Lighting the blue touchpaper of gliding

[Il Duce]

Here are a couple of questions about gliding.
Is it wise for me to orbit my (non SSR) glider around 3 miles finals to a large mil airfield at about 2000' without talking to the airfield even though I have a radio? After all, I am outside the ATZ and I don't have to "recognise" the MATZ.
Also, if I can see there's nothing going on at Scampton, is it okay for me to fly through R313 on a weekday afternoon without talking to anyone? And after I'm finished there, can I then overfly Hibaldstow para dropping site provided I can see there are no 'chutes in the air and not tell anyone that I'm there?

[Crash one]

You may be legally allowed to do these things but somewhat bad form not to let someone know you are there. How can you be absolutely sure nothing is going on?
Short answer:- No, it is definately not wise.

[J.A.F.O.]

Bad day at the office, chief?

[Dash8driver1312]

As above, legally allowed but frowned upon in polite company.

There are many things we "can" do but maybe shouldn't...as the bishop said to the actress.

[ShyTorque]

Yes, it's that time of year again.

[Ridger]

Depends on how keen the perpetrator is on having a mid-air! Hopefully the rumoured Mode C fitment mandate will take care of the bad apples...

[BackPacker]

Does anybody know the approximate % of UK glider pilots that have a FRTOL or other radio licence? For the Netherlands I know that a large percentage doesn't, so they are only allowed to operate on a handful dedicated glider frequencies.

[Il Duce]

JAFO
Without a doubt. Can't comprehend the mentality of some flyers at times.

[Flying_Anorak]

Maybe those who've never tried flying a cross country task of 300km or greater should try it sometime? I regularly fly XC in both gliders and powered aircraft and I know which is the most challenging and has the highest workload.

There is no excuse for poor airmanship and I do wish more glider pilots had RT licences, but this is changing and the numbers who do are increasing. Its also encouraging that more and more ATC service providers are becoming more sympathetic to the fact that at the time of your call you may be struggling to work a half knot climb to stay airborne whilst trying desperately to avoid infringing 'Little Snoring' ATZ.

Now if only we could do something about the average 'power pilot's lookout - I know the visibility is terrible in a PA28 and the like compared to a glider, but I have had gliders fly straight through the thermal I am in (in class G before you ask) very frequently and likewise what excuse is there for overflying a well known gliding launch site below winch height?

Greenhouses and stones and all that....

[davydine]

There's no excuse for it, but it happens in all forms of aviation i'm afraid, the gliding club i used to fly from used to have a "hall of shame" of pictures of light aircraft flying straight over the top well below 2000' when winch launching was in progress and i have retrieved gliders from fields with an irate farmer standing by still upset by the damage a hot air baloon did to his crops the previous week. The retrieve crew had done nothing to minimise the crop damage in his opinion.

I even saw a facebook post from a local gliding club recently complaining about a single red arrow flying at less than 1000' along their downwind leg... Don't think they got a call from him....

[bad bear]

As a glider pilot who regularly calls ATC units I can confirm that the R/T is very distracting. Many controllers seem to want to fill in every box on the progress strip and are oblivious to how irrelevant and distracting it is for the pilot calling. Even sleepy and almost disused airports seem dead against allowing the pilot to leave their frequency once they have called and I have on occasions had to be quite forceful and insisted that I was not going to remain on frequency as I was 10 nm away and there was no useful purpose for me to continue to listen to the drone of taxi instructions etc.
bb

[John R81]

Ok - Question to glider pilots.

You have right of way over power by law, but regardless of the law power pilots are unlikely to steer to avoid what they haven't seen; and gliders are difficult to see. I am not talking about overflying winch sites - on route only.

What can you do to you make gliders more easily seen -

Why not have black or orange paint, for example, to give power pilots more of a chance?

Why not carry a Mode C (at least) transponder? Even if more weight degrades performance, is that last piece of performance really worth your life (and those in the other machine)?

Why not get a radio license and talk to ATC?


I am not anti- glider (or any other machine) just anti crash / death.

[India Four Two]

John,

All good ideas in theory, but in practice:

1. Glass fibre gliders are (mostly) white in order to avoid heat-soaking the structure, which could comprise its strength.

