Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?

[Pace]

The Powered IMC fraternity seem to think that it's OK for them to demand that owners of aircraft currently not required to carry transponders should fork out to fit them.

Flying IMC the normal rules of see and avoid dont work so we have to work out a solution which gives us all safe seperation in cloud especially now that all the military radar services appear to be closed for far greater times than open for business.

They do not seem to be forthcoming with any ideas to charge for radar services in IMC in order to provide funding to reverse the current trend of a reduction in availability of primary radar. A case of "I demand something be done providing I'm not the one paying for it"?

It is not just GA that are effected by closing military units. CAT too rely on these units for LARS example Gloucester and Brize. GA already pay a fortune on fuel tax which CAT on Jet A1 dont. whoops gliders dont use fuel so dont pay the tax ;)

The pilots of gliders getting sucked into a cloud from below at low speed and equipped with parachutes are responsible for their decision to enter cloud rather than pull out the airbrakes.
The pilots of powered aircraft boring holes through cloud are similarly responsible for their decision.

Sucked in ? now you see him now you dont slurp the gliders shot up a nasty CB and burped out the top :)

If you are flying IMC OCAS on an IMC rating perhaps you should be considering that the original purpose of the IMC was as a get out of jail card and not as a sort of mini-IR. Yes it gives you privileges, but how you exercise those privileges is a matter for your own judgement. Unless you are receiving a deconfliction service I find it difficult to understand how you can be adequately discharging your responsibility to maintain separation from something you can't see (which leaves us back with Big Sky Theory).

To remind all that it is not just GA with PPLs in IMC OCAS But also CAT up to 737s A320s. At least IMCR pilots have a structured training of sorts Glider pilots do not.

If of course you have an IR and an Airways equipped aircraft then file a flight plan and stay in Class A.

Wish that was possible as there are bigger areas in OCAS than CAS. Maybe that will change and more and more of the UK will go to CAS and less to OCAS
Then yes me and others will be able to stay in CAS but that wouldnt please me or anyone else in this discussion.

Having lobbed that into the discussion pool I'll go home and have my tea.

Enjoy the tea :)

[Mike Cross]

Tea very pleasant thanks:)

At least IMCR pilots have a structured training of sorts Glider pilots do not.
Sounds like the comment of someone who's not familiar with gliding training. One of the reasons I don't glide nowadays was the persistent habit of instructors pulling cable breaks, running out of height in the circuit, slow (or fast) launches and the tug losing power on an aerotow. All deliberately done as a test of a person they didn't know. VERY safety conscious but also frustrating.

Re the bit about being sucked into the bottom of cloud. It's reasonably well known that those nice puffy cumulus couds result from water vapour condensing out due to adiabatic cooling and they therefore sit on a column of rising air. I'm no great shakes as a glider pilot but I've had to pull the brakes out as the horizon started to disappear, pushing the stick forward being insufficient. Being an inveterate coward I assure you that there was not the slightest thing dodgy about the weather at the time.

[Fuji Abound]

Mike - whenever this debate comes forward you seem to forget that 49% of NATS is owned by the tax payer, 100% of the military is owned by the tax payer and GA pays duty on Avgas and VAT on all other services (unles involved with commercial ops).

Now let me see, oh yes CAT pays no duty on Avtur, pays exactly the same en route charges as GA and pays no VAT on any of its inputs.

I suspect GA contributes rather a lot for the paltry services it receives.

As for gliders, if you are getting personal, I suppose they pay even less than CAT, so perhaps a duty on gliders would fund the cost of the rest of us buying FLARM. :}

[Riverboat]

One wonders why glider pilots always have to have parachutes if they are going to fly into cloud. Is it because years ago the CAA./Min of CA or whatever decided that it was risky for gliders to be flying in cloud? If so, was collision with another glider considered a possibility?

Would glider pilots be quite so keen to fly into cloud if they did not have parachutes? Would some of them get a bit nervous, as I am getting, about flying into cloud OCAS? If I collide with a glider I am dead.The glider pilot has a chance.

Now I can see that there is an absurdity to this argument and of course I am not suggesting that gliders should not have parachutes, but I am suggesting that an element of a glider pilots bravado might be reinforced by the fact he/she has a parachute in the case of a collision.

Another point I'd like to make is that actually gliders are very difficult to see even in VMC, and I am definitely going to fit an ACAS to my light twin. Please could gliders have functioning transponders so that my ACAS can "see" them?

RB

[cats_five]

Everyone I know that flies gliders firstly views cloud flying with horror*, and secondly views having to use their parachute with horror, although I do know someone that had to jump after a collision - in good visibility, near the launch site. Wearing a parachute (if possible) is a BGA thing, nothing to do with the CAA or any other body, and I've not been associated with gliding for long enough to know the background.

Mostly parachutes are expensive cossetted cushions - most of us don't fit most gliders without wearing one. I certainly don't - I would have to have a huge nest of Dynafoam without mine.

Do you think there's a chance that having a transponders and/or receiving an ATC service give a false sense of security?

*one guy I know is heavily into sports jumping, but I doubt he views jumping from a glider with any more enthusiasm than I do.

[Fitter2]

Another point I'd like to make is that actually gliders are very difficult to see even in VMC, and I am definitely going to fit an ACAS to my light twin. Please could gliders have functioning transponders so that my ACAS can "see" them?


I say again, it will cost me more than 10 times as much to fit a transponder as for you to fit FLARM. Why do you insist I am the one to be 'taxed' when you are the one who is worried?

Re parachutes, the rationale is that gliders naturally fly in close proximity groups, and the risk is much more from VMC collision than in cloud; there has not been a single glider/glider cloud collision since the 130.4 call when entering cloud in a glider was introduced. Plus, as has been pointed out, the seating is all designed for parachute wearing pilots.

[apruneuk]

Pace

If this was a commercial, IFR flight, it would be verging on the criminal for London Control to just dump you at FL100 in the South of England without some belief that you would be able to navigate safely to your destination. Did you ask them, or subsequently London Information, for the details of a unit that could offer you a Deconfliction Service? As a commercial pilot you will have been sent a copy of the CAA's CD "New Air Traffic Services Outside Controlled Airspace" (I assume you hold a JAA CPL?).

To quote from the manual, "Pilots should be aware that Basic Service is not appropriate for flight in IMC......." London Information can only offer you a Basic Service so why did you continue with it? It is not up to them to offer you alternatives unless you request them to. At that level and in that part of the UK, if you were unable to receive anything but a Basic Service you should have told London Control about your flight conditions and asked to remain with them. It appears to me from the information that you have given that the glider incident was a likely consequence of the course of action that you chose to pursue.

AP

[Fuji Abound]

To quote from the manual, "Pilots should be aware that Basic Service is not appropriate for flight in IMC......."


So how do you reconcile this with gliders not even receiving a basic service while in IMC?

[Pace]

AP

By the comments made when I complained of the routing I think even the London Controller was puzzled and dropped me out of CAS near CPT with instructions to go direct and contact London Info.

Had I been in cloud at FL100 there is no way I would have accepted a basic service. Fact was i was on top of an overcast so VMC on top. The fact that it was VMC on top and looked to stay that way and also that any traffic at that sort of level would be sparse I accepted a basic service.

Had I been in cloud or looked likely to be in cloud ahead I would prob have requested London Military with hindsight and will do in future.

I would recommend OCAS that we all fly higher and insist on LM. That still leaves problems in the descent OCAS especially at ranges which are on the border of a Radar Service.

I am surprised at your comments that you were not surprised with the Air Prox with the glider.

It had been determined here that such an encounter is very rare.

My operations in OCAS are typical of most operations OCAS CAT. For your info this was not a CAT flight but a corporate aircraft flight.

Having said that with the changes in military radar times there are many destinations which CAT use which are dependant on the Military for LARS
CAT often operate OCAS so this is now becoming a real problem.


Pace

[Fitter2]

I read it as a backside covering job so that, should an accident happen they can dump any responsibility.

