Improve Light A/C Separation [Archive] - Page 2

gpn01

2nd Sep 2008, 22:10

Hi Englishal, re:

"My advice to a cloud flying glider would be at a minimum to dial into the nearest LARS controller and ask for a RIS or report your position using a FIS. That way GA traffic with the same controller has a cat-in-hells chance of avoiding you and you the GA traffic. If the worst ever happens - a glider hits an airbus - you can bet that things will change for the worse for everyone"

Ok, so let's try a few FICTIONAL scenarios to see how they work using your suggestion (NB: The calls may not be exactly right and I'm not inferring anything about the level of service provided by the units mentioned:

(A) Non-radio equipped glider - can't call anybody (shouldn't be in cloud anyway but may be operating in IMC conditions).

(B) Glider with radio limited to gliding frequencies - can't call any non-gliding frequencies

(C) Glider with handheld radio (720ch + pilot with an RT licence), in VMC. Here's the scene:

Glider: "Wycombe good afternoon, Glider 123"
Wycombe "Glider 123 pass your message"
Glider "Glider 123 is a standard class glider operating to the West of your ATZ requesting Radar Information
Wycombe: "We're not radar equipped, can only provide flight information. Report your position and intention"
Glider: "Roger, understood. Glider 123 will be routing between Wycombe and Kidlington"
Wycombe: "Glider 123 confirm intended height and heading"
Glider: "Glider 123 will be operating between 500' AGL and base of the London TMA and will be routing somewhere over Oxfordshire"
Wycombe: "Roger Glider 123, no known traffic"
Glider: "Wycombe are you in contact with the Cessna, Pitts Special, Extra, Piper Cub or microlight that I can see in the area?"
Wycome: "Negative"
Glider: "Roger, be advised I can also see a further ten gliders in the area"

The point here is that there could be lots of other traffic, all using different frequencies (Wycombe, Kidlington, Benson, Halton, White Waltham and others all being valid contenders)

(D) Glider with handheld radio (720ch + pilot with an RT licence), in IMC. Here's the scene:

Glider: "Benson Radar, Glider 123"
Benson: ........ (it's Saturday, so there's no answer)
Glider: "Farnborough Radar, Glider 123"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, pass your message"
Glider "Glider 123 is a standard class glider operating in IMC between Wycombe and Kidlington requesting Radar Information"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, squawk 1234"
Glider: "Glider 123 isn't transponder equipped. Only power is in my handheld radio"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, Can you accept a radar heading for identification?"
Glider: "Glider 123, negative, currently climbing in a thermal in a cloud"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, Can provide Flight Information only"
Glider: "Roger that, can you confirm that you're co-ordinating all IMC traffic around the Benson area?"
Farnborough West: "Negative, only the ones talking to us."

Point here is that IMC traffic could be liaising with Kidlington, Benson (on UHF), Brize Radar or Farnborough West.

Hopefully Englishal this'll help to explain why there's a reluctance for gliders to call ATZ's in VMC or LARS in IMC.

robin

2nd Sep 2008, 22:11

Skycop

If public opinion is swayed because of an accident (and the usual media frenzy), it will undoubtedly mean less freedom for aviation in Class G.

And this is the problem. There is an implicit assumption that the light aircraft or glider is automatically at fault. The CAA have used this argument in many meetings with GA reps regarding fitting and using Mode S. Yet there are certainly incidents between commercial jets in the airways not involving light aircraft, so technology is not foolproof, is it?

ProfChrisReed

2nd Sep 2008, 22:20

Skycop, it would be nice not to be quoted out of context - I was clearly referring to VMC flying.

You say we need a system to prevent IMC collisions. The only system which would prevent collisions is no IMC flying. Everything else is risk reduction. Transponders don't always work, radar services are not infallible and not always available.

We seem to have moved from compulsory transponders, at the beginning of this thread, to use of radio at this end. As radio is compulsory for gliders flying in cloud, though not, I think for powered aircraft (is that correct anyone?), but non-radio power is unlikely to fly IMC, this seems a promising starting point.

It's already established that power pilots are not reassured by monitoring the gliding frequency (130.4). Glider pilots don't know which ATC unit to call, and some power pilots think it unlikely that picking one of the local units is much use.

The logical conclusion is a common frequency for all class G IMC flying, with position reporting in an agreed, consistent manner at minimum time intervals. This might be by distance/bearing from a substantial town marked on the 1/2 mil map, or by GPS coordinates, plus altitude in each case. Safetycom might be a good candidate for this.

It seems to me that this would place a fairly light burden on all IMC fliers, and require minimal regulatory changes.

Comments?

Skycop

2nd Sep 2008, 22:27

Robin 400,

You obviously fly a very expensive and sophisticated helicopter that has no means of protecting you and your passengers from risk of collision.

Not so. The aircraft I fly has TCAS, in addition to full IFR equipment which allows me to use an ATC Radar service.

I obtain a RIS, ATC ask me to squawk and identify me and then warn me of other radar contacts. Unfortunately, gliders do not show well on radar and at least judging by the comments on this thread their pilots do not generally wish to participate in the established LARS system.

Some are trying to say there is little or no risk of a collision with a glider in IMC, but you agree with me that there is a definite risk.

However, a glider in IMC has no means of protecting its occupants from risk of collision apart from the 5% of gliders carrying FLARM.

My only point is that a glider pilot could easily also obtain some protection from a mid-air collision (and give it to others) via ATC with a simple radio call, in addition to a reliance on FLARM. Other pilots, hence suitably warned by ATC, have a choice of taking the risk in cloud, or not.

I have no other axe to grind and will now leave you to it.

robin

2nd Sep 2008, 22:42

I obtain a RIS, ATC ask me to squawk and identify me and then warn me of other radar contacts.

Hmm - where I fly it is rare to get a RIS - it is usually downgraded to an FIS because of poor quality radar performance, as notified in the NOTAMs...:=

Skycop

2nd Sep 2008, 23:01

ProfChrisReed, I'm sure you were referring to VMC flight but how is your lookout in IMC? How do you give accurate position reports when you can't see the ground and does your situational awareness get better or worse?

Unfortunately, your suggestion for a common frequency for all GA too is flawed simply because I think you underestimate the number of IMC aircraft in Class G. I'm sure it would be chaos and achieve little purpose because everyone would hear transmissions from the opposite end of the country. Try listening to 122.7 at Sywell or Compton Abbas - allocation of the same local frequency causes aircraft operating at those two airfields to hear circuit calls from those at the other, 100 nms away. The R/T would be full of crossed and missed transmissions. In addition, IFR/IMC GA is most often going somewhere in CAS, and most often requires a mandatory ATC clearance in order to do so. ATC must be communicated with, even in Class G.

The risk of IMC mid-air collision has long been considered by GA. Many companies require their aircraft to obtain an ATC service using ground-based radar whenever possible.

bad bear

3rd Sep 2008, 06:01

I e mailed the question to the factory as to whether Flarm could work with Transponder equiped aeroplanes.
here is their answer;

It is off course possible to combine FLARM and an transponder receiver, but PCAS (transponder receivers) have such a poor performance in busy airspace (where FLARM is most often used) that we are not sure if this is really desirable…

so, looks like a common system is here already

anyone for FLARM as an add on to their Transponder?

Fitter2

3rd Sep 2008, 06:06

ProfChrisReed sensibly suggests a common frequency for all IMC traffic in class G. Skycop explains why that won't work but fails to come up with an aternative other than calling one of a number of several radar service providers who have no responsibility for conflict avoidance and I am informed by people who should know, do not have the resource to deal with a substantial number of gliders who may wish to use IMC - calling once one is in IMC, and using the common gliding IMC frequency for good practical safety reasons is demonstrably impracticable.

