement. So in reality there is a direct correlation between the two. Oh and by the way, I fly regularly in the US (monthly), where the US glider pilots license means that you have effectivly gone solo, and passed an exam and not a lot else!

[ProfChrisReed]

It's true that no licence is required to fly a glider, but the consequence of that is that glider pilots are regulated by the clubs from which they fly. In some ways this is more stringent than the regulation imposed on PPLs.

For example:

1. At my club I am not allowed to fly if I am not current. This means (with a Basic Instructor rating) I must have flown within the previous 5 weeks. If not, I must take a flight with an instructor before I am allowed to fly as PIC.

2. If I visit another club with my own aircraft, I will almost never be permitted to fly from that airfield without a flight with an instructor. This (a) informs me about any local issues such as airspace, landmarks, local deals about flying in a MATZ, areas of heavy traffic etc, and (b) enables the club I'm visiting to check out my skills. If they don't like the way I'm flying they won't allow me to launch in my own aircraft, no matter what experience or ratings I have.

I did hear that a Champion of some kind once turned up at an interesting site (v. hilly) with a film crew. He was upset about being required to take a check flight, which indicated that he had no idea how to winch launch and had never flown at a similarly difficult site. So pilot and film crew left hurriedly.

[ShyTorque]

Rustle.

"Who is "we" in this context?

I would doubt the majority of IFR capable GA aircraft have TCAS. Of the people I know who regularly fly IFR/IMC in G airspace only one has TCAS in his current aircraft AFAIK..."

"We" means the company I fly for. An increasing number of operators are fitting TCAS to their aircraft, especially helicopters. Why do you ask?

Nimbus,

"Exactly what percentage of GA aircraft are fitted with TCAS?, or is the use of the royal 'we' a little too regal?"

Nothing regal about me, I'm just a working class pilot trying to minimise risk to myself and my pax. My employer's aircraft have TCAS.

"If TCAS costs soooo much, it would be cheaper to fit another transceiver on a fixed frequency of 130.4, and then you could permanently listen out"

If only I had three ears.......but two radios on the go is already enough for anyone. ;)

[fyrefli]

Phororhacos:


I was walking the dogs on Devil's Dyke (nr Shoreham for the uninitiated) last Sunday and I thought I saw one of the paragliders climb up into the low cloud above the ridge.

Are these allowed to cloud fly?

A subject that is repeatedly and vigorously debated on free flight forums on a regular basis but generally purely theoretically.

The first reaction of the vast majority of paraglider pilots when in danger of going into cloud is:

1. Big Ears (yes, seriously :) ) This involves pulling in the outer A lines of the glider to collapse the tips and reduce the width of the aerofoil and will give around a 200 ft/min relative descent rate.

2. Spiral dive. When fully locked in this can give around 1200 ft/min relative descent rate - about twice as strong as your average UK thermal on a good day is going up.

3. B-Line stall - pulls down the main load-carrying lines, breaking the back of the canopy and also giving about 1200 ft / min relative descent.

Moving specifically to competitions, any paraglider pilot seen going into cloud and not already actively attempting (by one of the above methods) to avoid doing so is liable to be disqualified. It is also frowned upon in general cross-country flying, including in the national cross-country league, where pilots GPS tracklogs are also submitted and analysed for any other infringements.

I didn't see him come back down through the cloud but I must admit I wasn't really paying attention as I was being followed by a rather belligerent looking sheep at the time.

If it was low cloud, he would have used one of the above descent methods for certain. Low cloud has a habit of getting lower and increasing its rockiness quotient. The Dyke is also generally rather too busy to be comfortable with being in cloud for longer than about five seconds, if that!

To summarise, whilst the inherent pitch and roll stability of a paraglider means that it is possible to quite easily fly in cloud with nothing more than a compass and a variometer, or nothing in fact, it's wet, against the rules of even our less formal competitions, still disorientating and frankly, usually bloody scary.

The only place I'll do it personally is in the Alps around Annecy, where you've gotta be completely nuts to go piling through a cloud at say 8 - 12,000 ft ASL in your Cessna because there are paragliders and hanggliders everywhere (but having spent 10-15 mins thermalling up there you know yourself there are none near you).