Already, when new GA 'choke points' are created, and it is pointed out that the collision risk OCAS is increased, the response is 'this is not our responsibilty'.

If not theirs, then whose?

[Rod1]

Do I remember correctly that Gliders have right of way over power…:=

Rod1

[cats_five]

Do I remember correctly that Gliders have right of way over power…:=

Rod1

And balloons over gliders...

[apruneuk]

Fuji

So how do you reconcile this with gliders not even receiving a basic service while in IMC?

I don't. My opinion is that it is extremely dangerous to fly around the UK OCAS in IMC without some form of radar service, preferably Primary radar. Pace's story highlights what is out there waiting for us and we have to decide what level of risk we are willing to take when we go flying - what may be legal may not be sensible.

Pace

Sorry, but my impression was that yours was a public transport flight mostly in IMC (seems to have been for the let-down at least). There is, of course, another whole debate about whether all Corporate flights flown by professional crew should be operated to public transport requirements under an AOC. However, I don't want to start that debate in this forum right now and I believe that under EASA that is likely to be the case by 2012 anyway.

Suffice it to say that I think your question has been answered: It is certainly more dangerous to fly in IMC OCAS than in CAS. That danger can be somewhat mitigated by participating in a primary/secondary radar service that gives deconfliction and terrain avoidance advice (Deconfliction Service). If you choose not to have such a service or are unable to obtain one and continue (legally) without one then you must accept that the danger level has just increased one notch both for you, your passengers, other aircraft that you may come across and those on the ground underneath you. Short of making all of the UK CAS that isn't going to change.

By the way, for future reference, I believe that Farnborough have radar coverage over the Compton area and can offer a deconfliction service until well into the evening, depending on the time of year.

AP

[Final 3 Greens]

Do I remember correctly that Gliders have right of way over power…


So do sailboats over supertankers, but sometimes the latter run over the former and don't even realise.

Therefore rights are of limited utility in such situations.

[cats_five]

So do sailboats over supertankers, but sometimes the latter run over the former and don't even realise.

Therefore rights are of limited utility in such situations.

See Rule 18 (b) of the Collision Regulations.

"A sailing vessel shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command; (ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoueuvre; (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;"

Since a supertanker is always confined by lack of manouverability (check their stopping distance), and around most UK coasts (certainly though much of the channel) by it's draft, sailing vessels (and indeed other powered vessels) should keep clear.

Running over something without realising often happens at night or in poor visibility, and often has a element of poor watch-keeping on both vessels.

[Pace]

If you choose not to have such a service or are unable to obtain one and continue (legally) without one then you must accept that the danger level has just increased one notch both for you, your passengers, other aircraft that you may come across and those on the ground underneath you. Short of making all of the UK CAS that isn't going to change

AP

Totally agree with your statement above and that is part of this discussion.

For as long as I can remember Brize gave an excellent service day and night and covered a large block of OCAS.

I have operated corporate jets into Filton as Captain many times as well as Gloucester and Kemble. Leaving CAS the handover was to Brize for the OCAS section till Filton.

Fly into LondonDerry! leave The Bel and you are with Scottish until your handed over to LondonDerry then you are on your own.
Londonderry have no Radar, the approaches are procedural and we in IMC are all reliant on each other to where we say we are.

Being an AOC flight or not an AOC flight is irrelevant. In a twin, a corporate jet, a 737 or A320 is irrelevant.

The fact is we are all flying in IMC, Blind without Radar cover. Londonderry has a gliding club and it is conceivable that a glider with NO radio, No nav Kit, No transponder etc could be in the clouds with us.

I had a flight into Londonderry and was in the hold at FL50 with an A320 above and another aircraft in the procedure. ATC confirmed verbally our respective spacings. The A320 had me on his TICAS. Just say a Glider lost in IMC with no radio joined us?

I can give you a list of other airfields in the UK with simular setups.

Yes you are correct that OCAS with no radar the risk goes up a notch!.
Now the government are so called streamlining ATC especially drastically cutting Military operations the risk factor is increasing again.

AOC or non AOC makes not a scrap of difference. This is CAT OCAS with NO radar coverage mixed in with aircraft that are not transponding.
Farnborough North while an excellent new addition for around London wont cover you past CPT going north west.

All corporate jet flights AOC? Smacks of money for the boys and protectionism? and massive cost increases! without any doubt nothing else but as you said we dont want to go there do we ? :) Maybe we should all fear EASA and whats left of GA at the end of it all.

Pace

[vihai]

Since a supertanker is always confined by lack of manouverability


"lack of manouverability" has a precise definition that is not related to the vessel's size.

It has to do with the kind of operations it is performing at the time.

For example laying cables, doing surveys, landing planes... :)

However, if I am on a sailing boat I'm not going to check if they're manouvering to avoid me :)

[Fitter2]

Any glider pilot who deliberatly flies IMC without formal training from an instrument rated instructor is behaving irresponsibly to the whole avaition community. Personally I would ban all gliders from cloud.


Since there is no instrument rating part of the BGA instructors syllabus, presumably you are a power only instrument rated instructor. I am sure your contribution to constructing a gliding IMC rating syllabus would be welcomed by the BGA Instructors Committee.

Not that it is significant, but are you a BGA or an ATC Gliding Instructor?

[cats_five]

"lack of manouverability" has a precise definition that is not related to the vessel's size.

I guess I blurred two bits of the colregs togeather:

3 General definitions
(g) The term “vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre” means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term “vessels restricted in their ability to manoeuvre” shall include but not be limited to:
(i) a vessel engaged in laying, servicing or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable or pipeline;
(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway;
(iv) a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
(v) a vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.(h) The term “vessel constrained by her draught” means a power-driven vessel which, because of her draught in relation to the available depth and width of navigable water, is severely restricted in her ability to deviate from the course she is following.
Supertankers in UK coastal waters are almost always in the gripe of 3 (h). They also have a stopping distance measure in miles - the only sensible course for all other traffic is to stay clear.

[davidd]

I am just in shock that anyone can legally fly in cloud without an IMC or IR
As pointed out earlier the homebuilt loaded with instruments with a CPL/IR
at the controls cant fly in cloud yet a glider pilot can, something is very very wrong with that, angry thats how I would be if I was pace, I feel a petition coming on!

I care not who uses the sky and in what transport they use it, the Rules should however be the same for us all.

[cats_five]

Davidd, you like many others don't understand enough of what is and is not allowed. Gliders have an exemption for cloud flying - they also have one for flying near the ground for ridge soaring.

Whilst I can see where you are coming from, the rules (for now) are what they are and you need to know them and understand their potential consequences.

BTW it looks at present like EASA licencing will require glider pilots to have cloud flying training before they do it deliberately.

[Jim59]

Any glider pilot who deliberately flies IMC without formal training from an instrument rated instructor is behaving irresponsibly to the whole aviation community. Personally I would ban all gliders from cloud.


An illogical jump from pilot qualifications to banning aircraft categories. If your point is that pilots in IMC (I think you mean in cloud since the point that one may be in IMC but clear of cloud has been well covered) should have received formal training from an instrument rated instructor then the many commercial pilots with IRs who fly gliders should not be banned any more than those trained by the RAF to instrument standards. The reality is that the majority of glider pilots who do fly in cloud HAVE received the training that you advocate, and the aircraft they fly are approved for the purpose when suitably equipped. The only real argument is about what suitably equipped might mean.

Many might think that flying passengers on commercial flights outside CAS in any flight conditions (haven't the collisions we have had this year been in VMC) is an irresponsible activity. How many captains brief their passengers that all or part of the flight that they are about undertake will be outside controlled airspace and that they might encounter other, unknown, traffic which may pose a risk of collision to their flight? There might be a scramble to leave the flight if the truth were told.

[shortstripper]

I'm still amazed by how many think this is new news! I've been flying 25 years and have known gliders fly in cloud since the day I first flew (before even). Do you all go around with your head in the clouds? (sorry for the pun).