It is claimed that 'gliders do not show up well on radar' with no evidence - I am assured they do on primary radar, but secondary radar is what is commonly used by radar services, and being non-transponder equipped they naturally do not.

It is claimed that IFR certified aircraft may not fit FLARM, in spite of a posting earlier in the thread illustrating an IFR equipped (police) helcopter certified under EASA (presumably the same rules that will apply in UK) fitted with FLARM.

It is claimed to be 'madness' for glider pilots to operate in their normal current mode, in spite of the fact that many of them also hold ATPLs and are current in CAT.

We can hold a useful and constructive discussion fact based, or rely on our prejudices for a possibly more entertaining one. Preference?

Whirlygig

3rd Sep 2008, 06:32

ProfChrisReed sensibly suggests a common frequency for all IMC traffic in class G.In your opinion sensible, irrespective of why it won't work.
Skycop explains why that won't work but fails to come up with an aternative other than calling one of a number of several radar service providersHow many alternatives are you expecting a contributor to put forward? Or just the ones with which you agree?

Seems to me that this thread has degenerated from selfishness to wilful misunderstanding. Perhaps if some of you actually tried to read and understand others posts, you might learn something instead of the incredibly blinkered views I am reading here.

It has been mentioned that facts are required. Yes, they are. I have read, on this page alone, that there are substantial numbers of gliders in cloud and yet, there are rarely gliders in cloud. Well? A lot of glider pilots do not hold a radio licence yet many of them hold ATPLs?

Honestly, some of you ..... when I read stuff here, I am concerned that I am sharing airspace with some! :}

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/Whirls/scaredkitty2.jpg

Cheers

Whirls

bad bear

3rd Sep 2008, 06:46

Was the thread " improve light A/C Separation" or "glider bashing?"

seems to be a bit of thread creep

Glider pilots do fly in a way that is different from many other airspace users. They know that use of radio, radar and ATC cannot give protection with the huge numbers of fliers on a good day, frequently over 500 possibly 750 during the peak 5 hours within 50 nm of Oxford. Glider pilots minimise the amount of time they are heads down in the cockpit tuning radios that will serve only as a distraction and maximise their time with eyes looking outside. As gpn01 points out there are dozens of controllers to talk to within 50 nm of Oxford but none have the whole picture and most have no radar, but still expect to be called!
So, back to the theme of how to improve light A/C Separation,

Bad bears top tip;

Forget talking on radios. Look out the window and scan the sky slowly and often. Look to see if someone is there, not look to see if it is clear
bb

Fitter2

3rd Sep 2008, 06:48

Quote (can someone remind me how to do the quote thingy)

It has been mentioned that facts are required. Yes, they are. I have read, on this page alone, that there are substantial numbers of gliders in cloud and yet, there are rarely gliders in cloud. Well? A lot of glider pilots do not hold a radio licence yet many of them hold ATPLs?

I can't find a statement that there are lots of glider pilots in cloud; on the occasions when cloud flying is useful (and it has been pointed out that on most good soaring days there is no advantage in cloud flying) then there are possibly a dozen or so in cloud at any given time, and less than a hundred at some time. Difficult to get accurate figures.

If 60% of gliders have no radio licence, and 25% hold ATPLs, then both your second statements would be true. The professional pilots who are also glider pilots tend to be more active than the average, in my experience. Holding a radio licence is sensible so that, for example, one can talk to a controller if entering an ATZ is a possibility; where I fly the proportion of licence holders is increasing.

Whirlygig

3rd Sep 2008, 07:01

do not have the resource to deal with a substantial number of gliders who may wish to use IMC
Oh dear Fitter2, it was your quote. Substantial? Lots? 25% etc? do they mean the same to everyone? This is just one example of how this thread is degenerating into semantics!

Auntie Whirls top tip;

Please talk on the radios as well. Look out the window and scan the sky slowly and often. Look to see if someone is there, not look to see if it is clear!!

I cannot believe that there are people who advocate radio silence.

Cheers

Whirls

PS - copy/paste your selected snippet onto the reply box. Highlight with cursor and click on quote button (last on right).

gpn01

3rd Sep 2008, 07:27

"I cannot believe that there are people who advocate radio silence"

I think you'll find that most people advocate using the right frequency at the right time for the right reason. Sticking with the Oxford area as an example, there is no "right" frequency in Open FIR. Therefore, if you're in a glider with a poor (if any) radar return) and you decide to talk to, say, Brize Radar then you could be about to share the same bit of sky as someone else talking to Farnborough LARS, Benson Radar or Kidlington - none of whom wil be co-ordinating with each other for the big picture. So, as a glider pilot I'll stick to one frequency (130.4) when cloud flying as I know at least that all other gliders in cloud will be on the same frequency. I don't however know which frequency to use if there's power traffic attempting to share the same Cumulus - and the odds of getting it right are perhaps 4 to 1 (or worse).

There is definitely a mindset difference between glider pilots (don't talk to ATC/airfields unless necessary) and power pilots (speak to everyone). I accept that each approach works for its respective community.

Fundamentally though what is going to decrease the risk of collision in VMC .....talking to people on the radio or encouraging everyone to improve their lookout skills ? Neither is 100% guaranteed to provide 100% safety but I know which one I believe will make the most difference.

PS: Techie note on <quoting> in PPRUNE - Clicking on Reply and removing the '1' at the end of the NOQUOTE=1 in the URL works providing you're not using a PC that's within a corporate firewall that does URL checking. Also, have the same problem clicking on the reply button - no quote button appears....d'oh!

IO540

3rd Sep 2008, 07:51

There is no rule preventing any aircraft "installing" a removable device (other than possibly a CAA approved company procedures manual banning such).

Anything that is removable needs no certification or any approval.

So, you can "install" FLARM, a handheld radio, a satellite phone, you name it. All 100% legal (unless emitting on frequencies which are illegal to transmit on in the UK).

The grey area can be in the powering arrangements. If you get a proper power connector installed somewhere, that ought to be signed off, although very often they just "appear" and nobody asks when it appeared :) The alternative is to use the cigar lighter socket which is messy at best.

Rod1

3rd Sep 2008, 08:17

“I cannot believe that there are people who advocate radio silence.”

In VMC for a radio to be considered in collision avoidance you need to know that everybody has a radio, which is not the case, that they are all talking to the same station, which is not the case, and that any RIS which might be available can see all the threats, which is not he case. Many aircraft operating on hand held radios have very limited range and battery life so only use radio for t/o and landing.

Rod1

Fuji Abound

3rd Sep 2008, 10:46

What a worthwhile debate.

Let me say where I am, having learnt a great deal more than I knew about how gliders operate.

WHAT WE CAN DO NOW

Radio

Luckily I have two radios. My own practise is to rarely use box 2. I flip flop to the ATIS on box 1 rather than change boxes or flip flop to a passing airfield rather than go to box 2. Perhaps not the recommended procedure - but I have always done it that way. Part of the reason is that with both frequencies active I don’t want a lot of chat going on in the background on box 2. However in some circumstances I will now have the glider frequency on box 2 and active. I suspect there will not be a lot of chatter on frequency on the days I elect to do so - I think it will suite me fine.