2. Weight is not the issue with transponders. In fact, on good days, gliders carry water ballast to improve performance. The problem is the power requirement and its impact on the battery life. Cost is also a consideration.

3. RT Licence? Good idea, but I suspect many glider pilots probably don't want to take the time to do it or they don't have an appropriate modern radio.

[John R81]

I42

Understood. But perhaps from your response I am hearing that glider pilots put these slight inconveniences ahead of safety, and then rationalise that decision to themselves by blaming others for not avoiding them.

We are all VFR, flying "see and avoid". The first part is "See" - I suspect that failures in this part are at the root of many conflicts.

Gliders are, by necessity of design, a shape that is more difficult to see than some other aircraft (I fly a helicopter which is one of the more visible, bulky shapes, and occasionally power pilots don't seem to see me, so how much less visible are gliders?). As pilots we try to reduce the risk of not being seen; power machines have mandetory schemes (e.g. warning strobe light) and non-mandetory options (transponder, ATC radio contact) that are commonly (not exclusively used). We could also increase visibility of gliders, yet we don't (in many cases) take any active steps to do so; and then we are 'suprised' when the risk becomes reality.

My crystal ball? If we don't change things ourselves then at some point (time line here influenced by actual crashes / fatalities / reported near miss as skies become more crowded) "elf & safety" concerns at EASA will bring an EU-wide rule change to increase visibility and reduce risk.

[BackPacker]

Playing devils advocate here...

If you're so worried about a collision with a glider, why don't you install a Flarm device in your aircraft? All of a sudden you'll be warned about perhaps 90%+ of the glider fleet in your vicinity - at least that's what the Flarm uptake seems to be here in NL. Flarm is a lot cheaper than a Mode-C/S transponder plus TCAS/PCAS, and works even in the absence of an interrogation signal. And requires a lot less power.

Gliding and Powered flying happen to be two different worlds, with different education, examination and operating practices. What gives the powered flying world the right to impose their way of life (mode-S transponders, R/T, quadrantal rules, whatnot) on the world of gliding? Why can't the good things from the gliding world (Flarm, keeping a good lookout in uncontrolled airspace) be imposed on the Powered flying world?

[PaulisHome]

As a glider pilot I'm keen on talking to ATC if I'm crossing, for example, an instrument approach - or even in the vicinity of a busy piece of airspace. But it's not quite as simple as it might seem:


The idea that being in touch with ATC on a basic service does much for collision avoidance is doubtful, I think. (It basically tells you that there's someone in the area - but that was a good assumption anyway, so why weren't you looking out?) And ATC can't do traffic service or deconfliction for many. So it's see and avoid, I'm afraid.
And, in any case, which ATC unit? - in many cases you've got a choice of several. Being in touch with one doesn't help you much with someone in touch with another.
Gliders having transponders might help a little. But only if everyone carries some sort of TCAS, which we don't (except see previous post on Flarm). But besides the power and cost issues of transponders there's the inconvenient truth that our "safety" authority makes it quite difficult to fit them to many gliders.


Paul

[Pegpilot]

My twopennorth relating to a couple of points mentioned here. My personal opinion is that cross country glider pilots SHOULD have RT licenses - apart from anything else it makes the use of the other 756 channels beyond the gliding frequencies legal, plus I found the course did much to improve my understanding of how GA airfields operate. So if I'm lurking close to an ATZ whilst climbing for 5 minutes I WILL contact them to let them know I'm there and they do seem to appreciate the call. What is not clear to me is whether glider pilots who train for the new glider pilot's license after EASA transition will need to do the RT module as a compulsory element of the syllabus - anyone out there know ?

The other point relates to the fact that most glider cross country flights these days are electronically logged, permitting after-the-event analysis of individuals' flying habits. You get to see their precise location and altitude every few seconds (oh, and FLARM does this as a by-product of its primary function - you can play your flights back via See You software with superb accuracy). As an instructor, I would undoubtedly have words with a club member who indulged in the legal but dubious practices referred to above in the thread, if picked up through trace analysis. Virtually every BGA ladder claim flight these days has an associated trace publically posted by its pilot, so there is great transparency as to our habits (see www.bgaladder.co.uk (http://www.bgaladder.co.uk))

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

My crystal ball? If we don't change things ourselves then at some point (time line here influenced by actual crashes / fatalities / reported near miss as skies become more crowded) "elf & safety" concerns at EASA will bring an EU-wide rule change to increase visibility and reduce risk.