I find it scarey that all these "so qualified" pilots didn't know this already!!!

SS

[gpn01]

I am just in shock that anyone can legally fly in cloud without an IMC or IR


Then you should complain to whoever provided you with your training for failing to point it out to you.

[Fuji Abound]

I'm still amazed by how many think this is new news! I've been flying 25 years and have known gliders fly in cloud since the day I first flew (before even). Do you all go around with your head in the clouds? (sorry for the pun).

Shortstripper

Do point out the questions in the PPL navigation or Air Law papers covering this subject.

You may well be amazed but I suspect more pilots DONT realise gliders can and do legally fly in cloud than do. You might even find a few instructors dont realise.

[astir 8]

A lot has been said in this thread about gliders flying in cloud. The reality is that very few do so these days,essentially because modern glass gliders do not have the totally speed limiting airbrakes that the old wooden ones did - so the pilot has to be pretty confident about his instrument flying if he's going to do it without ripping his wings off.

HOWEVER 100% of gliders do at times fly up to cloudbase because height = fuel in the tank. On cross country flights they will be trying to operate in the height band of about cloudbase to 1000 feet or so below it. Gliders are also likely to pull up or turn very sharply from cruise attitude if they hit good lift.

So on a good gliding day (blue + cumulus clouds) this is a very good height band to avoid if you are flying something with an engine as it can get very crowded up there, especially in notable choke points such as Didcot. On such a day there will be far more gliders up high than RAF metal low down.

[davidd]

gpn01 >> Being based on the airfield I trained at the first thing I did was go and speak to an instructor.
Both of them from two different schools did not know and both thought I was talking s*it and I cant be right.
Still you learn something everyday, but I would rather not learn this the hard way, so thanks Pace for pointing it out !

[Pace]

I think a Glider specific IMCR is an excellent idea and a must for Gliders who do want to enter cloud.

It is vital that pilots in cloud are IMC aware and also have a deep understanding of others and their operations in cloud.

A lot is made of the fact that Gliders have always operated in the way they do. That is a poor reflection of how things should be.

How gliders should be equipt to fly in cloud I would leave that to experts on gliders who know what or what is not possible to come up with a solution.
There is a mass of new technology to make our sharing of airspace safer.

The attitude that this was how it was done pre war so thats how it will carry on is not only unfair to other airspace users but unnaceptable nowadays

Pace

[Rod1]

Gliders in cloud were covered extensively by my IMC instructor back in 1991/2. Perhaps standards have slipped.:sad:

Rod1

[soay]

Gliders in cloud were covered extensively by my IMC instructor back in 1991/2. Perhaps standards have slipped.
So, in this extensive coverage, what did he or she suggest you should do to avoid colliding with them in clouds?

[Guest 112233]

In relation to the postings of Gliders in IMC outside Controlled Airspace, I'm not a pilot but because of my location - 3.5 NM and a fraction ( 100 ? m) to the left of the centre line from the westerly approach to EGSC - I regularly see gliders soaring, usually at weekends,on the centreline - I think above the heights that the singles and twins piston's operate (2000 ft plus - guessing) but reachable by the Lears and C130's etc on climb out, that use the airfield. Sunday last being a case in point. Just a fleeting glint of a glider's wing at mid day amongst the cumulus - and seconds later, a Lear whistles overhead climbing energeticly . I know that the professionals dispise contributions like this - i.e specific instances of types times and noted weather needed etc. But is there a case for the NOTAM'ing of designated blocks outside controlled airspace, for use by gliders only, at given periods of notice etc. Yes I do know a glider pilot - Who operated from a club ( Husbands Bosworth) vertically constrained by CAS. OK performance issues abound for each specific airfield and combination of users but its just an outsiders idea. Is it too restrictive ? - And yes you cannot predict the weather.

CAT III

[chrisN]

Cat III, the gliders may have been monitoring, or even talking to, Cambridge. On Sunday, I thermalled my way out to the west, crossing the extended centreline well out, didn’t circle near it, and just monitored. On the way back, I needed to use a thermal about 5 miles SW along, and about 100m north of, their centreline, from about 3500 to 5000 feet. I called them, stayed in contact until well east of them (over your house? I left their frequency just east of the A11, near Six Mile Bottom). We thanked each other. No problem.

Both ways, I heard Cambridge warning their power traffic of gliders in the area – as they invariably do.

Chris N.

[ShyTorque]

Nice to know we can all work together to help minimise the risks of the open FIR.

On Sunday I needed to obtain an airspace crossing. I listened to the controlling radar unit before making the call. ATC had another aircraft talking on frequency, just leaving the airspace. Even before calling for a traffic service, from that conversation, I was able to determine that he was coming head on at a similar altitude, but still about ten miles away.

As soon as I realised this, I descended and was able to make some separation. Even better, he had a transponder with mode C and I aquired him on TCAS then visually. I doubt he even realised we were there because he left the frequency before I was able to get a call in.

Transponder plus mode C and talking to ATC. Excellent. The other aircraft was a GLIDER. :ok:

[Rod1]

"So, in this extensive coverage, what did he or she suggest you should do to avoid colliding with them in clouds?"

I will try to dig out the notes, but from memory;

Gliders fly in places you consider to be IFR only, including in cloud (IMC).

The types of cloud you were likely to find them in or near.

Some specific stuff about wave.

The cloud bit he thought was not much of a problem, as he considred the risk very low that you would hit one, he was more concerned about close to cloud above 3000 ft.

He recommended flying above the “lift level” if possible.

He also recommended that if I was going to fly in IMC, get a RIS, or it was Russian roulette. (This was not glider specific).

Prior to taking up power I had flown gliders, but not in cloud, as I was not “signed off“ for it.

Rod1

[belowradar]

The cloud bit he thought was not much of a problem, as he considred the risk very low that you would hit one, he was more concerned about close to cloud above 3000 ft.


From this you surmised that standards may have slipped?

Sounds like a bit of a chancer to me

[shortstripper]

It is vital that pilots in cloud are IMC aware and also have a deep understanding of others and their operations in cloud.

Well now you know a bit about glider operations in cloud you forfill your above statement. Did you before? even with your full IR (I assume you are CPL IR at least) Perhaps the training establishments need to make the message clearer?

At present I think FLARM is the only practical solution to many gliders and small LAA/BMMA types. Even an old luddite like me is starting to think I might invest in one! It's all very well saying a TRIG for example, takes up a small panel space, but you forget depth! It certainly would not have fitted in my T31m! Same with an old mode C. Go take a look at a few older gliders (the ones best suited to cloud flying, though rarely do these days) or single seat LAA types ... then tell me where you'd fit a transponder (let alone power one, or prevent it frying your b@lls!).

It's a shame more pilots don't try to make a point of understanding more about other forms of aviation. This is especially true of "professional" pilots. Beats me how you (not aimed at anyone) can call yourself an aviation professional, with such a blinkered outlook on aviation as a whole. I have spent almost my entire career in agriculture working with cows. However, my college training was in general agriculture, and I have always kept reasonably up to date with the other agricultural disciplines from livestock to cropping. Why should aviation professionals be different? I find it sad that many PPL's have a more rounded view of general aviation than their CPL and ATPL brothers and sisters!

SS

[Guest 112233]

Thanks ChrisN - The uneducated Mk 1 Eye ball - I don't have access to an Aeronautical map / Air Band Recv Etc - Thank you for the reply - It helps educate all those silent watchers of this Forum (and Skies ) - Its the obvious lack of warning due to performance differences, that both parties have (the Lears & King Airs Etc would posess TCAS Etc) that bothered me.

CAT III

[Pace]

Well now you know a bit about glider operations in cloud you forfill your above statement. Did you before? even with your full IR (I assume you are CPL IR at least) Perhaps the training establishments need to make the message clearer?

The more I learn about glider operations in clouds the more concerned I get about whether this practice in its current form should be allowed.

The normal see and avoid principles do not exist in cloud so what seperation is there.