Cheers,

Rich.

[Nimbus265]

Who is "we" in this context?

I would doubt the majority of IFR capable GA aircraft have TCAS. Of the people I know who regularly fly IFR/IMC in G airspace only one has TCAS in his current aircraft AFAIK..."

"We" means the company I fly for. An increasing number of operators are fitting TCAS to their aircraft, especially helicopters. Why do you ask?

Nimbus,

"Exactly what percentage of GA aircraft are fitted with TCAS?, or is the use of the royal 'we' a little too regal?"

Nothing regal about me, I'm just a working class pilot trying to minimise risk to myself and my pax. My employer's aircraft have TCAS.

"If TCAS costs soooo much, it would be cheaper to fit another transceiver on a fixed frequency of 130.4, and then you could permanently listen out"


Sorry ShyTorque, I assumed naturally that as we we in the 'Private Flying' Forum, then most of the contributors submissions would have reflected their viewpoint as a 'private pilot flying light aircraft', and hence my comments would have been valid. This is obviously incorrect as you would appear to be a commercial pilot fying for a commerical organisation (and I should have looked at your profile).

My comments were aimed at privately registered and flown light aircraft, and I still advacoate that the majority of these aircraft are not fitted with TCAS.

[Flap 5]

The Prof is spot on. When I got my PPL in the 1980's as an experienced helicopter pilot I just had to do 12 hours and a check flight. I was then licenced to fly with a passenger for a year and could validate my PPL merely by flying 5 hours per year. There are a lot of very inexperienced PPL's out there.

Further to the Prof's list you can not fly with a passenger unless you are qualified to do so. The following is an extract from the BGA's rules: Before carrying a club member in a glider, the pilot in charge must be authorised by his CFI and hold a Bronze badge or higher certificate and have at least 50 hours P1 on gliders. To give trial lessons, the pilot must have a Basic Instructor rating or higher instructor rating. The pilot must be in current practice, be familiar with the type of glider and method of launch.

[Whirlygig]

Well, from my point of view, the Prof is not spot on!!

I have a JAA PPL(H) for which I have to revalidate my licence every year by taking a skills test. The school/club from which I fly requires 28 day currency for Self-Fly Hire with or without passengers. Sorry Flap 5, but things are a bit different now expecially in the heli world!!

Not saying what is right or wrong; just pointing out that there are difference rules and requirements for different folks!

Cheers

Whirls

[Nimbus265]

Very True Flap5:

Prof Wrote:

1. At my club I am not allowed to fly if I am not current. This means (with a Basic Instructor rating) I must have flown within the previous 5 weeks. If not, I must take a flight with an instructor before I am allowed to fly as PIC.

My club's currency requirements is 30 days. After that it's 3 check flights with an half-cat or full cat instructor, and at least one of those flights must include a launch failure. [Edited to add:] Oh an there is the annual assessment; my annual instructor assessment and the cross-country and field landing checks at the start of the season!

Allthough I have a PPL, I have always wondered why the currency requirements appear to be so low for SEP?

I can understand the requirement in gliders (no options for go arounds!), but why so low for PPL? Given the relatively high and soaring cost in the UK for your average PPL pilot to fly, then is there a risk of pilots just maintaining the absolute minimum to maintain the licence and does that mean that there is an increasing tendency for skill fade/more inexperienced pilots flying round the sky?

[Go Smoke]

The skill set needed to fly gliders is slightly different to that required to fly power.
Once you have gone solo and have moved to single seaters and have begun to cut the apron strings, so to speak, the constant monitoring does not stop.
As an instructor, cross country pilot, advanced aerobatic instructor I am still regularly assessed and have to fly with CFI's, regional examioners etc on a fairly regular basis.
I have to fly a certain number of instructional flights per year and a certain number of instructional hours plus a certain number of solo launches and solo hours per year to retain my instructor rating.
To just be able to get in a glider and fly I have to have completed flights within the previous month. If not, I'm straight into a two seater with the CFI for currency checks at least one of which will be launch emergencies.
There is a very strong ethos of safety and constant monitoring for all pilots.
Though we don't legally have to have a license there are various qualifications that a pilot goes through from ab initio to early solo to building more experience.
The safety culture is the strongest I have come across in aviation and the training standards are very high.
The various stages in development are too long to list but from more info you might find a visit to the BGA website useful.

http://www.gliding.co.uk/

[Dan Winterland]

I used to do cloud climbs in gliders on nothing but a T and S when I was young and stupid. I stopped when I saw another glider in the same cloud one day. And considering that fair weather cumulus clouds are pretty dense, that was f#####g close!