Quite apart from the problem of localised heating of composite structures if parts are coloured, as someone mentioned earlier, I seem to recall some test were done regarding visibility. Generally breaking up the outline was found to make visibility worse.

So, unless somebody finds a way of making glass gliders with the required strength in either a bright colour or black overall I can't imagine much changing.

I can only think of one accident where a powered aircraft hit a glider but far more of gliders colliding with each other.

[Ridger]

Apparently some conspicuity trials were run on gliders a few years ago, the best results were obtained by applying silver mirror finish vinyl on the moving surfaces. Obviously nothing will help in a head on scenario but I understand it worked well otherwise. Why it hasn't caught on is another question.

To be fair, I think Il Duce's original point was more to do with the percieved wisdom of gliding in those locations, combined with radio silence, rather than the general rolling debate on use of radio / transponders etc etc.

I accept the best thermals are always in Class A!!

[Flyin'Dutch']

1) Signal Orange Strips on Glass Gliders are common in competition and not a problem

2) Mode C transponders mandatory in the Netherlands for Gliders operating away from the immediate vicinity of the airfield

3) Flarm and Powerflarm are common in the Netherlands too.

[PaulisHome]

1) Signal Orange Strips on Glass Gliders are common in competition and not a problem
True, but I think some of that comes from orange strips being mandatory for flying in the Alps, where white gliders don't stand out from white snow. An earlier poster reported on breaking up a silhouette not improving visibility in our conditions.

2) Mode C transponders mandatory in the Netherlands for Gliders operating away from the immediate vicinity of the airfield
Didn't the Netherlands make transponders mandatory everywhere, and then have to disregard most of the signals?

To be fair, I think Il Duce's original point was more to do with the perceived wisdom of gliding in those locations, combined with radio silence
Well, yes, but it was designed to set off a debate (see thread title). We can all find examples of people doing something silly! Nice to see a well mannered debate resulting.

[John R81]

The positive nature of discussion on this thread is very encouraging. this is not a subject for division into 'them and us' camps.

Backpacker - personally, I am not worried. Unless something hits my rotor or chops off my tail I am likely to survive a close miss or even a "bump". However, UK air law tells me to give way to gliders and I am very happy to do that; I can't unless I know they are there.

I always have radio contact when flying (local tower / radio, or LARS, or London / Scottish information). If the ATC unit knows / suspects from intermittent radar return that a glider is ahead of my track they tell me. I can change course early and deconflict with ease - mostly never actually ever seeing the glider. A x-country glider pilot in UK airspace talking to LARS is not going to get a lot of help from them (agreed), but occasional position reports from the glider gives everyone on channel information to plan to avoid; anyone later reporting a position that might conflict is advised of the risk by ATC and, again, sensible pilots will simply plan to avoid that particular piece of airspace.

Generally speaking, I am not after a traffic service to help me to fly close to gliders but I can't simply avoid any airspace where a glider "might" be; there is just not enough airspace in the UK to do that.

Similarly with transponder - if you show-up to ATC they tell me of potential conflict and I change course and avoid. I don't want to get close enough to need a FLARM warning.



I come back to what I think is my main point: If we continue to have complaints about near-miss, or actual accidents, that can be traced to lack of visibility then at some point official-dum will decide that 'something must be done' and we will have new rules (of some kind or other). It seems to me to far more sensible for us - the aviation community - to work this out ourselves. That way we may avoid expensive and / or ineffective measures being mandated.

So -

1) Is there a problem of visibility? simple yes / no
2) If so, then is that a risk that can (sensibly) be reduced? and
3) If so, what is the most cost-effective option?

[FullWings]

I can't condone the actions described in the first post but I do understand some of why it happens.

Cross country gliding is a high-workload endeavour, especially when the conditions are less than perfect. If you're not used to R/T (it's not part of learning to glide, unlike most power training) and are navigating by 1/2mil in a sailplane of moderate performance, there is precious little capacity left for 'chat' without compromising the ability to stay airborne.