I accept the point that if you are a glider with a radio the conundrum is who do you talk to. We have all been in that situation. When en route you will be passing various smaller airfields - do you give them a courtesy call? Consider the area around Canterbury - you could being talk to Farnborough East, then again London info might suite, or Manston LARS, or even Rochester or Headcorn. Equally there are other occasions when there is a single very obvious frequency for local traffic. I think if you are in IMC it is a little simpler. The service provider that would give you a RIS is the obvious frequency to use. Granted there are some areas where there is more than one service providers - Farnborough East and Manston LARS is a possible example where there is some overlap. I therefore think that it would do no harm if gliders in IMC gave the service provider in question a call. Agreed the call would not give as specific information as a powered aircraft but in terms of altitude and route the information could still be useful. For example I am guessing a glider could probably indicate a block altitude in which they were working much as I do if I aeroing. They could also indicate a route, and a present position. AT would be able to establish immediately whether or not the glider was visible on radar and could also warn other traffic that gliders were routing from x to y within an expected block altitude of x. If I wished that would give me an opportunity to adjust my track to avoid.

Flarm / Pcas

I am disappointed the up take has so far been so poor. 5% is not a sufficient number for me to warrant investing in FLARM - I suspect the critical mass would be around 25% before I would consider it worth while.

I don’t accept some of the comments about PCAS. I have found the unit to be amazingly reliable. I also still believe I am correct that a glider does not need to have a transponder for PCAS to work within the glider. More to the point PCAS will not see any other gliders so combined with FLARM it will distinguish between your known buddies and everyone else. Moreover PCAS is light, cheap, easy to fit and does not require any power other than that from two AA batteries. Interestingly in the report about the recent collision between a commuter jet and a glider in the States the reporter comments - if only PCAS had been fitted in the glider it could have saved the day.
In short I think gliders would be very well advised to invest in PCAS.

THE FUTURE

The risk is incredibly small of a mid air, however the stakes are incredibly high. In the emotive world of aviation statistical chance is largely irrelevant - it only takes one accident for the pressure on the regulator to be insurmountable. I think we need to invest in ways to reduce the risk further and this means investing in technology since we know the mark 1 eyeball has evolved as far as it can (at least for the time being). I believe gliders will find it increasingly difficult to dissuade legislation being imposed on them in so far as IMC ops go outside CAS. ADS-B would seem to offer some real hope.

gpn01

3rd Sep 2008, 11:11

Presumably when using a RIS I need to provide the controller with a bit of help...things like height, heading and routing? Well my height is going to between the ground and the base of any controlled airspace. I could go from one extreme to the other in four minutes (1000fpm isn't unknown in UK). My heading ? I rarely maintain a heading for more than ten seconds. My routing ? If I only I knew! Flying from, say, Wycombe to Enstone may take me down past Abingdon, routing alongside the edge of the Brize Zone, West of Kidlington, up around Weston-On-The-Green OR East along the Chiltern Ridge, up to Aylesbury, across to Milton Keynes, up past Northampton, then West and South of Hinton-In-The-Hedges. Either route depnds upon the conditinos experienced during the flight (and necessitates avoiding several parachute sites in the process). Oh, and while I'm doing this flight there may be 10-15 other gliders all attempting the same thing. Not sure how happy ATC would be to have 15 different gliders all reporting that they're operating in the Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire/Northamptonshire area between ground level and 6000' . That's all from one Club on a not particularly busy day. Combine that with activity from (say) te other Clubs and you're never going to get through on any RIS/LARS frequency!

Fuji Abound

3rd Sep 2008, 11:26

GPN01

I bow to your greater knowledge

duwn south for example gliders often route along one side of the downs or the other in the soaring conditions of the ridge line. They dont go far from the edge of ridge.

I can imagine there are occasions when the aim is to cross country from say Chichester to Eastbourne. What is the issue with reporting "glider x presently overhead Chalvington routing along the downs to Chichester between 1,500 and 4,500" and providing a position update every so often? From my point of view I am only really interested if you are in cloud or a few hundred feet above or below the base where I might not see you. If the tops are 4,500 I couldnt really care what you do above that, and if the base is 1,500 feet I couldnt really care what you do below say 1,300 feet if needs arise to take you out of your block altitude.

I dont accept you will not get through on frequecy. If you listen out on most LARS frequencies on days when the weather would suite thermaling in IMC I suspect there also will not be a significant amount of GA traffic about either - the powered mob are on the hole a bunch of softies, given them convective conditions with cloud and most of them will be whining about the weather in the clubhouse. :}

Whirlygig

3rd Sep 2008, 11:43

Rod1, I'm afraid your post #265 above is an example of what is wrong with this thread. You have quoted me, yet responded to something I haven't said or indeed even implied. You do know what advocate means??? :}

Earlier on, someone recommended as a top tip to forget about talking on the radio. That is what I find worrying; that someone should think they are safer by not communicating on their radio.

SO. I normally fly with two radios, Mode C transponder in Glass G with RIS. Is there anyone out there who would advocate I would be better off not using these facilities? 'Cos it sure as hell read like that to me!

Cheers

Whirls

gpn01

3rd Sep 2008, 12:08

The points I'm trying to make are:
- Sheer volume of VMC glider traffic calling a LARS is likely to overwhelm the unit with calls from gliders who, whilst they'll know where they are currently, don't have any idea where they'll be ten minutes later - there's times where I'll be at 5000' one minute and then ten minutes later I'll be at 500'. During that time I may have covered 20NM in any direction (including backtracking). A call to a LARS (if we can all decide which one to use) would result in something like "Glider 123 is operating in Open FIR in a height band between ground level and controlled airspace in the Oxfordshire area" is sometimes as accurate a report as I can get. This isn't going to help the controller and it's not going to help any power pilots either.
- In IMC conditions there may may again be a high volume of gliders unable to comply with RAS requiremenets (see doc http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_07webSSL08.pdf - "You must also inform the controller before making any other changes in heading or level" - in a glider that would require constant radio calls!).
- In IMC, while in cloud, there'll be a much lower volume of gliders in cloud (and they'll have a better idea of where they are whilst climbing but not whilst cruising)

FYI, ridge soaring only works in certain wind conditions and assumes that the pilot is attempting to ridge soar - so there's no guarantee which route a glider pilot will take. The locals will probably stick to a preferred route which is known to produce suitable conditions - the Southdowns being a good example. Non-locals won't known any better!

englishal

3rd Sep 2008, 12:32

Glider: "Wycombe good afternoon, Glider 123"
Wycombe "Glider 123 pass your message"
Glider "Glider 123 is a standard class glider operating to the West of your ATZ requesting Radar Information
Wycombe: "We're not radar equipped, can only provide flight information. Report your position and intention"
Glider: "Roger, understood. Glider 123 will be routing between Wycombe and Kidlington"
Wycombe: "Glider 123 confirm intended height and heading"
Glider: "Glider 123 will be operating between 500' AGL and base of the London TMA and will be routing somewhere over Oxfordshire"
Wycombe: "Roger Glider 123, no known traffic"
Glider: "Wycombe are you in contact with the Cessna, Pitts Special, Extra, Piper Cub or microlight that I can see in the area?"
Wycome: "Negative"
Glider: "Roger, be advised I can also see a further ten gliders in the area"

The point here is that there could be lots of other traffic, all using different frequencies (Wycombe, Kidlington, Benson, Halton, White Waltham and others all being valid contenders)

(D) Glider with handheld radio (720ch + pilot with an RT licence), in IMC. Here's the scene:

Glider: "Benson Radar, Glider 123"
Benson: ........ (it's Saturday, so there's no answer)
Glider: "Farnborough Radar, Glider 123"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, pass your message"
Glider "Glider 123 is a standard class glider operating in IMC between Wycombe and Kidlington requesting Radar Information"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, squawk 1234"
Glider: "Glider 123 isn't transponder equipped. Only power is in my handheld radio"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, Can you accept a radar heading for identification?"
Glider: "Glider 123, negative, currently climbing in a thermal in a cloud"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, Can provide Flight Information only"
Glider: "Roger that, can you confirm that you're co-ordinating all IMC traffic around the Benson area?"
Farnborough West: "Negative, only the ones talking to us."