And please don't try and convince me that cloud climbing is safe - a friend of mine died doing it.

[shortstripper]

No flying is safe .... I've had a couple of friends die doing it!

But risk is relative, and you have to make you own mind up as to what is an acceptable level with all things in life; flying is just one of them.

SS

[WorkingHard]

"The safety culture is the strongest I have come across in aviation and the training standards are very high"
Did not keep some of you out of a circuit at a licenced airfield I departed from recently. Climbing away downwind had to report gliders conflicting with expected arrivals and departures. Please do not adopt a "better than the powered pilot" attitude, it is untenable.

[ShyTorque]

Best we keep that sort of stuff for another thread. Or revive one of the old "us v. them" threads ....

There's mud to be slung both ways, but so far we were doing quite well at keeping it out of the discussion. It's generally counterproductive.

[shortstripper]

I couldn't agree more Shy Torque. Flying in all its forms is wonderful (mind you jumping from Angel falls with a bat suit and parachute doesn't exactly float my boat :uhoh: ), but mud flinging is best left to those who never get away from it (ie earth bound folk). We are privileged to be able to take to the skies however we do it, so let's not start pointing fingers or try to be elitist! :ok:

SS

[jumpseater]

From the first post, 'Older wooden gliders were a lot easier to handle in cloud than modern slippery designs.'
Why is this?

[Dan Winterland]

The older gliders are more draggy and don't accelerate like the new slippery glass models. They take longer to get into trouble so the pilot has more reaction time.

[Nimbus265]

There is a down side to this. Stucturally older gliders were weaker, and this was reflected in their relativly low VNE. Modern gliders have by comparison a much higher VNE. Although older gliders were perhaps more forgiving, once speed did start to build up, it didn't take long to reach VNE.

[bookworm]

Most gliders are fitted with a single 12V7AH battery; some have 14V 7AH; some have a reserve....
Once you start adding GPS systems, horizons (which can draw 1.5A on start and 1A in a steady state), Mode C transponders etc then electrical endurance for these long flights (where you may be more reliant on additional instruments) does becomes a issue.

Let's go back to this bit for a moment. Filser's TRT600 LAST (http://www.filser.de/main.php?dat=e_ger_trt600&gid=41) draws about 0.2 A at 12 V.

If your AI draws 1 A, is it unreasonable to expect you to fit a transponder to fly in cloud? In fact, is it unreasonable to expect you to fit a transponder to fly at all?

As a power pilot, I'd rather you had a transponder and said nothing to ATC than vice versa. At least then they can tell me that you're there, rather than being told in the middle of a 300 mile IFR flight to look out for a glider that just reported going into cloud over Little Smallington.

[robin]

...but I'd prefer to be on the cloud flying frequency calling out my height and listening out for others.

[Nimbus265]

[QUOTE]quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most gliders are fitted with a single 12V7AH battery; some have 14V 7AH; some have a reserve....
Once you start adding GPS systems, horizons (which can draw 1.5A on start and 1A in a steady state), Mode C transponders etc then electrical endurance for these long flights (where you may be more reliant on additional instruments) does becomes a issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's go back to this bit for a moment. Filser's TRT600 LAST draws about 0.2 A at 12 V.

If your AI draws 1 A, is it unreasonable to expect you to fit a transponder to fly in cloud? In fact, is it unreasonable to expect you to fit a transponder to fly at all?
[QUOTE]


OK lets look at the practically:

The typical power budget for a glider is as follows:

GPS - 150mA (it's common for most competition ac to be fitted with 2)

Flight Director/PDA/Audio Vario(based on cambridge 302) - 1A

Radio - 500mA (RX) 1.8A on (TX) - Based con Filser ATR600

Normally steady state = 1.650A;

Max on radio Transmit ~3A.