In no other form of aviation would the practices enjoyed by glider pilots in cloud be allowed by the CAA.

What makes you better or more privalaged than the rest of us? and what gives you the rights to put others lives at risk?

Pace

[ShyTorque]

What makes you better or more privalaged than the rest of us? and what gives you the rights to put others lives at risk?


The possession of a parachute?

[shortstripper]

Do you really think pocession of parachute makes a glider pilot that reckless? It certainly wouldn't make any difference to any decision I made about cloud flying! I still wouldn't rate chances of surviving a collision with another aircraft just because I had one. I know they have saved lives, but really? Wing or tail hit maybe ... but anywhere else and the collision would probably kill you anyway. You must really think glider pilots are morons! :rolleyes:

I still don't hear any constructive suggestions from ST or Pace. All you can say is just "ban ban ban!" :ugh:

SS

[Fitter2]

SS


At present I think FLARM is the only practical solution to many gliders and small LAA/BMMA types. Even an old luddite like me is starting to think I might invest in one! It's all very well saying a TRIG for example, takes up a small panel space, but you forget depth! It certainly would not have fitted in my T31m!


Actually, the beauty of the TT31 (for those who want to fit one) is the two-box construction - the panel depth for the control unit is less than virtually any other instrument (and I assume there is room for an altimeter and ASI - there was in the back seat of the T31 gliders I used to instruct in). The box containing the rest of the electronic gubbins can be put anywhere in the airframe. (You used to be able to park a Winter Barograph behind the back seat of RAFGSA ones, and that's much bulkier). You may even have the odd few hundred milliAmps available to power it.

But Mode S only helps against TCAS equipped aircraft, no present or foreseeable ATC system could cope with separation OCAS last Sunday given the traffic levels.

FLARM on the other hand ................

[Cows getting bigger]

Fitter, I think you mean TT21, not TT31. I agree that it would easily fit into any aircraft - power would still be an issue.

Anyway, surely one step forward would be to get overwhelming agreement that conspicuity needs to be improved. Once we have got over that hurdle.............

[Fitter2]

cgb

Thanks, slip of dyslexic fingers when discussing a T31 aircraft fit while eating breakfast. Multi-tasking not my strong point? TT21 it is, of course.

Conspicuity is all very well, but experiment shows how difficult spotting a low-angular movement target is even when you know the approximate direction. Even high-brightness strobes do not improve this, they only confirm something you have spotted is an aircraft. Dark colours are in general better than light ones, fluorescent marking had no measurable impovement on conspicuity.

Electronic aids to conspicuity are capable of making a significant contribution, which is why over 12,000 FLARM units have been sold in Europe.

The obstacles and cost multiplication created by the regulatory authorities is unfortunate, I assume it is the product of a mindset which regards regulation as more important than outcome.

[Cows getting bigger]

I agree. By conspicuity I mean both visual and electronic.

[gasax]

An interesting thread.

Started by a bit of a surprise and with the usual forum attitude of 'I don't like it so it should be banned'.

Very early on there was mention of commercial AOC operation which Pace stated was irrelevant. Nice try would be my professional assessment.

As a direct result of this thread Pace should inform his charters / customers that if he is dropped out of CAS then the risks of collision will be several orders of magnitude more likely. In other words the customers should be warned that the odds of htting another aircraft (any type) move from being almost neglible to the 'are you feeling lucky punk' level. Now for pretty obvious reasons Pace or his employers may not be very keen on making this annoucement.

So of course banning non-transponding traffic would help Pace - but only until another threat is identified. So rather than operating in an unknown environment where Pace represents a threat to his fare paying passengers and other traffic operating legally under the present rules the blindingly obvious answer is that Pace only operates within CAS. The existing rules are designed to support that and much of this thread would be irrelevent if Pace operated within them.

This thread is a classic example of 'he who shouts loudest is right'. Flying IFR out of CAS is a lottery. When I passed Air Law the glider issue was mentioned - I recall it but nothing more - I don't have an IMC or IR so it has little impact. However once you accept payment for services rended you do have a duty of care to those people.

Operating IFR outside CAS when other aircraft can legally operate there without any contact or electronic conspicuity represents a risk which paying passengers should not be exposed to. So if IFR traffic does not operate outside CAS then the issue very largely 'goes away'. May be that is the short term answer the rules are intended that CAT operates within CAS - that is why VFR traffic is excluded and IFR equipment requirements are what they are.

The same issue exists with locations like the norht east coast where CAT operates direct to locations like Aberdeen direct and not via Class A. So welcome to the world Pace - being 'dumped' out of CAs is not acceptable for fare paying passengers - the question is what is the answer? Sterilising Class G so charter operators can use it is not the answer.

[Fuji Abound]

Gasax

I have to say I think you have totally missed the point.

This really has very little to do with CAT or sterilising class G.

Anyone is entitled to use class G.

This includes GA, both VFR and IMC, gliders, both VFR and IMC, CAT, both VFR and IMC and everyone else VFR.

The risk to everyone is the same. Gliders are just as much at risk of a collision in IMC with other gliders unless they agree on a common protocol.

The problem is we cant agree on a common protocol - that is what makes IMC dangerous for everyone.

Sterilsing class G of CAT would make no difference what so ever.

[Pace]

Operating IFR outside CAS when other aircraft can legally operate there without any contact or electronic conspicuity represents a risk which paying passengers should not be exposed to. So if IFR traffic does not operate outside CAS then the issue very largely 'goes away'. May be that is the short term answer the rules are intended that CAT operates within CAS - that is why VFR traffic is excluded and IFR equipment requirements are what they are.

Gasax

Fine, your arguement is sound but getting CAT to operate only in CAS would mean carving up masses of open airspace and converting it to CAS which would not go down with me or anyone else .) Hence these long discussions

pace

[ShyTorque]

Shortstripper, you claim:

I still don't hear any constructive suggestions from ST or Pace. All you can say is just "ban ban ban!"


Incorrect. Ban what? Although you may disagree with my opinions, I have never said "ban" anything (I didn't think Pace had either). This is a total fabrication on your part.

You appear to have a personal axe to grind. You already accused me of something else earlier in this thread, which I responded to, giving valid reasons. You failed to answer further and now you fabricate another accusation.

Produce some evidence to backup your statement that I wish to ban anyone from flying in free airspace, or have ever used the word. You will find none on my part. Use the search engine. As far as I can see, although I've been active on this forum for fourteen years, I don't recall using the word in any thread whatsoever.

[belowradar]

Holding overhead Cambridge today at 4000 other traffic below in the hold at 3000 heard the following pilot report on freq from an aircraft cleared to leave the hold and follow ILS

"Approach for your info there is a glider very close to your overhead"

response

"Thanks for that information we are not in communication"

Sounds like at best = poor airmanship at worst = extremely negligent and selfish

[gpn01]

Holding overhead Cambridge today at 4000 other traffic below in the hold at 3000 heard the following pilot report on freq from an aircraft cleared to leave the hold and follow ILS

"Approach for your info there is a glider very close to your overhead"

response

"Thanks for that information we are not in communication"

Sounds like at best = poor airmanship at worst = extremely negligent and selfish

Cambridge has an ATZ which extends 2000' above it. AFAIK there's no requirement for anybody (power or glider) to establish contact with ATC when you're outside an ATZ and not intending to penetrate the zone. If the glider had a suitable radio (and the pilot an R/T licence) then I agree it would be prudent to speak to ATC if nearby. But negligent?

[shortstripper]

ShyTorque,

As I said in a very early post to you within this thread, I have a lot of respect for you and find most of your posts well balanced and interesting. Much of what you (and others) have said, has made me think hard too. I have no axe to grind other than expressing my frustration at the trend of so many these days to assume all risk can be bought off with expensive kit and over regulation. The ban bit comes from people such as yourself and Pace sying that gliders must be BANNED from cloud unless transponder equipped. OK, you give your reasons, but that is what you want isn't it? Hence the "ban ban ban" comment. Why is this fabrication? I haven't trawled through all the posts, but I seem to remember that one of you even said they'd be writing to the CAA or someone suggesting just such a "ban".