Point here is that IMC traffic could be liaising with Kidlington, Benson (on UHF), Brize Radar or Farnborough West.

Hopefully Englishal this'll help to explain why there's a reluctance for gliders to call ATZ's in VMC or LARS in IMC.
My idea would go more like this:

Glider 123: Boscombe Radar Glider 123
Boscombe: Glider 123 pass your message
Glider123: Boscombe Radar, glider 123 is a standard class glider operating between X and Y currently 2200 climbing in IMC overhead Z
Boscombe Radar: Glider 123 roger, report VMC
Gider 123: Wilco

Then I come along in at 200 kts

GABCD: GABCD 3000' IFR IMC direct SAM
Boscombe Radar: GABCD roger. Be advised we have a report of a glider climbing in IMC overhead Z, last reported 2200'
GABCD: Roger, deviating 10 right for traffic
Boscombe Radar: Roger, contact Bournemouth Radar now on 119.475

Glider 123: Boscombe Radar Glider 123 VMC 4500 overhead Z changing frequency enroute
Boscombe Radar: Thanks for the call, bye....

That sort of thing...It is not important whether you get a RADAR service yourself, the mere fact that you reported where you were, in IMC, and then reported back in VMC makes life safer for everyone. You just have to think logically about who to call - and who would anyone transitting IFR would call (in my example, Bournemouth probably).....Call either the closest or the one with the bigest coverage (e.g. Farnborough).

If all gliders in IMC did this, then we wouldn't even be having a discussion about transponders.....

I once flew IFR from Scotland to Oxford. The weather was ****e (and hence high workload - very turbulent) and the radar controller gave me a warning "multiple contacts 10 miles ahead, no height information, could be gliders". I wasn't near a gliding site so carried on regardless (I was at about 6k' OCAS). However over that area there were a few breaks in the cloud and low and behold, looking down I could see gliders below me. At the time I thought I was safe as I was in the cloud, had I known that there could have (or may have been) gliders in the cloud with me, then that scares the heck out of me - and really it should scare the glider pilot too. If I smack into one at 150 kts the chances are that it is going to a bad outcome for everyone. It hasn't happened yet, thank goodness, but just the Reno glider / Hawker incident shows that it can happen, even in VMC. All involved in that incident were SO lucky....

Fuji Abound

3rd Sep 2008, 14:02

FYI, ridge soaring only works in certain wind conditions and assumes that the pilot is attempting to ridge soar - so there's no guarantee which route a glider pilot will take. The locals will probably stick to a preferred route which is known to produce suitable conditions - the Southdowns being a good example. Non-locals won't known any better!

I appreciate many of your views, but this does leave me with the impression that seeking any improvement at all over what we have is like pulling teeth. :)

OK so ridge soaring only works in certain conditions (accepted) but in the area I have mentioned that is where I always see gliders at any distance from the various local sites. I see them quite regularly working their way along the ridge. I cant imagine too many other gliders get there cross country so if they arent locals they are certainly starting out having trailed their glider to one of the local sites. I assume they might talk to the odd local or two before setting off.

There is only one unit in the area that can provide a LARS and there are only a couple of airfields. Everyone works these frequencies.

For those reasons I fail to understand why gliders is this area cant do as I have proposed? It is a small thing one is asking - it might not do any good but unless there is persuasive grounds for not doing so it has to be worth a try - and you have not yet persuaded me on this point.

I am not suggesting this is always a common denominator but equally I bet there are some other favoured routes about which activity could be passed in the same way. On top of all of that other asute aviates are expecting activity in these areas - that is why the gliding sites are marked as well as all the hang gliding sites all along the ridge.

Pace

3rd Sep 2008, 16:28

>There are a number of pilots who have posted here who previously flew IMC in class G under three erroneous beliefs:

a. Gliders aren't allowed at all;

b. Other aircraft aren't allowed if not transponding;

c. All IMC flight in class G are in receipt of some kind of radar service.

None of these are true. How good was their training? <

ProfChrisReed

I have read through all the postings and cant find any powered pilots who have indicated any of the above

>The points I'm trying to make are:
- Sheer volume of VMC glider traffic calling a LARS is likely to overwhelm the unit with calls from gliders who, whilst they'll know where they are currently, don't have any idea where they'll be ten minutes later - there's times where I'll be at 5000' one minute and then ten minutes later I'll be at 500'. During that time I may have covered 20NM in any direction (including backtracking). A call to a LARS (if we can all decide which one to use) would result in something like "Glider 123 is operating in Open FIR in a height band between ground level and controlled airspace in the Oxfordshire area" is sometimes as accurate a report as I can get. This isn't going to help the controller and it's not going to help any power pilots either.
- In IMC conditions there may may again be a high volume of gliders unable to comply with RAS requiremenets (see doc http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_07webSSL08.pdf - "You must also inform the controller before making any other changes in heading or level" - in a glider that would require constant radio calls!).
- In IMC, while in cloud, there'll be a much lower volume of gliders in cloud (and they'll have a better idea of where they are whilst climbing but not whilst cruising)<

GPN01

When I read this all it does is make me realise that there is a substantial risk of a collision with Gliders.
When we do anything with an element of risk normally we do everything we can to minimise that risk.
Take the rock climber. Most will use every bit of modern technology to safeguard themselves. Some free climb and the risk factor increases dramatically. But if they fall they kill themselves.

When flying airways we are under control, our aircraft cost a fortune to comply with RVSM requirements to fly in the high flight levels and to keep an accurate seperation. Controllers an dpilots do make mistakes and so another level of safeguards are in place. TCAS to give an ultimate warning.

Coming down the scale there is flight in IMC out of controlled airspace. There is no possibility of see and be seen so all we can rely on is a different set of rules which keep us seperated. We have to trust in the other guy that he is suitably trained to be able to fly his aircraft and navigate as well as communicate to a set accuracy we also use a radar service if possible so that there is an extra set of eyes keeping a lookout on us.

Yes an aircraft can fly in IMC without a transponder but I would hope to know about him and have faith in the fact that he is suitably qualified to be flying at the correct quadrantel level and the level that he states he is at.

It is all about risk management and trust in your fellow aviator to be responsable towards you and your passengers.

It is this need to be responsable for the lives of others rather than taking the attitude of "I will do what the hell I like and damn you" that should make us want act on a level playing field to set standards.

If you read your piece above then you must realise the extreme danger for a collission in IMC for as you put it "there maybe a high volume of gliders who cannot comply with RAS services". Actually there are NONE but we wont go into that. By your own admission you or anyone else doesnt know where the hell you are or at what height and in IMC thats a lethal combination.

I personally would like to see a legal requirement of at least ModeC for flight in IMC conditions.

I also appreciate that when cornered its a natural human response to become personal and to degenerate an argument into personal flaming which is sad as it achieves nothing.

probably nothing will happen until the unthinkable happens and then the regulators will take charge and force changes.

And those changes should be an across the board level playing field for flight in IMC which gives us all a reasonable chance of not hitting each other.

If either the pilots or aircraft cannot meet those standards then they should not be there. I stress I am only talking about IMC where see and avoid is impossible. VMC do what you want.