A fully charged (new) 7AH battery will provide ~ 7Ah for 1 hour or
1 Ah for 7 hours (rated at 10 Hr rated as most 7AH batteries are)

As a ball park figure, and based on these figures most 12V 7Ah batteries will last about 5-6 hours before the voltage begins falls to a point which begins to be an issue and probably about 7 hours before equipment begins to fail. This is normally about right for club flying, although many aircraft are fitted with an additional 2v cell to provide a greater potential, and some are fitted with 2 batteries, to ensure that there is sufficiant voltage available for a full flying day.

For the competition pilots amonst us, and for those whose aircraft are equipped for cloud flying:

add into this a secondary GPS/Logger at about 150mA
an AH at 1.5A start/1A sustained

and a typical transponder at between 400-800mA (not 0.2A as you suggest - See the full technical manual for the TRT600 at http://www.filser.de/handbuch/trt600instmane.pdf.

Lets just assume that there is an additional load of 150mA for a competition glider which draws an additional 1.5A when the transponder is fitted and the AH is switched on.

The maximum current drawn could be as high as 5.3A but likely to be about 2.3 A.

In fact 2.5A is used as a design guide.

Whichever way you look at it, an additional 400/700mA load due to a transponder on such a fragile power budget IS significant. It can mean the difference between systems working at the end of a 7 hour competition flying day or not working. And it is more important to maintain a workable supply to the Radio/Logger/GPS at the end of a flying day, than fit additional instrumentation, when there are procedures in place mitigating the need for it (calling on 130.4)


...Oh and as a PS....I design glider electrical systems!

[pheeel]

just a question...

in other countries, such as NZ, don't gliders have to have transponders fitted? Perhaps not, I'm not sure....

But, if so, does anyone know how the power budget in gliders is managed over there, or anywhere where transponders are mandatory in gliders?

[Nimbus265]

No not transponders; FLARM has been introduced into NZ. It draws less than 80mA wich is about an 1/8th of that of a conventional transponder.

see my earlier post or go to: http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html

[ShyTorque]

Oh dear, Nimbus! This statement shows where your true priorities lie:

Quote: "And it is more important to maintain a workable supply to the Radio/Logger/GPS at the end of a flying day, than fit additional instrumentation, when there are procedures in place mitigating the need for it (calling on 130.4)"

You appear to completely underestimate the danger of relying on a little used frequency to provide separation from GA in cloud. You are flying with little or no protection from GA. You haven't said where you fly from, but I suggest you speak to a controller at a busy unit such as Coventry and ask their view.

I spent last Sunday and the last three days of this week flying around southern and central UK. Each day our TCAS screen was extremely busy with GA aircraft flying VMC / IMC at MSA up to FL55, as were we. I would think that not ONE of them was on the frequency you insist on relying on for your safety.

I did listen out on 130.4 when I could, which wasn't often due to both radios being in use for ATC frequencies. As far as I am concerned, it's not viable for us to do so. I proved to myself (and my bemused colleague) that we simply cannot leave 130.4 dialled up due to ATC requirements. Unfortunately the chances are that we will therefore miss a relevant call from a glider (I never heard ONE glider call on 130.4 or any other frequency, btw).

I wish you safe and lucky flying :}

And myself :rolleyes:

[bookworm]

...Oh and as a PS....I design glider electrical systems!

I can tell. :) A very well reasoned answer, Nimbus, thank you.

And it is more important to maintain a workable supply to the Radio/Logger/GPS at the end of a flying day, than fit additional instrumentation, when there are procedures in place mitigating the need for it (calling on 130.4)

There I disagree. ICAO and the CAA believe that a Mode S transponder is a necessary piece of equipment for aircraft.

If the power requirement of a transponder reduced the typical battery life by a factor of 3, I could see a case for exempting gliders from the forthcoming requirement to carry them. But at 10-20% of the design electrical load, I can't -- while it is undoubtedly significant, we all make sacrifices to performance to install equipment with a safety benefit.