A MATZ doesn't apply to gliders, in the strict sense, although an ATZ does. If you extended the centrelines of all the active runways in the UK out to 10nm and drew the result on a map, it would be a mess, with intersecting lines all over the place. Yes, it is good airmanship and polite to make yourself known to airfields close by but it is not required, if you're not going to transit their airspace. If you're in the open FIR on approach to a particular airfield, you should expect all manner of heavier/lighter than air objects to be rushing/floating about, right up to the boundaries of airspace. Many will be non-radio.

As far as visibility goes, the extremely low frontal area of modern gliders makes them difficult to spot, whatever colour they are. A plus point is that they are rarely flying on a constant track or holding a steady speed and altitude, so there is often some sort of differential motion that the eye can detect, rather than being a 'fly on the windscreen'. I don't think orange stripes on the wings do very much, if anything, as I've often spotted another glider and when it got much closer, observed that it had stripes.

FLARM has had a large take-up in continental Europe and is becoming widely established in the UK. (For those that don't know, it's like TCAS but without the guidance.) It is a useful enhancement to a good lookout, especially in situations where the geometry leaves one or both parties unsighted until quite late.

As far as transponders go, if you got every glider, hang-glider, paraglider, etc. to carry one and use it, within 10 minutes on the first good summer's day NATS would be begging for them to be turned off as thousands of returns swamped the SSR system and TCAS events were triggered all over the place. ADS-B may improve this scenario but it's still debatable. I have a transponder in my glider and use it a fair bit when transiting CAS, getting a Basic Service from an ATC unit or when I'm in IMC.

Also, you have to look at what various groups define as a "near miss". In the LTMA it's three miles and 1,000'; for me in my glider, as long as the other party has seen me and is avoiding, I don't really mind how close they get as long as they don't force me to fly through their wake. I've been in thermals with 50+ other gliders at the same time and as long as there is some discipline it's fine.

[PaulisHome]

I broadly agree with the last post.

Visibility is an issue, and to some degree we rely on lookout and the big sky theory.

If I can be a little contentious, I think being in touch with an ATC unit in the open FIR on a basic service gives a false sense of security if you're relying on it for traffic avoidance. Many is the time that I've been told about one piece of traffic but not the other five or six. It works if there are very few people around - but on a busy day I think it's largely useless. And to be fair to ATC, that's not what they're contracted to do on a basic service. I don't think it's very useful to change your route just because you're told there's something in your path - the likelihood is that you'll just be conflicting with something else.

I think there are only two solutions, other than the Mk 1 eyeball.

1. Ensure that fewer people fly and provide a deconfliction or traffic service. Usually known as CAS.

2. Or technology - but the costs are pretty high, and the cost / benefit perhaps doubtful, particularly if it's regulated technology. There's a reason transponders and TCAS etc are much more expensive than Flarm - it's all designed for the CAT world.

Full Wings' point about different people wanting very different avoidance standards is a good one.

Paul

[bad bear]

1 I am reminded of the story where a pilot complained that a glider was thermalling on his centre line at 10 miles..... the glider was over his home airfield, why should he not be there?

2 Look out. Glider pilots can see other gliders and even birds. If someone is not seeing gliders they need to train on look out more. pm me if you want a briefing on a good technique

3 Radios. Far from helping EASA will ban the fitting of 760 ch radios from Oct this year and cause those that are currently fitted to be removed in 5 years.

4 The Didcot area sees 40 to 60 gliders per hour on a good day. No radar or radio could deconflict that.

John R81, this thread comes up at least every 12 months and greater minds than ours have debated it. See and avoid is just that, learn to see and learn to avoid just like the rest of us have for 50 years. There are places that are quiet and other that are busy. In the quiet places there is no need to change and the busy places its too difficult to change. No one could cope if all gliders were on the radio communicating their full details to every ATC unit. The thing that would make the biggest safety improvement is to reduce the huge volume of controlled airspace below 6,000' that is seldom used.
If its just gliders your worried about fly at less than half the height of cloud base and you will find very few there, most prefer to be nearer cloud base.
happy flying
bb

[John R81]

Paul

I agree that unles you are in CAS with a full service you are only getting "some help" from ATC. Therefore I don't think anyone gettting a 'basic service' from ATC thinks that is their prime source of avoidance information - that is still Mk1 Eyeball. But, surely, any help is valuable.