If I failed to respond to your earlier post, it was simply that I lost the will to do so at the time. I'm sure you had a good answer, as you usually do. I'll take a look later perhaps.

Look, I have no desire to come across as a complete luddite or aggresive to you, Pace or whoever. I simply see a lot of the things I love about aviation being slowly taken away by over regulation. I admit I'm certainly no aviation proffessional but I have enjoyed flying since the age of 14. I started flying gliders when they mostly didn't have radio, but were still allowed to cross airways! I then moved on to power and have enjoyed LAA grass roots flying for many years. Most of the aircraft I have flown have been worth less than an the transponders fitted in the aircraft you fly, yet they fly well and have proved very safe. It can be argued that any money spent on safety is money that cannot be considered to much to spend ... but where do you draw the line? If you want to be safe (no such thing really) then at least you do have the choice to remain within CAS. Yes, I know in practical terms this isn't always possible, but why sould one persons freedoms be taken away just to appease anothers? I'm sure the airlines would love to own all the sky, and I keep hearing the threats that much more airspace will be cobbled up unless we conform ... but why should we? Ok, that a bigger aurgument and has been covered on this thread and many others, but it's still a relevent one.

If a decent system was available then fine, I'd go for it. But transponders just are not it. I'm sorry, but they just aren't. Just because they are fitted to bigger aircraft and "can" be fitted to many gliders/light aircraft really doesn't mean that can be fitted to all.

It's a shame someone can't come up with a system that is light, portable and safe (to the pilot's health) ... Oh cheap might be good too.


OK. I'm rambling, and have lost the plot probably. Consider this an apology if I've offended you by putting my opinion over too strongly. However, I do not consider I've "fabricated" anything ... you quite clearly do call for gliders to be banned from cloud unless transponder equipped ...... Don't you?

SS

[belowradar]

GPN01

Fair point and legally correct however the fact is that aircraft are normally holding well above the top of the ATZ (NORMAL HOLDS EXPECTED ABOVE 3K)

I am just highlighting the fact that this is exactly what this debate is about and the extremely remote odds of a collision didn't seem that remote overhead Cambridge today.

So a very real risk of collision OCA in IMC does exist.

[Pace]

shortstripper

There is not much that you say that I dont agree with. On my part a made a CHIRP report on my near miss in IMC and was asked to take it much further which I declined.

It happened to be a glider but could have been any other aircraft. How have things changed since your earlier glider flying days? You used to get a good radar service OCAS with most civilian units. You used to get a good service with Luton once! Military units were all over the place OCAS even places like Upper Heyford. Now they are closing down all over the place and the remaining few now are hardly open. I never thought I would see the day that Brize closed down at 1700 hrs.

Things have also changed in the fact that more and more aircraft have TICAS. Not all the ones I fly! but complex avionics are fitted to small aircraft like Cirrus, diamond etc.

Has a collision threat increased ? Yes I think so. We are far more on our own in those clouds. This discussion was to talk about the problem. You fly LAA type aircraft! should you be allowed to fly them in cloud? Gliders are so why not them too? I was convinced that all aircraft in cloud should be forced to have a transponder.

Having read some of the glider contributions I am more open to another solution where gliders are concerned and certainly dont want loads of OCAS turned into CAS any more than you.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

We cite a collision has never occurred in IMC between two aircraft.

Do we ignore a threat to safety because an accident has never happened?

If aircraft were to fly around in IMC without any means of seperation statistically will two collide at some point in time?

Statistically, whatever the odds, could that be today, or tomorrow, or next week. As they are fond of saying on the lottery ads - could it be you?

Does anyone have the right to fly blind and take from another pilot every means available to the other pilot to avoid a collision?

With the degredation in AT services, the increase in the number of gliders, summers with more cloud, an expansion of CAS and therefore a diminuition in class G is the risk of a collision increasing?

Do any of us want to be the one to prove with our life their is a statistical risk?

Worth a thought the next time you launch into IMC and the rest of us have no idea you are there.

[ShyTorque]

SS, thank you for taking the time to answer.

However, again you said:

The ban bit comes from people such as yourself and Pace sying that gliders must be BANNED from cloud unless transponder equipped.

I say again - you are mistaken. I have never said that gliders should be banned from cloud unless transponder equipped.

If you are going to take issue, please afford me the courtesy of making sure it is over something I have actually written. Thanks.

[gpn01]

We cite a collision has never occurred in IMC between two aircraft.

Do we ignore a threat to safety because an accident has never happened?


Absoluetely not. I agree that we need to reduce risks wherever practical.


If aircraft were to fly around in IMC without any means of seperation statistically will two collide at some point in time?

Statistically, whatever the odds, could that be today, or tomorrow, or next week. As they are fond of saying on the lottery ads - could it be you?


Yes but statistics is based on probability, probability is based on previous events. Ergo, statistically it seems rather more likely that mid-airs will happen in VMC (and sometimes whilst talking to ATC units). Therefore one could argue that statistically flying blind in IMC is safer than VMC. Whether one would try to argue this from a logical point is debateable. It does however suggest that we need to focus on improving interoperability in all flights conditions but that improving VMC will, statistically, be of most benefit.


Does anyone have the right to fly blind and take from another pilot every means available to the other pilot to avoid a collision?

Actually, it's all about risk mitigation. There are certainly ways of reducing the risk (procedures, technology, controlled airspace, etc). It all depends upon your personal risk appetite. If you don't like the risk of flying in IMC because there may be others there already then there's actually a much simpler solution - don't fly IMC OCAS.


With the degredation in AT services, the increase in the number of gliders, summers with more cloud, an expansion of CAS and therefore a diminuition in class G is the risk of a collision increasing?

I suspect that there is much less cloud flying by gliders now than there has been in the past - due to a combination of factors including lower airspace limits, better performance and the fact that many pilots simply don't like to fly in cloud because of the associated risks.

Completely agree about the impact of the reduction of Class G - squeezing everyone into a smaller space definitely has an adverse effect.


Do any of us want to be the one to prove with our life their is a statistical risk?

Worth a thought the next time you launch into IMC and the rest of us have no idea you are there.

Absolutely - and it's important that EVERYBODY in IMC OCAS realises that there are risks and consciously make a choice.

[gpn01]

GPN01

So a very real risk of collision OCA in IMC does exist.

I'm guessing that if the other traffic could see the glider that it was probably in VMC?

Does seem bizarre to me that 'controlled' overhead holds are done OCAS though. I presume that why other airports have Class-D airspace to allow them to control aircraft in their area.

[shortstripper]

ST,

I don't have time to go over all the posts, and you wouldn't say you hadn't if you had. So please accept my apology for putting words into your mouth by mistake.

I think this thread is going around in so many circles now, and being jumbled with the similar one about avoiding mid-air collisions, that I've lost the will to aurgue anymore! :ugh:

SS .... Off now to do the very real risky business of baleing straw! :p

[bookworm]

Whether one would try to argue this from a logical point is debateable.

I don't think there's much to debate. Probability is logic with weights assigned to assertions -- it is, in effect, an extension of logic.

The probability of colliding with another aircraft is the probability of another aircraft being on a collision course with you, times the probability of failing to detect and avoid it.

In VMC, we can debate the probability of failing to detect and avoid. Some would say it's 10%, some 50%. Much of it depends on relative speed. In cloud, the probability of failing to detect and avoid is very close to 100%.

But the probability of another aircraft being on a collision course with you may also vary widely between conditions. In cloud, traffic density tends to be much lower. Even with gliders able to fly in cloud, traffic density may easily be ten times higher out of cloud than in it, which more than compensates for the detect-and-avoid factor.

[gpn01]

I don't think there's much to debate. Probability is logic with weights assigned to assertions -- it is, in effect, an extension of logic.