BTW power consumption data on the TRT600 appears contradictory:

0.2 A on http://www.filser.de/main.php?dat=e_ger_trt600
0.1 A on http://www.filser.de/prospekte/TRT600_prosE.pdf
0.4 A on http://www.filser.de/handbuch/trt600instmane.pdf

I'd imagine a Mode S only environment would significantly decrease the mean power consumption, but that will be a long way off while Mode A/C ground equipment continues to operate.

[robin]

I'm not sure yuou understand the importance of retaining the GPS/Data Logger

These are essential these days to prove that a flight took place for competition or record purposes.

On the few days that a 500k, 750k or 1000k flight takes place in the UK or during a rated competition you need absolute evidence that the flight conformed with the regulations

To ask a glider pilot in such circumstances to give up the GPS/data logger combination would be like asking the Red Arrows to stop a flight to let a microlight pass through the display area

[Nimbus265]

Thanks for that Robin, I'm sure there are many non glider pilots who do not fully understand competition gliding or badge claim flying requirements.


ShyTorque

For me it is a matter of priority and personal choice. While it obviously has benefits and can be seen to add a measure of extra safety, it is currently not a mandated requirement and there are technical difficulties for gliders:

For me currently:

1. The percentage of time a spend cloud flying (see earlier posts - less than 1/1000 of my flying time is spent in clouds)

2. Cost (they ain't cheap) unit costs x antenas x fitting x fuselage strengthening x panel.

3. Electrical load, power budget (my current electrical installation = 3 x seperate GPS and 2 x logger systems, Flight Director, PDA (Moving Map), T/S and AH means that currently I can only achieve about three and a half hours on 1 x 12V 7AH - which is why I have 2 fitted.

4. Change of C of G. I fly with an optimsed C of G and this would need to be rebalanced (by counter weight) with a new panel/additional battery (hassle factor more than anything).

5. I fly to MAUW (580Kg); that means loading exactly 106liters of water for competitions; I don't want to reduce this by adding another instrument and battery.

6. The fact that to fit one, I would have to totaly repanel my glider. (ever seen a competition glider panel?) Theres just no room to cut a spare 57mm diammeter hole in most modern glider panels! It ain't cheap to do either!

7. The level of risk (see previous posts). Out of interest, when exactly was the last GA/Glider collision in cloud, and how many have there been over the last say 25 years?

8. Fitting a transponder to a glass fibre glider is significantly easier than fitting one to a carbon fibre glider.


Currently it's my choice. Sure if the BGA,CAA or EASA state that it it is mandatory requirement - then I'll happily comply. They are likely to do this in 2008 anyway if EASA get their way, but there are currenty difficulties in developing the technology for gliders - which is likely to delay this requirement. If something like FLARM was introduced, I'd seriously consider it. I'm happy to admit that it has advantages.


This debate has been centered on Cloud Flying... it won't be long before somebody extends it into VFR flying!!

I don't know what is so difficult about monitoring 130.4; I have a scanning radio, which is set to scan up to 10 frequencies. When there is a Tx on one frequency that breaks the squelch, I get the message. It normally scans 129.975, 130.1, 130.4 and my local DAIS frequency; I've never knowingly not heard a transmission.


I'm also still happy to fly in a highly competitive competition gaggle with 50 or 60 gliders, flying with about a wingspan horizontal seperation and with less that 100' vertical seperation. The risk of collision in these circumstances is infinately higher than flying in clouds....or should we mandate against gaggles as well?:\

[Nimbus265]

Oh I forgot to add. A quick straw poll at the weekend of a busy club with 100+ members showed that among those that fly cross-country regularly, only 4 pilots (all of which have a National rating) said that they cloud climb; and of the 4 the total cloud climbs taken this year is 7 - all bar one were in competitions. The actual incidence is very very low. It's not an every day occurance as may of us have stated in previous posts and we don't spend long in clouds anyway when we do cloud climb. That possibly accounts for why it's very unlikely you'll actually hear anyone cloud climbing on 130.4 on most days.