And yes to those who think I should keep in controlled airspace with fast machinery like jets which I fly it would be great to fly in controlled airspace from takeoff to touchdown but in very many places that is impossible for me or the holiday 737 A320

It would be possible but only by adding large areas of more controlled airspace and I am sure many here would not appreciate that either, Which recently happened to the air around Doncaster.

Pace

Fitter2

3rd Sep 2008, 18:37

And the glider pilot (or a pilot who happens today to be flying a glider rather than a powered aircraft) is also minimising risk as he sees it.

The dilemma is that in met conditions where cloud flying is advantageous, the most likely collision risk is with another glider. To be confident when approaching cloudbase and deciding to use the cloud that another glider is not already there, the only useful frequency is 130.400. Changing to the appropriate LARS frequency, and attempting to get a word in may miss the important call from the guy I don't want to bump into.

If (in your Citation or whatever) there is an isolated cumulus directly on your track, do you just fly straight through anyway or make a minor diversion to remain in VMC?

And we can't now fit mode C - the CAA says it has to be Mode S or nothing. And some controllers have said that with the expected clutter of everything that flies having a transponder, they will have to selectively remove from the display light aircraft and gliders (which they can do with Mode S, so we won't be transponding anyway, except as a response to a TCA system.

Roll on affordable ADS-B (although I'm sure the regulatory authorities will do their best to make it unaffordable by insisting on Aviation IR certified GPS engines ).

ProfChrisReed

3rd Sep 2008, 18:49

Pace,

I read your comment in post #98:

I have to say that I am amazed that gliders or any other aircraft should be allowed to fly in cloud without a transponder.as meaning you weren't aware this was possible. I realise it could mean that you were aware (though see your post #115) and amazed as well.

In post #118 Fuji Abound wrote:

No one is flying powered in IMC without a transponder.and I understood later posts to have pointed out that this wasn't the case.

Apologies if I've misunderstood anyone.

It seems to me that the big concern is not GA v glider/non-transponding power collisions, but airline v glider/non-transponding power collisions. Until fairly recently this risk was managed by keeping airline traffic largely out of class G airspace.

With my lawyer's hat on, I'd think that such a collision might lead to the airline being sued for negligence, or possibly even prosecuted for corporate manslaughter, given the known risk of flying in IMC where there is the possibility of non-transponding traffic being present. GA and glider pilots can be presumed to have voluntarily accepted the risk, but the same can't be true of airline passengers. Whether such a lawsuit or prosecution would succeed I can't say, and I wish I were convinced that the airlines which have chosen to route through class G have reviewed this risk.

More airspace isn't necessarily the answer either, as recent legal developments have opened up the possibility that if a collision between GA/gliders in class G is in part attributable to the funneling of that traffic into narrow corridors, the Government might have legal responsibility for that accident.

It may be that the current oil price jump is enough to limit the growth of low cost airlines, in which case the problem will go away, in the sense that the finger-crossing which IMC pilots have been using for the last 70 years or more will continue to be adequate.

Bear in mind that the risk of a glider/power collision in IMC is, on current numbers, lower than the risk of structural failure - in the last 60 years there appear to have been no such collisions, and there have certainly been multiple cases of structural failure for both categories of aircraft.

I'm not thereby arguing that the risk is so low we should ignore it, merely that it's important to put it in perspective. If I were to retry cloud flying in my glider I'd probably install PCAS, and would try a few initial calls to ATC to see what kind of response I got.

PS to all: On the FLARM issue, 5% is certainly too small to be useful generally. However, last year the number of gliders fitted with FLARM was almost 0%. In two or three years this number could increase dramatically (like credit cards - when I got one in 1974 there was nowhere local to use it, but a few years later there were many takers). This will lead to a further dilemma - I have space for FLARM or PCAS, but not both! Maybe by then there will be a combined unit, which might help us all.

Skycop

3rd Sep 2008, 19:05

Fitter2, I made a simple suggestion but you reply to say I have "failed" to come up with a solution (to suit you). A deliberate, inflammatory use of words, in my view, but I don't bite so easily.

However, I didn't know I had a duty to find a solution for you. The CAA and BGA haven't managed to do it so far, so why do you think I should or could? I merely saw a positive suggestion which I thought could help improve the awareness and safety of common airspace users in IMC, glider pilots included. Perhaps because it would mean giving something on your part (a simple radio call), you refuse to countenance it? :ugh:

This wasn't my previous view, but my thought in response to you can only be "Bring on mandatory Mode C".

Gpn01, Your quotes referring to the difficulties of glider pilots using a RAS in IMC are understood, at least by me. This is clearly an inappropriate service for a glider, or any other type of aircraft requiring to freely manoeuvre in cloud. You could use a RIS instead (or "Traffic Service" as it will soon be called). I routinely transit in Class G in IMC (I have to, I'd be out of a job if I didn't, only for someone else to replace me) and I don't ask for a RAS, it's too restrictive. However, I will certainly accept an RAS if ATC ask me to in order to satisfy their requirement to separate my aircraft from other traffic. If I called a radar unit for a service and ATC were aware of your presence, I would be very pleased to accept a radar vector to go round you.

Alternatively, rather than ask for a formal service of any kind (so you could get back to the glider IMC frequency), you could, as I suggested earlier, make a very brief call to inform a sensibly chosen ATC agency who can pass details of your flight to other aircraft on his frequency. Powered aircraft then at least have an informed chance to avoid the area previously reported by yourself. Other gliders, suitably informed, could head straight for your area in an attempt to steal your thermal ;)

Pace

3rd Sep 2008, 19:27

Fitter 2

No we dont go through large lumps of cumulous mainly because its bumpy for passengers.

I will aslo give you that there are varying degrees of IMC. The type that wouldnt appeal to Glider pilots ie cloudbase 600 feet and solid all the way up and as you put it mainly VFR with fairly well dispersed large cumulous or towering cumulous. In the second that would not create a major hazard.

Just through interest how much of an IMC conditions do you fly in? There are days when there is a mixture of small, large, towering and Cbs all mixed together where we normally use eyes and radar to find a way through. To me that is pretty well IMC with small patches of VMC.

There are also days which are fairly IMC with Mountain wave cloud.

I am trying to get a better understanding of your operations

Pace :-)

Pace

3rd Sep 2008, 19:48

ProfChrisreed

>I have to say that I am amazed that gliders or any other aircraft should be allowed to fly in cloud without a transponder. <

Apaology accepted as amazed means just that. All aircraft flying in IMC should have at least Mode C to be visible to Radar units, I am amazed that they are allowed to fly without mode C.

>With my lawyer's hat on, I'd think that such a collision might lead to the airline being sued for negligence, or possibly even prosecuted for corporate manslaughter, given the known risk of flying in IMC where there is the possibility of non-transponding traffic being present. GA and glider pilots can be presumed to have voluntarily accepted the risk, but the same can't be true of airline passengers. Whether such a lawsuit or prosecution would succeed I can't say, and I wish I were convinced that the airlines which have chosen to route through class G have reviewed this risk.<

Please read this incident report of a RyanAir into LondonDerry N Ireland and you might have a better understanding of where airliners do operate and how.
This was not a collision risk but just to explain that there are many airports like this with little control, some with NO radar and the 737s and A320s might go some way before entering an airway and proper control, so they could be in the same airspace as you and your non transponding glider and the same goes for me Flying a Citation Jet.

http://www.aerohabitat.org/link/21-01-2008%20-%20Airbus%20A320,%20EI-DIJ%2001-07.pdf

Londonderry ATC procedures
LDY operates two radio frequencies, Approach and
Tower. There is no radar facility at the airport, hence the
ATC approach service is procedural. When the tower
is staffed, it is done so by one ATCO who monitors and
controls both frequencies, which are cross coupled.
Additionally, he is responsible for carrying out ‘domestic’
duties that include the taking of landing fees, submitting
flight plans and issuing ATC clearances. When the
ATCO requires a break, the tower service closes down

Pace

englishal

3rd Sep 2008, 20:26

On the subject of FLARM....How about this for a compromise:

If the BGA or whoever regulates gliding made FLARM madatory for gliders, would this be acceptible to the gliding community? Because if it was then I'd be prepared to buy FLARM for my aeroplane and I'm sure many others would. Before you know it you could find that MOST GA / Gliders in the UK and possibly even Europe fitted with FLARM - it's cheap cost make it very attractive.