Errr, no I don't believe it is. I suspect that's how people try to make some of their calculations appear but that's a load of b*lls. I'd recommend reading Black Swan or Fooled by Randomness to anyone who think otherwise. There's great examples in both books about why the probability of a future event can't be absolutely calculated from prior events or from assessing probabilities by assigning anecdotal weightings.

[Fitter2]

However, probability calculations based on traffic density (which can be based on historic traffic levels and trends) are a much better place to start than a single anecdotal event.

Much better than an instinctive or prejudiced opinion based on no evidence whatsoever.

[bookworm]

Errr, no I don't believe it is.

Yes, it really is, unless you've missed the last 50 years of probability theory. The wikipedia page on probability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability) is pretty good. "Frequentists" are about as common as black swans these days. ;)

Going back to the point that I picked up on may help us to reconcile our difference:

Yes but statistics is based on probability, probability is based on previous events. Ergo, statistically it seems rather more likely that mid-airs will happen in VMC (and sometimes whilst talking to ATC units). Therefore one could argue that statistically flying blind in IMC is safer than VMC.

Probability is not simply "based on previous events". That would be a very narrow view of probability. Notice that the reasoning that I used in the previous post was not based on any statistical analysis of the frequency of past collision events. It was simply using logic to deal with uncertainty.

[gpn01]

Bookworm - point taken.

[bad bear]

hi guys,
If you find your selves in the south of England on a nice summer day with 2/8 cu and a base around 4,000' , would you blast through the cloud and hope there is no one in there, or gently detour round the cloud retaining a visual line of sight to ensure separation from all VFR traffic?
b b

[belowradar]

If flying IMC I would establish a traffic service and fly through :ok:

[Fitter2]

If flying IMC I would establish a traffic service and fly through


But the question asked about flying IFR in (mostly) VMC (and OCAS).

Where did common sense come into that answer?

(Unless it was meant to be ironic?)

[cats_five]

<snip>
(Unless it was meant to be ironic?)

I am hoping it was meant to be ironic.. If not - :eek:

[Pace]

hi guys,
If you find your selves in the south of England on a nice summer day with 2/8 cu and a base around 4,000' , would you blast through the cloud and hope there is no one in there, or gently detour round the cloud retaining a visual line of sight to ensure separation from all VFR traffic?

BB

Naturally go around the blobs of CU as passenegers dont appreciate bashing their heads.

Usually i will try and fly above cloud as it is smoother above cloud. If airspace dictates the level /height then its See and avoid.

The problems come when the cloud is more packed together or even a mix of CU and other types.
Then we have no choice but to go through.

Many talked of risk management which for me means using every facility available to avoid a conflict other than a wishful big sky theory.

Every item we have for collision avoidance whether through Radar services, radio communication or technology will reduce that risk.

Every item we do not carry will increase that risk. It is as simple as that. Cost is another arguement but has no connection to risk management.

Pace

[Fitter2]

Every item we do not carry will increase that risk.

Do I gather you have ordered a FLARM, Pace?

[gpn01]

BB
Cost is another arguement but has no connection to risk management.
Pace

Actually cost is a critical component of risk management as one has to weigh up the cost of doing something vs the cost of doing something else (or not doing anything). An example is an airlner fire retardant system - airlines could insist that all cabins are equipped with the means to extinguish fires (e.g. with a water sprinkler system). They elect to not do this (even though it can be provded to save lives) as it costs more to equip the aircraft and it reduces its payload -thereby reducing/removing profitability. Likewise some pilots could insist on routing only through CAS to afford themselves better protection but will instead choose to take a shortcut route via OCAS because of the cost and time saving.

[Fuji Abound]

gpn01

It is not the same at all.

Transponders, (and possibly FLARM and PCAS) are one of the areas of aviation safety where you fit the kit to help other pilots as much as to help yourself.

If you want to fly across the English Channel without a liferaft frankly I couldnt care - only you will suffer the potential consequence, however, if you elect to fly around in clouds without a transponder not only do you risk killing yourself you risk killing anyone else you meet whatever measures they take short of your forcing them not to fly at all.

Since gliders and a few others arent prepared in some cases to adopt appropriate measures as far as I am concerned it is they that should stay away from the clouds and leave the majoirty of us to conduct our flights knowing that we accept mutual responsibility for seperation.

[Pace]

GPN01

Sorry I wasnt clear cost maybe relevant as to what level of risk you decide to expose yourself or others too but it is not relevant as to what is available to you in reducing that risk.

IE someone could theoretically develop an avoidance system which was so technically advanced it made your chances of ever coliliding with someone zero.
That unit may cost more than the aircraft. You decide not to have it on a cost basis and as such increase your risks but cost in itself doesnt effect what technology is capable of and can supply.

Cancer patients may have available certain expensive drugs or treatments which are more likely to extend life for those patients.
Some authority may decide on a cost basis to not supply those drugs or treatments thus increasing your chance of dying earlier but that doesnt stop what is avialble to you.

Pace

[Fitter2]

Since gliders and a few others arent prepared in some cases to adopt appropriate measures as far as I am concerned it is they that should stay away from the clouds and leave the majoirty of us to conduct our flights knowing that we accept mutual responsibility for seperation.

Majority? In cloud OCAS? I don't know where the statistics are.

Glider pilots are taking what are at present legal actions, and legal mehtods of ensuring separation. For a variety of reasons, rehearsed many times before, I can't do it your way, and you are free to do it my way.

Or accept the risk.

Or fly CAS.

[Fuji Abound]

Fiiter2

It was legal to drive a car without seat belts, but it wasnt sensible.

It was legal MPs claimed certain expenses, but those that elected them thought otherwise. Many have paid the price, many have yet to pay the price.

It is legal to smoke, but it will probably kill you.

Perhaps worth reflecting the wisdom in doing something just because it is legal.

As to your legal methods of seperation here is a thing

- you dont have any.

You dont follow the rules for seperation by height and you dont employ any other approved methods.

You are mavericks - as much as I love a good maverick :)

[Pace]

Glider pilots are taking what are at present legal actions, and legal mehtods of ensuring separation.

You are taking legal actions at present. Sadly I do not think the majority even within your ranks consider the present situation with gliders will continue.

In that way it is better to be doing something proactive yourselves as an organisation where you hold a certain level of control rather than having regulations forced which you dont want.
As to your earlier question re flarm.
If the gliding community come up with a standard which is used across the board amongst your members and there is anything we can do on our side regarding fitting equiptment then of course I would recommend that to my owners.

and legal mehtods of ensuring separation That is the problem you dont have any method of ensuring seperation.

Pace

[Fitter2]

That is the problem you dont have any method of ensuring seperation.

Procedural (albeit different for yours, but available to you.)

Gliders wishing to enter cloud call on 130.4MHz, giving call sign and position in relation to a prominent feature on the 1:500,000 chart. Subsequent height calls if other aircraft are present to maintain at leat 500ft height separation. Call clear of cloud.

FLARM provides an additional aid to traffic awareness. A substantial majority of gliders in Europe, and many helicopters (because of the additional obstacle warning facility) and light aircraft fit FLARM. In UK fitment in the proportion of cross country gliders is significant, it is over 50% at the club where I fly.

It would make sense to address the problem of VFR collisions between light aircraft, which undoubtedly do occur before worrying about an event that has never happened. Possibly if that resulted in a more general acceptance of the value of FLARM then you might undergo a conversion?

[belowradar]

Fitter 2 and Cats 5


No irony intended - I would fly through cloud on a straight course and at a specific level. When in the clouds I would be IMC so hence the radar service. In the southeast we are often below 2500feet. Many of my flights are training sorties where we actually benefit from flying in actual IMC conditions so I am often searching for the nearest and often any bit of cloud in order to make the training conditions more realistic.

I would not route around every large buildup and I would not change levels either (sorry if you don't like that but that is the truth)

Not sure why you think that I was being ironic ?? If you are in there somewhere thermalling thinking that everyone else is remaining VMC you are mistaken.

Isn't that what this whole thread is about ?