[ShyTorque]

Nimbus,

Thanks for the reply, which confirms my view, reinforced by my recent experience, that it's statistically pointless for a GA pilot transitting in UK to listen on 130.4.

Perhaps you might care to listen out on the nearest LARS frequency the next few times you fly and see just how busy our Class G airspace is.

As a glider pilot, you don't want any more equipment, I do fully understand the technical difficulties this would present. As you say, EASA may well require that gliders, in common with other small aircraft, carry more electronics in the near future.

To argue against further legislation, with any hope of gaining an exemption, the gliding fraternity would need to present a very strong case with a viable alternative. To propose that GA neglects its established and proven procedures to call on the gliding frequency would be untenable.

GA has by definition to avoid YOU but if GA has no idea you are there, how can they?

[Nimbus265]

ShyTorque,

Thanks for your balanced viewpoint. It is nice to have a balanced debate without mudslinging :ok:

Here's the latest in terms of European Legislation http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/documents/CarrWJan05update.pdf

[Final 3 Greens]

I've been away for a few days, just looked up the thread again.

What a pleasure it is to read such a coherent and reasoned debate.

[IO540]

Believe it or not, the material cost in a Mode C/S transponder is of the order of £200.

Like most avionics, they list at 10x the parts cost because most firms making this stuff are olde fashioned big firms where every useless middle manager has a deputy, because the stuff is often designed by "engineers" who would never get a job designing anything that has to compete commercially so the stuff packs up often so warranty costs are high, because new product introductions are rare so anyone with a brain gets bored and leaves, because the aviation community has always accepted junk products, because the avionics shop gets a nice markup, etc.

A small firm (say 10 employees) could easily cater for the whole European existing GA transponder market. But it's very hard for someone to get in because the way the GA market is structured few people can do own fitting, and an avionics shop will much rather make 30% of £2000 than 30% of £500 (plus fitting). Avionics shops just love a regular GNS430 fitting job :O

If Mode C/S had been MANDATED on everything that flies, the market for transponders would be some 10x bigger than it is today. It is trivial to design a unit which works perfectly well for TCAS, and well enough for short range (say 30 miles) secondary radar and which draws 1/10 of the present power requirement. Total parts cost under £150 (100-off batches) and a list price of £500 assuming a 25% dealer discount.

But until transponders are mandatory, the market won't exist. Nobody will have a go because everybody knows that any existing transponder maker can produce a low power unit if they choose to (it's very easy to do) and since they have the dealer channel all set up they will clean up. But as I say the existing players won't do anything until the market is there, and then they will milk it for all it's worth.

Something might happen around 2009, when there should be a lot of demand for Mode S. But most of that will be powered stuff where the existing GTX330-type products will get fitted.

A very bold small company could get in now but they would be fools to show their cards 4 years before the market materialises, and almost nobody in "normal VFR GA" will fit a transponder to make themselves visible to others (yes I really do believe this!)

[larssnowpharter]

Fascinating discussion. Permit this old boy - who first went solo in a glider in the early/mid sixties and got his gold height in Cb – a few words. Unfortunately, finances now limit me to a month or so a year gliding in Australia each year. No cloud flying in gliders there.

I read this subject as much about VFR as about cloud flying and an attempt by the ATC fraternity to control all airspace. Transponders on everything? Perish the day!

The airspace rules have been changing and evolving over the years. My guess is that few have kept up with the all the changes and, if asked, would struggle to give a clear concise explanation of classes of airspace and the VFR/SVFR/IFR stuff. The attempts at some new simplified Euro 3 classes of airspace may simplify matters but this old carbon based brain struggles to keep up with the requirements in different countries.

I rather suspect the ‘let out clause’ allowing gliders to enter cloud is as much to avoid the issues of cloud separation. When wave flying you will invariably be closer than published minima for vertical and horizontal cloud separation.

Cloudbase 3000ft does sometimes happen in UK. Soaring pilots will regularly climb to cloudbase. How can they maintain VMC minima?

At the risk of being found guilty of topic creep, are B21 and B226 still open to gliders crossing with ATC clearance.

Rgds

lars