Personally, I do find it useful to get additional information from ATC. Sometimes the warning can be far enough out to make changing course worthwhile. Not for every single aircraft, obviously, but when ATC tell me "multiple contacts manouvering, on your track, +15miles, intermitent radar returns, they might be gliders" then it is ususally no trouble for me to alter course and not fly into that space. If I get one machine ahead, I think it slightly increases the chances of finding it visually if you have a clue of direction / distance.

And I have one experience (fortunately only one) where the tone of ATC communication helped me to decide that although they cannot direct aircraft to turn, it would be a darned good idea to follow the "suggested" course of action rather than to follow the strict Rules of the Air, which would have kept me going straight and level. On that occasion, at least the other chap was squaking 7000 Mode C and therefore ATC could see him.

finally, I don't see that the SSR will be overwhelmed if everyone in the air had a transponder; but it would be interesting to hear from a controller.

[bad bear]

Just before I head out to dodge round a few planes......

I remembered a few airproxes where both planes were talking to ATC but still got very close. It was 2 different ATC units and neither new about the other's traffic.

In the Didcot area you have some pilots talking to Farnborough, some to Benson, some to Brize and these days I prefer to talk to Oxford as they are the best in the area. The long and short of it is that you could be talking to one service provider and I could be talking to another but you would not get any warning of my where abouts if your controller did not have a radar that sees my glider mode "S" transponder.

There is a culture in aviation that wrongly assumes that talking to ATC keeps one safe, user beware. Not all ATC units have radar and not all radars see everything at low level.

bb

[BackPacker]

finally, I don't see that the SSR will be overwhelmed if everyone in the air had a transponder; but it would be interesting to hear from a controller.

Actually, SSR can be overwhelmed. Both on a technical level, and on a human/interpretation level.

Mode A/C has the problem that every interrogation signal, both from any radar head and from any airborne TCAS unit, triggers a response from your transponder. This means that radar heads and transponders receive replies to interrogation signals that were not transmitted by them, and this leads to "ghost returns", or whatever they're called. AFAIK these generally disappear in the next sweep but in huge numbers they may still cause enough clutter to confuse the software or the operator. I think I read a number of 300 somewhere, which is supposed to be the maximum number of transponders in a given area, before the technical limits of the system are reached. So two glider competitions launching might do the trick already. And remember that at this level there's no filtering possible yet. So a huge gaggle of gliders launching and holding at low level, may cause sufficient bandwidth saturation that the responses of high-level targets in a completely different bit of airspace, can also not get through.

One of the main features of Mode-S is "selective" interrogation, where the transponder will only respond to certain interrogation signals, but not to all, every time. This greatly reduces the overall bandwidth requirements, leading to a higher theoretical maximum of transponders in any given area without overwhelming the technical capabilities of the system. (Whether an operator is capable of dealing with those numbers is another matter.)

The second problem is information block density. When Mode-S was introduced in the Netherlands the radar operators did not have good filtering mechanisms. So all mode-S information - quite a block of text - was displayed for every target in the area regardless of its altitude or whether it was inside or outside the operators CAS. This lead to data blocks overlapping each other on a huge scale, making the information completely unreadable. Of course the operator had the ability to move text blocks around to unclutter them, but with 100+ targets in your area - which happened on the first day of beautiful weather after mode-S became mandatory in NL - it was still overwhelming. It took the software guys quite some time to implement filtering based on altitude and a few other things, so that radar operators can now filter out irrelevant targets. (And during that period there were NOTAMs in place that we were not allowed to use our shiny new mode-S transponders in a lot of places. In fact, for a while there was a huge area around Schiphol simply declared a no-go area for GA.)

So, yes, if someone decides to make transponders, or new transponder types, mandatory wholesale for a segment of GA, there are some lessons to be learned from the Dutch experience...:bored:

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

1) Is there a problem of visibility? simple yes / no
2) If so, then is that a risk that can (sensibly) be reduced? and
3) If so, what is the most cost-effective option?