This would also drop the price of FLARM

ProfChrisReed

3rd Sep 2008, 21:09

Pace, had read it when it came out. I believe I have a pretty good idea about how commercial a/t operates, to the extent one can from merely reading as opposed to piloting it. My point was that some of the choices made by the airlines appear riskier than seems advisable from a litigation perspective, but it's not my role to second guess their risk assessments if they've actually made them.

gpn01

3rd Sep 2008, 21:12

This thread is becoming a bit heated at times which is a shame because I think valid points are being raised by all parties. I also recognise that there are sensiitivities being provoked - perhaps as pilots become more aware of the risks being taken by everybody, particularly in IMC conditions.

Fundementally I see the major issues as being that of risk recognition and mitigation. The positive outcome of this thread is the general increase in awareness of pilots of the risks involved when flying in uncontrolled airspace. The negative seems to be that many contributors are trying to 'mitigate' without recognizing or realizing each other's operating environments. The potential consequences of their suggestions which they describe as "common sense" may be 'sensible' based on their modus operandi and training but aren't actually sensible when the bigger picture of multiple airspace users are considered.

The interesting point of all of this is that, despite everybody being uncomfortable with the exisiting situation, statistics suggest that it actually works rather well as there have been few, if any, glider vs power collisions in IMC. A concern that I have is that changing the rules now could actually increase the possiblity of such an event occuring.

Finally, an observation to all those pilots who weren't aware that gliders operate in IMC without using LARS/RIS/RAS, the simple fact is that we do because we use a procedure that works (as borne out by statistics) of communicating on 130.4. If you didn't previously know this and have been flying in IMC whilst talking to a radar/flight information unit in the mistaken belief that there was a zero risk of collision then the only thing that has changed is your awareness. One day legislation (via EASA or CAA) may change this. Until then you may want to question why it was that you weren't aware of the situation.

Fuji Abound

3rd Sep 2008, 21:35

The interesting point of all of this is that, despite everybody being uncomfortable with the exisiting situation, statistics suggest that it actually works rather well as there have been few, if any, glider vs power collisions in IMC. A concern that I have is that changing the rules now could actually increase the possiblity of such an event occuring.

No, unless you mean the situation works rather well becasue the risk of two aircraft being in the same place at the same time is remote.

In fact so far as the present system is concerned as between power and gliders everyone is operating with their fingers crossed - kid your self not.

The vast majority of powered aircraft in IMC are not listening out on the glider frequency, gliders arent making radio calls on any of the powered frequencies, powered aircraft cant detect FLARM and gliders cant detect transponders. Other than a bit of help from AT who might be able to see gliders on primary the reality is the big sky keeps us safe nearly all the time.

In some respects I suspect it should be kpet a closely guarded secret. (If only because I have some symphathy for open FIR).

If one of the tabloids really got hold of the story and told the public that locos often had little prospect of avoiding a glider which could be legally operating in the same bit of sky without anyone knowing I suspect they would have a productive time. Once the regulator, the government and EASA had done with it that could well be the end of this particular "situation".

Rod1

4th Sep 2008, 08:00

I have learned a lot form this thread;

I have found out far more about FLARM than I did before. I had followed the CAA’s comments criticizing it, but I now think it is the one tec which could make a real difference. I hope the take up I the UK mirrors that of parts of Europe, in which case I may well fit it.

I have also revised my opinion of PCAS. I will be seeing some of the people who have tried it and rejected it over the weekend, so I will try to find out why. Based on the comments it appears to be an interesting option, but probably not suited to my situation.

Over the winter I plan on upgrading my panel, by adding a large MFD. Collision avoidance compatibility is now on my list of research questions.

I am quite fortunate in that I flew Gliders for some time before taking up Power, used my IMC quite aggressively, then built my own aircraft and have spent time lobbying for the LAA and the BMAA. There are a few people on this thread who are very fixed in one kind of aviation and have a very low understanding of the other branches sharing the same sky. I have no idea how to solve this, but aviation would be much stronger if we all respected our different slants on the same basic principle.:ugh:

Rod1

Pace

4th Sep 2008, 08:53

>There are a few people on this thread who are very fixed in one kind of aviation and have a very low understanding of the other branches sharing the same sky. I have no idea how to solve this, but aviation would be much stronger if we all respected our different slants on the same basic principle.<

Rod1 sharing the same sky to me means being concerned for each others safety and carrying a responsability to each other.

Gliders are different as they cannot maintain altitude and heading and as such are unique in not being able to fly IFR rules in IMC. By doing so they are at an increased risk of collision compared to those of us who are able to keep a seperation by flying IFR in Imc.

One poster said that all that kept us from a collision was the "BIG SKY" and that itself is true.
With that in mind the fewer Gliders in IMC the lower that risk the higher the numbers in IMC the higher the risk.

What you are saying is that we all have a right to be in clouds and those of us who can fly to IFR standards should accept that increase in risk no matter how small because Gliders are a special case and should not have to conform to the safety requirements that the rest of us have to do.

Nothing posted here has allayed those genuine fears only increased them so we carry on in the status quo that has always been until there is a collision with something major that the press go to town on.

At that point we may all wish we had fought harder to find a solution because one will be forced on us.

I hope if nothing else some posters here are more aware that class G does not just contain small GA but they are likely to also have a 737 fill their screens.

My own apologies if I have trodden on anyones toes in this thread.

Pace

englishal

4th Sep 2008, 12:18

Sometimes stuff comes over as being agressive when in fact it is not meant to be! It has been an informative thread;)

But what about mandatory fitting of FLARM in gliders? Seems a sensible, cost effective option, and I'm sure that if gliders had them then most light aircraft would certainly have them...They no need for transponders or radios or checking in with a LARS controller.....I'd certainly buy one......The problem is the CAA won't mandate FLARM for LA for reasons pointed out earlier, but if powered pilots had a reason to get one, I'm sure most would (just like most have a GPS).

Pace

4th Sep 2008, 12:29

>Sometimes stuff comes over as being agressive when in fact it is not meant to be!<

Yes I would go with that as text is a faceless medium and can be easely misread.

Maybe too we sometimes overstate a point to encourage debate when we are not that far apart. Then there is the natural competative side to debate" I know better than you etc " ;)

But I hope we are all friends at the end of these debates regardless of differences of opinion.

And as in the Sky should respect each other

Pace

bad bear

4th Sep 2008, 12:29

I think it is worth a bit of explanation to reduce some posters fears and in anwer to the question raised by Pace.