[Pace]

Gliders wishing to enter cloud call on 130.4MHz, giving call sign and position in relation to a prominent feature on the 1:500,000 chart. Subsequent height calls if other aircraft are present to maintain at leat 500ft height separation. Call clear of cloud.

Fitter 2

130.4 is one thing I have picked up through this thread and will give it a go where its practical :)

Your seperation procedures are not what I would call seperation procedures and seem to be directed at yourselves and not other aircraft.

Pace

[Rod1]

I think this thread is now going in circles. Chris and I are both writing articles, but we will have little to report on this for some weeks. I will briefly report back when I have flown with FLARM, but that may not be till the weekend.

Rod1

[gpn01]

Fitter 2 and Cats 5
No irony intended - I would fly through cloud on a straight course and at a specific level. When in the clouds I would be IMC so hence the radar service.


As long as you're fully aware that a radar 'service' does not mean that there aren't any non-transponding aircraft in the same cloud and that the radar controller can't actually see if there's anything else in the cloud either.....

[gpn01]

GPN01

Sorry I wasnt clear cost maybe relevant as to what level of risk you decide to expose yourself or others too but it is not relevant as to what is available to you in reducing that risk.

IE someone could theoretically develop an avoidance system which was so technically advanced it made your chances of ever coliliding with someone zero.
That unit may cost more than the aircraft. You decide not to have it on a cost basis and as such increase your risks but cost in itself doesnt effect what technology is capable of and can supply.

Cancer patients may have available certain expensive drugs or treatments which are more likely to extend life for those patients.
Some authority may decide on a cost basis to not supply those drugs or treatments thus increasing your chance of dying earlier but that doesnt stop what is avialble to you.

Pace

I agree with you regarding the principle of examining options without initially taking cost into consideration. There are a whole range of technological options including FLARM, ADS-B, Mode-S, TCAS, PCAS, etc. Some of which may way work for all platforms and some not. Likewise there are procedural options available - e.g. make ALL airspace CAS vs make all OCAS VMC only vs only permit aircraft below a certain weight (say) allowed in IMC OCAS vs make all blah blah... the list goes on. However, at some point when weighing up the options cost will undoubtedly come into it. For a powered pilot's perspective the lowest cost would be non-chargeable OCAS IMC monitored via Mode-S/TCAS/PCAS. For a non-powered/hang glider/paraglider/ultralight/glider the lowest cost option would be to make IMC OCAS available ONLY to that fraternity. The latter option works for me but I guess those who've invested in various technologically based wizardry would be against it.


If the gliding community come up with a standard which is used across the board amongst your members and there is anything we can do on our side regarding fitting equiptment then of course I would recommend that to my owners.
Pace

The 'problem' extends way beyond just the gliding community though. That's one of the issues recognised as part of the CAA's efforts on Mode-S. There's many other bodies who need to have input to a properly interoperable solution - BGA, LAA, BHPA, BMAA, BPA amongst others. We all agree that there's a risk in OCAS IMC of someone else being in the same chunk of airspace without us necessarily knowing about it - whether it be a paraglider, parachutist, microlight, glider, balloon, homebuild, military aircraft, light aircraft or whatever (by which I mean ultralight for whom I'm not even sure there's yet a regulatory body in the UK or a UAV - of which there's an increasing presence in the UK). If there was one simple device that was fully interoperable and legal across all platforms then I'm sure we'd all fully support its adoption.

Part of the problem seems to be a determination by the CAA that any solution involves ground based radar/control - which appears to facilitate only the ability to police and charge for useage as opposed to provide a safer sky. Add to this that interoperability is managed by the CAA, Air Traffic is managed by NATS and aircraft licensing is now managed by EASA, is it any wonder that pilots from the different spheres of aviation become somewhat entrenched!

[Final 3 Greens]

The more I read this thread, the more I think that gliders should be banned from cloud flying.

The question about the Cu cloudbase at 4,000' showed a total lack of understanding of powered flying.

Without info about the cloud tops and the convective activity, it is ridiculous to expect a sensible answer - the penetration experience could be merely bumpy through to life threatening.

I look at the cost benefit analysis...... cost of banning gliders from clouds - not a lot, benefit, mitigation of potential air to air and with CAT often flying OCAS, protecting the lives of many (who pay taxes) against the lives of a few selfish individuals who use cost as an argument to avoid installing Tx.

You are the weakest link ......... goodbye.....

[mm_flynn]

I look at the cost benefit analysis...... cost of banning gliders from clouds - not a lot, benefit, mitigation of potential air to air and with CAT often flying OCAS, protecting the lives of many (who pay taxes) against the lives of a few selfish individuals who use cost as an argument to avoid installing Tx.

You are the weakest link ......... goodbye.....

You are missing the a point that the collision between CAT and a glider (assuming the glider is in a random location rather than orbiting at the FAF) seems to be a very low probability event. So the 'Benefit' in terms of probable lives saved is likely to be low. A much better argument would be that all powered should have ACAS II fitted as there is a track record of near misses with power and CAT and a power/CAT collision has a much higher probability of actually taking down the CAT than CAT/Glider. :E

There seems to be a vastly disproportionate obsession with the risk of hitting gliders in IMC - at the expense of the 2-3 yearly occasion of power/power collision in VMC and the overall risk of the whole OCAS system in the UK as high speed traffic OCAS increases and Radar Service decreases.

Let ChrisN and Rod1 get on with their articles. If they are writing about the Gizmo I think, and it actually delivers on its price point and functionality - when it is available, I will fit it and then have a view everyone else flying should be made to install either FLARM or an altitude encoding transponder - because I have equally bruised faith in Radar Services and the Mk I eyeball!

[belowradar]

Guys I think that you have missed the point a little bit regarding ensuring a radar service if IMC.....The fact is that if everybody established contact and spoke to ATC the risk could be better managed....I also agree that this thread is going round in circles and has been useful in confirming and highlighting a serious safety concern..... so until the low cost technology is proven we have probably taken this debate as far as it needs to go right now:ok:

[bad bear]

Naturally go around the blobs of CU as passenegers dont appreciate bashing their heads.

Usually i will try and fly above cloud as it is smoother above cloud. If airspace dictates the level /height then its See and avoid.

good answer pace. Those are the clouds that gliders use and light twins do not need to fly through


Below radar
I would fly through cloud on a straight course and at a specific level. When in the clouds I would be IMC so hence the radar service. In the southeast we are often below 2500feet. Many of my flights are training sorties where we actually benefit from flying in actual IMC conditions so I am often searching for the nearest and often any bit of cloud in order to make the training conditions more realistic

You are unlikely to find gliders in cloud below 2,500' so they are all yours. What is the base of radar cover where you fly? You might get a suprise with "pop up" traffic. Do you know that not all radars are set up the same way and many do not show all traffic?

The question about the Cu cloudbase at 4,000' showed a total lack of understanding of powered flying.

Without info about the cloud tops and the convective activity, it is ridiculous to expect a sensible answer - the penetration experience could be merely bumpy through to life threatening.

Final 3 Greens, poor answer! You appear to have missed the point that the threat is not how bumpy the ride will be but that you would be needlessly robing yourself of a clear view of the sky ahead. Many of the people you are sharing this thread with have not only flown gliders but have 10,000hrs + in aeroplanes and have flown 80,000kg twins in class "G" so perhaps understand power flying better than you think. We do it for real, not for training. Personally when flying heavy twins in class "G" I fly round the cu to retain forward view and that allows me to pick up military "pop up" traffic before radar calls it. That is what pilots should be trained to do. Hiding in cloud and hoping a controller will solve the problem is a poor technique.

The above quotes show that there is separation between sensible pilots as gliders are normally in the isulated cu and good power pilots go round those. Glider pilots seldom fly in low stratus. This makes things safer than might first appear to the less aware members of the flying community
b b

[Final 3 Greens]

No Bad Bear, it wasn't a bad answer, it just didn't match your pre-determined and narrow focus answer.