1) Yes
2) No (unless you think grounding all modern gliders is "sensible")!
3) n/a due to your "if so" but keeping a good look out springs to mind!

[thing]

Nice to see it staying fairly pleasant! As someone with a foot in both camps the only answer on a good gliding day (problem here already, how many non gliding GA pilots can recognise a boomer?) is to keep your eyes on stalks. Gliders are very difficult to spot especially against a cloud background where they are most likely to be. I've had what you would call 'Crikey I saw him late' moments even though I'm a glider pilot and I know where they are liable to be etc.

It's part of the risk assesment you take when you fly I'm afraid. If it's a cracking day I tend to go on top anyway if airspace permits, you don't meet many gliders on the other side of the clouds.

Re the glider pilots who find talking to ATC units distracting, it's also distracting for powered pilots when the cockpit workload is high too.

As to the OP comments, I take it they were tongue in cheek?

Edit: Bad Bear, you don't have to be forceful about anything; if you're not in CAS just call en route to wherever and leaving the frequency.

[mary meagher]

I'm back.

Shenington Regional Competition is over, and went very well indeed. Have a look at some of the photos on the Shenington thread mentioned below!

Now, for the topic under discussion: Early days, when Upper Heyford was still full of Yanks and nuclear weapons, I decided to fly my Pegasus glider to Banbury and return on a nice fair weather cu type of day.

And holding a few power ratings as well, decided to radio Upper Heyford, to state my intention of crossing their airspace..... While circling in a jolly good thermal over Aylesbury, I dialed up their frequency and the following transmissions ensued:

"Upper Heyford, this is glider 987" "Glider 987, squawk daba daba (whatever)......
"Unable!" I replied. "Glider 987 what is your location?" "Over Aylesbury".
"What is your present heading?"

"I'm going around in circles!"

Long pause while everyone else on frequency is creased up with the giggles.

"Glider 987, what is your intention?"
"Enroute to Banbury, would like to cross your airspace."
"Glider 987, that is approved, maintain 4,000 feet."

"I'll try!"

They just don't get it, do they?

[JimCrawford]

Ahh yes, the dreaded UHMRA [Upper Heyford Mandatory Radio Area] the cause of much amusement for glider pilots. For some reason Uncle Sam wanted a big chunk of airspace to protect his F111s against GA. I don't know why this protection was needed, after all he had all the guns. Anyway radio contact was required to enter the area but once contact had been made you could do whatever you wanted, there was no 'control', more like a basic information service. Placing this UHMRA splat across the major north / south runs, and in the middle of a clutch of active glider airfields had the consequence that, on good days, the UHMRA controllers were completely swamped and reverted to 'continue own navigation'. So the only real effect was to pi$$ off non radio gliders, of which there were many in those days.
We had several US pilots at Bicester (RAFGSA) in those days and the bar talk was that Upper Heyford was used as babtism of fire training for controllers posted to European stations. You could listen on the radio as the convection started up and the cross country boys and girls set off. Initially all was calm professionalism but you could sense the tension as the rookie controller tried to give position reports to contacts about others very close (probably in the same thermal!) as more and more gliders popped up until the inevitable 'continue own navigation'.

Back to the original topic. Painting red bits on sailplanes has been shown by many studies to be pretty ineffective. The only colour which seems to work is black, and this would require a reformulation of the resins used in grp structures so it doesn't help the existing fleet.
I agree with other posters on this topic about the advantages of having an RT licence and many gliding clubs make getting one easier by organising group courses and tests on site. However in the near future I shall be forced (by mandate) to dispose of a serviceable 760 radio and replace it at my expense with one which will enable me to talk to gizzillions of people I don't want to. I shall also probably be forced (by exclusion from airspace) to fit at my expense a mode S. Since 99% of my flying is in VFR in class G airspace I think my safety would be better improved by retrofitting, at their expense, all power GA with bubble canopies to encourage pilots to look out the window. :E

Jim

[astir 8]

UHMRA one unusual weekend when the USAF was operating. Lady glider pilot (not Mary to judge from the accent)

Pilot "Glider XXX approaching UHMRA from the Southeast, request crossing"

UHMRA deep south USA accent "What is your estimated time of arrival, maam?" (very polite always, UHMRA)

Pilot "I don't know, I'm in a glider"

UHMRA "What will be your altitood when you arrive, maam"

Pilot "I don't know, I'm in a glider"

I'm always reminded of that conversation when more contact between ATC and glider pilots is suggested.