If one were to consider there to be 2 main types of cloud. cumulus and stratus

Gliders rarely fly in stratus except when climbing into or descending from a wave climb or after a high climb on the edge of " spread out"

With cumulus, gliders only take a cloud climb when they really need to as it is not a fast way to go cross country, it is much quicker to run cloud streets and remain clear of cloud. Glider pilots will take climbs in the following circumstances;
when faced with a last towering cu on the edge of spread out

near the end of a day when the cloud they are under is likely to be one of the last.

when there is an unsoarable area ahead e.g. Severn estuary filled with cold sea air

to get max height before crossing the English channel or Irish sea

when the pilot will risk getting low and outlanding if he does not take the cloud climb

when Cu Nims or big showers leave large unsoarable areas

Basically Glider pilots take cloud climbs only when really needed and seldom cruise in cloud for extended periods of time, hence the quaint " British only" quadrantal rule is not relevant.

to summarise;
If an aeroplane is cruising in stratus he is unlikely to encounter any gliders unless the met office form 215 has predicted " sig mountain wave"
If there are towering cu near areas that do not have cu forming it might be best for the aeroplane to fly round that isolated cloud rather than blasting straight through it if he is concerned.

I hope this puts some minds at ease

bad bear

4th Sep 2008, 12:40

FLARM has a flight recorder function and the pilot's flight can be easily downloaded using the s/d card. The file can then be viewed on inexpensive software like seeyou
Naviter (http://naviter.si/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=213)
With this you can see where you or your early solo pilot actually flew. This is a great tool for de briefing pilots of all experience levels.
With this recording function pilots on their qualifying cross country could be seen to have done everything to the required standard.
bb

Rod1

4th Sep 2008, 12:43

“But what about mandatory fitting of FLARM in gliders?”

Why limit it to gliders, why not go for mandatory FLARM in all aircraft which cannot fit Transponders, or even all of GA?

Rod1

Fitter2

4th Sep 2008, 16:25

Pace appears to be obsessed with the idea that a collision between a locost 737 flying out of a regional airport and a glider who in his opinion should not be there is likely.

My understanding is that the holiday bound (or returning) 737s spend as little time as possible at low level (i.e. below say 12,000ft) for good economic reasons. The flight paths into and out of these airports are well known and sensibly avoided, even if it would be legal to fly IMC in a glider there. Unless planning wave flying, gliders do not normally carry supplemental oxygen, and therefore do not climb above around 12,000ft.

The higher risk, I suggest, is to smaller business jets positioning to smaller airfields which are capable of handling them. A poster whose contributions indicate they fly such operations has said they often do so at relatively low level in the open FIR, rather than airways, for convenience and economic reasons (even when that option is available).

I hope they avoid flying just below cloudbase on days where the cloud is mainly cumulus; that is where a higher density of gliders is to be expected. The lack of collisions so far, and of airprox reports indicates that this is the case, and 'big sky' is working.

If positioning bizjets would like further reassurance that clouds ahead are glider free, then listening on 130.400 will give further confidence.

I have only one COM set. My most likely risk is another glider on the days when cloud climbs are desirable. My responsibility to the most likely conflict dictates my mode of operation.

I fit FLARM as the only current option available to me to further reduce the risk.

I agree that a fully interoperable system would further reduce the already small risk, and believe the obsession within the CAA that Mode S is a good answer, and the only answer (neither of which are backed up by the data available, or technical considerations) is unhelpful.

Meanwhile, I hope not to meet some of you gentlemen (meant in the nicest possible way).

bad bear

4th Sep 2008, 16:41

For those reasons I fail to understand why gliders is this area cant do as I have proposed? It is a small thing one is asking - it might not do any good but unless there is persuasive grounds for not doing so it has to be worth a try - and you have not yet persuaded me on this point.

Fuji Abound
I will try to explain.
When I fly the south downs ridge I listen out on the glider chat frequency to monitor how much glider traffic is around ( often 40 + gliders) and form a mental picture of where they are. There is a lot of chat about which sections of the ridge are working well and more importantly, which bits are not.This info is useful.
If I were to call for an air traffic service, I have the choice of 3 radar services or calling Goodwood and Shoreham for FIS. I guess I would be expected to call each as I work my way from west to east then the same on the return leg. Say I start at Butser hill, I guess I would be expected to talk to Solent as they have radar and traffic and would like to know something about my movements. Then 5 min later call Good wood as they might have traffic in the area. Then I guess a LARS unit, then before passing through the extended c/l I should be talking to Shoreham and so on.
All in all my head would be in the cockpit to dial up frequency changes 7 times in each direction. That is a lot of time heads down when the traffic I need to avoid is in the same narrow band of lift that I am running and at similar heights on a reciprocal track with both doing 80 to 120 kts. I would be increasing my risk of a head on collision greatly. None of these controllers can realistically give me any traffic information that would be of any use to me what so ever.If I am getting a radar service the controller would be warning me of traffic head on every minute ( 40 gliders on a 40nm ridge), and with it advice to turn right 45 deg if traffic not sighted. Well if I turn behind the ridge I will be in sink and landing out! If I turn left I will fly out of the lift and land out. Most controllers tend to blurt out a bunch of useless info about regional pressure settings etc when that is not only of no use, it is the wrong setting for avoiding the base of CAS. Then when I do call I get asked a bunch of irrelevant questions like where did you take off from, where re you going to land, what type of glider are you flying, how many souls on board etc etc This serves only as an unwelcome distraction and an annoyance. All that they need to know is that this leg is from Petersfield to Eastbourne operating between surface and base of CAS. Given that there are 40 sailplanes between surface and base of CAS what will the 5 ATC agencies relay to you? look out, lots of gliders,various heights. Think how the controllers would feel if 40 gliders were to do the same, that would be one glider calling twice each every minute. They would not be able to give the usual service to existing customers.
Now if I am down at ridge top there is unlikely to be any non glider traffic, also I am unlikely to show on radar and might not be able to receive VHF

In short by using the radio to call ATC neither I nor the others on frequency gain anything and the risk of collision actually increases due to the distraction and heads down time.
If you read through back issues of AIRPROX reports you will be amazed how often an airprox occurs between 2 aeroplanes that are in the same bit of sky talking to different controllers, many of which would have been avoided if the pilots had been looking out

Really these controllers cannot save you and the sooner pilots let go of this bizarre belief that talking to some one on a radio will somehow protect them the better. Look out the window, stop distracting your self with radios.

Fuji Abound

4th Sep 2008, 16:55

Bad Bear

If I were to call for an air traffic service, I have the choice of 3 radar services or calling Goodwood and Shoreham for FIS. I guess I would be expected to call each as I work my way from west to east then the same on the return leg. Say I start at Butser hill, I guess I would be expected to talk to Solent as they have radar and traffic and would like to know something about my movements. Then 5 min later call Good wood as they might have traffic in the area. Then I guess a LARS unit, then before passing through the extended c/l I should be talking to Shoreham and so on.

Dont bother with all that - do me a favour and just tell Farnborough - one call.

They are the only one who are going to provide a LARS along any of the route (Solent arent interested, other than possibly at the very western edge if you were inside CAS, and you would need to talk to them anyway in that case, Gatwick are even less interested).

Anyone with any sense enroute along the South Downs in IMC will be getting a service from Farnborough. Even if it is too busy for Farnborough to provide a RIS they will warn us about glider traffic along the south downs ridge last reported at X. If I know you are there I will arrange my flight to be above or below you in VMC if I can and I certainly will not be going through any Cu just in case.