My point was that one could not even consider penetrating a cloud without understanding the potential wx hazards within. In other words, it was a non question, the only reasonable answer was in VMC and therefore I repeat that the way the question was written demonstrated a lack of understanding of powered flying, even ifi t was written by an experienced pilot.

One of my professional jobs is writing and auditing test questions, so whilst I defer to your superior knowledge of flying, take it from an expert that your question was poorly framed.

[Fitter2]

3 greens

I look at the cost benefit analysis...... cost of banning gliders from clouds - not a lot, benefit, mitigation of potential air to air and with CAT often flying OCAS, protecting the lives of many (who pay taxes) against the lives of a few selfish individuals who use cost as an argument to avoid installing Tx.

OK try this one - the cost to the world of banning you from doing many things you might consider reasonable is negligible. You would object strongly unless there was a demonstrable case (and probably even then). The perceived risk you see is not supported by calculation based on available statistics. The selfish are arguably those who demand others spend large sums of money rather than listening out on 130.4 on COM2. (Ignoring the obstructive nature of EASA that wouldn't in many case, including mine, permit Mode S fitment anyway). If you can't do the simple risk mitigation suggested, you shouldn't be in cloud OCAS. Why not enter into sensible dialogue, instead of parrotting ban, ban, ban.

[Final 3 Greens]

OK try this one - the cost to the world of banning you from doing many things you might consider reasonable is negligible.

That is the point. If you tried to set up the current rules today, you would never get them approved and changing the rules to restrict glider pilots privileges would cost little.

Logically, the same rules about competence on instruments etc whould apply to all.

So to stick your head in the sand and defend the status quo is not, IMHO, the best way to protect a minority activity. (Minority as in the % of the population who engage.)

Pace makes the point eloquently.

[belowradar]

Bad Bear

I also agree that you appear to have a rather narrow focus but also a self important attitude.

You carry on routing around every cumulus cloud if you like but that is not always the most sensible or cost effective thing to do (rather appears to be trying to keep every flight VFR when you are IFR ??)

Base of radar here is 1500ft by the way

Thread now running out of puff as the main points have been adequately made

I for one now realise that Glider pilots may well be lurking in the next cloud with no wish to communicate so will be more cautious !! Still think the situation sucks and there will be an accident at some point.

[cats_five]

You might indeed not get the current rules approved today, but it is what it is. The whole of human endavour is littered with 'grandfather' rights of various kinds. Lots of people live in houses which would never get planning permission today. There are lots of A roads which are well below the standard they would be built to today (indeed the last single carriageway one, the A830, was only upgraded last year), ditto lots of junctions which don't meet modern standards. Tobacco is a legal drug. And so on and so on and so on.

Rules can (sometimes) be changed but it takes a long, long time so in the interim sounding off about them isn't going to do anything except generate hot air.

[Fitter2]

Below Radar

I for one now realise that Glider pilots may well be lurking in the next cloud with no wish to communicate so will be more cautious !!

Every wish to communicate on 130.4 MHz, since the cloud 1 glider pilot may wish to use may also attract others. And for the information of anyone else interested.

Also likely to be carrying FLARM, but unlikely to have a transponder.

a rather narrow focus but also a self important attitude. Pot, meet kettle..........:O

[bad bear]

hey guys, great idea, why dont we share the clouds fairly? Glider pilots have them in the day time when they are convective and the rest can use them at night

below radar
You carry on routing around every cumulus cloud if you like but that is not always the most sensible or cost effective thing to do
I would hope to persuade you that routing round isolated cu is the most sensible thing to do as you can see all traffic and not rely on a piece of equipment or a controller to keep you and the other guy safe! The cost of dodging the odd cu is almost neutral, but what price safety?
Fuli Abound is correct, you cannot always go round

Fitter 2
Pot, meet kettle.......... Glad my banter wasnt wasted. I was getting the feeling that I was being talked down to as I was "only" a glider pilot. I would say that there are a lot of glider pilots out there with 10,000hrs plus not a few, we are not a bunch of numpities.

back to the question, flying imc out of CAS now dangerous ?

Not dangerous at all if everyone accepts the real situation and not blindly continuing on in their own little world. Every one knows about 130.4 and FLARM. I know there are reasonable numbers of powered pilots buying FLARM and some glider pilots have fitted mode "S". Smart pilots know which clouds other users might be in and form a risk assesment before entering and only a few blunder on into cloud in the belief that they are the only ones who should be in there and that a controller or device will somehow keep them safe (you know who you are). Some of us glider pilots do switch our mode "S" on in cloud and call for radar on box 2 if we have a second box and mode "S" oh and if there is someone to call!!

Thanks everyone for the debate, it has been useful, I have learned quite a bit and I have enjoyed it.
Lets share nicely and fly safely

b b

[Final 3 Greens]

Glad my banter wasnt wasted. I was getting the feeling that I was being talked down to as I was "only" a glider pilot. I would say that there are a lot of glider pilots out there with 10,000hrs plus not a few, we are not a bunch of numpities.

But you've no idea how to write a 10,000 hour question mate ;) (this is banter for the avoidance of doubt)

[Fitter2]

Hi Badbear

any time. I would possibly derive a little amusement watching some of the 'I'm fully trained in instrument flight' holding a 40 second turn in a turbulent cloud with the aileron/rudder/elevator feel and response of a 25 meter sailplane, and then come out accurately on heading. I'm sure I would learn something.

Meanwhile, I hope there has been some mutual learning going on. I don't think many IR pilots were aware of the 130.4 procedure, and if the RAF do fit FLARM to their Tutors that will no doubt increase the rationale for semi-universal carriage.

I'm sure we will pass each other somewhere, propellor driven. powerless or glass in hand.

[Rod1]

I tested Chris’s Flarm in my MCR01. I had problems mounting the unit and battery. Unlike the MRX PCAS, the Flarm does not have internal batteries and although Chris had loaned me an external battery and some cables, I had to sort things out. Chris obviously has the unit wired into his glider battery system and if this had been my own unit I could have done the same but a temporary fix, which was not going to bounce round the cockpit or short circuit on finals, required a bit of thought.

Having got the unit working, my first concern was whether the active nature of the unit would work in the relatively hostile environment of my MCR01. Unlike a glider, I have a lot of EM generating kit, separated from the unit by 1mm of Carbon fibre and a few cms of space. My concern was not justified; my Navcom, intercom and EFIS systems worked fine and so did the FLARM. Tick in the box on that one.

On start up, the integrated GPS located its position and the unit went “active” within about 30 sec. This is all indicated on the front panel using LED’s. First impressions of the unit in the air were good. The LED display was very bright and clearly visible, despite the bright sunshine and bubble canopy. The volume of the alerts was just too low for my aircraft / headset combination. The volume on the unit is not user adjustable, but LX confirmed that if required, the volume could be increased by the factory. My aircraft is quite noisy and the Bose headsets do a good job of reducing this, so in most aircraft the setting may be adequate.

The display is very clear but is not as intuitive as you first think. It displays the threat direction relative to track, not heading. If you are flying a slow aircraft on a windy day, the variation could be significant. Having said that, I think you would adapt, and most powered aircraft are probably sufficiently quick and do not fly in very strong winds, so this is probably not a problem. The unit’s main benefit is that it warns you that there is a threat. The 18 seconds to sort this out is quite a long time, provided you have worked out a plan in advance. If the unit were mine, I would integrate it into my MGL EFIS, which would solve the audibility issue and give a better threat indication but at the expense of true portability. My conclusion, based on the test flight, was that the unit was reasonably well suited to the power environment and there was no intersystem interference. The PCAS box was right next to the FLARM, on top of the panel, but it also continued to work normally.

For about £1000, it would be possible to fit both of the above units. This would give quite a lot of collision avoidance information, for not a lot of cash.

Rod1

[cats_five]

Thanks Rod. What kind of Flarm unit were you testing? There are a number of them and volumne can be adjusted during flight on the Swiss Flarm. Of course I have no idea if it would be loud enough for you to hear in your plane.