P.S. Happy July 4th to all our American readers!

[John R81]

Current report on GASCO Glider and Cessna mid air (http://www.gasco.org.uk/safety-information/flight_safety_extra/glider-and-cessna-mid-air.aspx)

A Cessna 150 collided with a glider near Pemberton, British Columbia on 30 June, killing all four people on board the two aircraft. The Canadian Transportation Safety Board is investigating. Mid air collision is one of the four most common fatal occurrence categories for gliders within EASA.

[JimCrawford]

What ratio glider/glider to glider/ga? would be interesting

Jim

[PaulisHome]

Largely glider / glider, I think, though I don't have the numbers.

On a 250km glider cross country flight last weekend, (Gransden, Chipping Camden, Hus Bos, Gransden) I saw probably 15-20 other gliders - several opposite direction within a few hundred metres. I think I only saw one or two GA powered aircraft.

Which raises the question, how much cross country flying in powered aircraft actually happens at the weekend? Where is everyone?

OK, I passed close to a couple of gliding sites on the way, but still!

Paul

[bad bear]

yes I had similar experience.I saw 4 biz jets and 4 light singles (inc Tiger moth) but over 100 gliders and one helicopter in 4 hours. I guess EASA has killed off much of the recreational flying therebye making the sky safer?? Odd how few birds were soaring too.

bb

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Glider pilots on the radio really does help, and i think FRTO quals would be a good thing for all pilots regardless of craft.

I Fly out of a airport that has glider operations, in fact i went solo with the glider club when i was 15! i share the airspace quite happily with gliders the reason...we talk! on the ground and in the air!

I know with booming soaring days gliders collect in gaggles but those are easier to see and usually generate some sort of chatter, lone glider operations are a bit different.

I was descending after crossing the Tararua mountains from 7000ft, a chap who I knew by voice was ridge soaring at 2000 ft below me on a ridge directly in my path. I never saw him, but i knew exactly where he was and we didn't meet up, All because i relayed my intentions and he relayed his location.

I elected to stay at 2500ft and go for a 747 final instead of descending along the ridge. I never saw him.

Love my glider pals, rather have a beer on the ground tho

FK

[Cows getting bigger]

Someone asking about the ratio of glider/GA midairs? I offer that we are all GA and should be working together regarding increased conspicuity regardless of our GA sub-set. Personally, I find it more difficult spotting a plastic fantastic SEP following a constant path than a glider which is invariably turning.

Radios - I think we should encourage better airmanship across GA. Some people blindly talk to ATC whenever they can, regardless of the need - this is irrelevant and can undermine the effectiveness of ATC. Others take great delight in exercising their 'rights' in not talking to ATC. Personally, I think there is some middle ground which can only be explored by instilling better airmanship.

TCAS/ADS-B/Mode S/FLARM etc. If I had a bucket full of cash I would put some form of traffic awareness system in every GA aircraft which operates in Class G airspace. I have been watching FLARM for some time now and this one seems to be taking the lead, especially Power FLARM. Of course, some may choose to take the chance and continue to make themselves inconspicuous, because it is their 'right'. For sure, they are entitled to exercise their rights but I would be mighty annoyed if I bumped into someone who had consciously made an effort not to improve their conspicuity. :ouch:

[bad bear]

Cows getting bigger,I generally agree with what you wrote but its not about exercising their 'rights' in not talking to ATC The whole system of how radiocommunication is conducted and the RT manual is not writen with gliders in mind and there is not an option of "no service required" which is what most of us request. Do you know that the Manual of Air Trafic Services has more writen in it about UFOs than gliders....
I do listen out and cringe at how much seemingly useless chat there is from transiting aircraft but that is what the system requires.

ADSB recievers are becoming affordable (less than £500) but the airlines seem reluctant to spend money on fitting ADSB, few Dash 8 have it for example and they are a common type outside controlled airspace.

EASA has made sure that fitting and maintaining transponders is prohibitively expensive
bb