Pace

4th Sep 2008, 17:46

>>Pace appears to be obsessed with the idea that a collision between a locost 737 flying out of a regional airport and a glider who in his opinion should not be there is likely.<<

I never said it was Likely so please dont misquote me I said there is an increased risk of such a collision

>>My understanding is that the holiday bound (or returning) 737s spend as little time as possible at low level (i.e. below say 12,000ft) for good economic reasons. The flight paths into and out of these airports are well known and sensibly avoided, even if it would be legal to fly IMC in a glider there. Unless planning wave flying, gliders do not normally carry supplemental oxygen, and therefore do not climb above around 12,000ft.<<

Business jets operate in exactly the same way also need to climb to reduce fuel burn and often climb faster than airlines

>>The higher risk, I suggest, is to smaller business jets positioning to smaller airfields which are capable of handling them. A poster whose contributions indicate they fly such operations has said they often do so at relatively low level in the open FIR, rather than airways, for convenience and economic reasons (even when that option is available).<<

We fly business jets airways when practical and would love to fly controlled airspace takeoff to touchdown but it is not always practical how are you going to fly airways positioning Biggin to Farnborough for example? It is not only business jets but turboprops, Military and 737s which operate out side of controlled airspace read my posts again including operations from Londonderry where there isnt even radar for Airbus A320 until they get onto a military unit near by.

>>I hope they avoid flying just below cloudbase on days where the cloud is mainly cumulus; that is where a higher density of gliders is to be expected. The lack of collisions so far, and of airprox reports indicates that this is the case, and 'big sky' is working.<<

From what you say we should avoid flying in the clouds too as nowhere is safe.

>>If positioning bizjets would like further reassurance that clouds ahead are glider free, then listening on 130.400 will give further confidence.<<

I am more intent on listening to a Radar Service than some obscure glider frequency covering gliders from the top to the bottom of the country.

>>I have only one COM set. My most likely risk is another glider on the days when cloud climbs are desirable. My responsibility to the most likely conflict dictates my mode of operation.

I fit FLARM as the only current option available to me to further reduce the risk.<<

>>I agree that a fully interoperable system would further reduce the already small risk, and believe the obsession within the CAA that Mode S is a good answer, and the only answer (neither of which are backed up by the data available, or technical considerations) is unhelpful.
Meanwhile, I hope not to meet some of you gentlemen (meant in the nicest possible way).<<

Fitter2 I really think you should become a little bit more knowledgeable about what and how airspace is used especially if you operate in it rather than taking pot shots at me because I have somehow ruffled your feathers.
Infact it would be good if we both understood each others operational modes better. I am picking up a lot from the sensible gliding fraternity here but you appear blind to wanting to understand anything

Pace

Fitter2

4th Sep 2008, 18:39

The ruffling of feathers appears to be mutual.

I could pull up my flight planning software and route Biggin-Farnborough almost all in controlled airspace , and nowhere en-route would you be likely to encounter a glider cloud flying. There is also virtually no chance of that risk anywhere near Londonderry. By understanding how airspace is used, and the densities of traffic of each sort, I am content that I am operating with minimal risk to myself and others. One could point out that much of the military traffic that does fly in IMC until recently did not carry any equipment compatible with civilian TCAS/TPAS systems, usually was operating to a separate control system (yes, the systems do communicate but airprox reports indicate that misunderstandings do arise) and arguably posed a much greater risk to non-controlled airspace traffic.

If we all learn more about how each sector of the aviation community operates, then misunderstanding is less likely to arise. We might even agree on measures to reduce accidents which demonstrably do occur.

Pace

4th Sep 2008, 19:15

Fitter2 London Military usually give a very good service at and above FL100 in the open FIR. They are as good as airways controllers and will give a service to civilians as well as Military.

Both LondonDerry and Inverness which handle heavies have Glider sites close to as usual its Military for a RAS or RIS and both are someway off from airways.

Londonderry does not have radar and I have been in the hold there with a 737holding below and another IFR aircraft above. We are all reliant on eachother to change levels and report our positions in the holds or approaches.

Atc verbally co ordinate everything but it is all verbal between us and them and eachother. There has to be a lot of trust between us that we are all flying accurately but at least the 737 can see me on his TCAS and I can see him.

The approaches are procedural

While I know many ATPLs who love gliding and am sure many many others are very experienced it still worries me that a low time, inexperienced glider pilot in cloud unnanounced and not knowing where he was could cause a disaster especially in situations as above. If he is also not transponding which I appreciate is difficult for you then we dont see him either on our extravigant TCAS.

Maybe the gliding fraternity should limit IMC flight to very experienced Glider pilots and introduce a good basis of IR training or IR awareness specific to gliders?

Its Ok I dont get ruffled easely :-) take care

Pace

englishal

4th Sep 2008, 21:01

“But what about mandatory fitting of FLARM in gliders?”

Why limit it to gliders, why not go for mandatory FLARM in all aircraft which cannot fit Transponders, or even all of GA?

Rod1
I would agree, but unfortunately that won't happen. The process of the CAA mandating something like FLARM would never happen in a million years, and if they did, the cost of having FLARM fitted would soar. Permit aircraft could probably be "forced" to fit FLARM by their regulator as part of the permit conditions - I don't know.

The point is that if some are forced, those who are sensible would buy the kit anyway. I would if by buying it I new I could avoid all gliders (in and out of IMC) and/or all non transponding aeroplanes.

Rod1

5th Sep 2008, 10:35

englishal

99.99% of the aircraft which cannot fit Transponders are not on a std CAA C of A. As FLARM can come as a very small portable unit it would not require any installation and would not be included in any empty weight calculation. The PFA/BGA/BMAA could make it happen, but some “assistance” from the CAA would help. I would fall outside the group as I have a Transponder, but if as you say the above group had the units, I would get one anyway.

Rod1

flybymike

5th Sep 2008, 12:16

I must saythat FLARM does appear to fit all of the requirements admirably.

Cheap, effective, reasonably accurate, standalone device, interchangeable from aircraft to aircraft, and which also has the advantage of operating outside the radar and ATC environment.

This last point might be quite an incentive for those pilots who are apprehensive about sqawking their location to ATC in these days of compulsory infringement reporting.;)

Although I operate with a transponder I would happily buy a FLARM unit if there were substantial uptake. I wonder what could be done to "make it happen?"

Robin400

5th Sep 2008, 12:19

I have a mode "S" transponder but would still consider fitting a Flarm.:ok:

BackPacker

5th Sep 2008, 13:14

Most obvious solution would be an "upgrade" to the Zaon PCAS devices so that they incorporate FLARM as well.

Is FLARM an open standard (or at least an open spec)?

chrisN

5th Sep 2008, 14:36

"Is FLARM an open standard (or at least an open spec)?"

I think not, from correspondence I have seen. They have licensed others to use the technology, however – “Ozflarm”, etc. See the LX website too. LX avionics Ltd. Radio transceivers, Mode S transponders, variometers, flight recorders (http://www.lxavionics.co.uk) .

Chris N.

PS: FLARM posted the following (responding to criticism of their policy – original is at

Flarm hidden protocol, II - rec.aviation.soaring | Google Groups (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.soaring/browse_thread/thread/75a397b5e0f9a22b#)

but you may need to register to read it there)

“Flarm has always communicated openly and transparently, see our website for up to date information on technical and business developments, including IP: Flarm - News (http://www.flarm.com/news/index_en.html) In particular we have argued in detail why publishing the RF protocol is currently impossible:

http://www.flarm.com/product/Compatibility_Considerations_1_1.pdf

The explanations in that document are widely supported by independent experts. The changes (and underlying motivations) to the v4 version are described since many months here:

Flarm - Updates (http://www.flarm.com/support/updates/index_en.html) and yes, they do contain significant enhancements to the RF protocol which did not allow backwards compatibility, see Flarm - Updates (http://www.flarm.com/support/updates/index_en.html#_Toc192870771)

[edited to add PS]