BGA airspace open letter [Archive]

airwave45

12th Aug 2015, 23:13

I think that the part you are referring to was a caution about using your radio in a gaggle.
Having been in some 20+ glider gaggles, the radio is the least useful thing you have on board at the time.

Speaking to Scottish quite a lot of the time the guys and girls at the other end are great, One of my buddies gets queeried on his mode s alt fairly regularly, the tone is always gently surprised when he confirms fl120 or whatever he's cruising at.

Some local controllers do have a habbit of attempting to foist a service upon you in such a way that it feels quite rude to decline.

The tone of the bga letter was, I feel, that we are doing ok, keep it up.

Controllers are learning more about what gliders do and glider pilots are getting better on the radio.
encouraging glider pilots to engage with controllers seems to be improving things all round.

Professor Plum

13th Aug 2015, 06:43

With regards to the service provided from air traffic, why not just use a basic service?

You won't get bothered much.

airwave45

13th Aug 2015, 07:22

when flying xc in a glider, most relevant info is on your usual frequency 130.4 or whatever.
speaking to local controllers means you change freq and loose the gliding updates.
if you accept a basic service you are then pinned to whatever frequency they use and subject to handoffs by them to the next set of controllers.

to be fair the issue is really with one airport which has aspirations for a huge increase in its cta / ctr.

Dual watch radio is a must have these days for serious xc in the UK.

The letter from the bga is really a reminder to glider pilots.
good to see a proactive leadership position being taken by the bga airspace team.

And congrats to them for the vast area in Scotland they have just opened up !

ShyTorque

13th Aug 2015, 07:39

if you accept a basic service you are then pinned to whatever frequency they use and subject to handoffs by them to the next set of controllers.

Absolute rubbish! That shows a misunderstanding of how the service works. Any pilot can request and terminate the service as and when required.

Gonzo

13th Aug 2015, 07:57

I often find having to use the radio very distracting in my job.

PaulisHome

13th Aug 2015, 09:04

An interesting view from the BGA. Don't quite agree with the tone though, or that using the radio is a distraction.

Don't see a problem with the view or the tone - it's encouraging people to do sensible things, (largely for the benefit of others).

I'm a supporter of talking to ATC on the radio when gliding (in the appropriate places). But remember what we're all taught - the priority is Aviate, Navigate then Communicate. Glider pilots don't have one of those noisy things at the front - the only way they stay airborne is by using their brain to put the aircraft in the right part of the sky. I've had a few occasions in the last year or two where talking to controllers has left me in a place where I'd rather not have been - I'd stopped looking at the sky for a couple of minutes!). And if I get low, and am scrabbling to stay airborne, that's where all my attention is needed - turning the radio off can be a help.

I also like the 'No service required' approach. I don't generally think a basic service is much use - controllers start trying to relay traffic information, but it's too general to be useful. Being told about a an aircraft five miles away doesn't help me very much - I'm more interested in the ones within a few hundred metres. All it says is keep a good lookout, which I'm doing anyway. Last week, flying in a competition, calling a US Mil a/f, and being told that there were a lot of gliders in the area was amusing. We sort of knew that. (this isn't a complaint - they were very helpful).

And the controller education piece is important - gliders behave differently to other aircraft, and it helps to know how and why (avoids requests like "maintain 3000 feet", which I've had).

Paul

ETOPS

13th Aug 2015, 09:50

12 Aug 15
To all glider pilots
Dear glider pilot
AIRSPACE SAFETY
UPDATE
Earlier this year we wrote to you with important information about airspace. This letter is an
update and
offers further guidance.
First of all, thanks very much for your contribution so far this year including communicating
with air traffic control where appropriate. We have received feedback that the number of
awareness radio calls at airfields with instrument traffic is increasing and the quality of radio
communication is improving. Geoff Brown’s excellent work on airspace files now makes it
much easier for us to see ATZs, frequencies and ILS ‘feathers’ on our moving map software.
That awareness really helps.

During meetings with the military this year, we have discussed a number of military/glider
proximity hot spots, including around Linton-on-Ouse, Odiham and Benson. Military airfields
are busiest during week days, many have procedural traffic and some have fast jet traffic.
The same precautions we take with their civilian counterparts apply including avoiding
overheads and approaches if we can, and talking to ATC if we can’t or are close by. Clubs
whose pilots regularly fly past Lakenheath are Mildenhall are liaising with USAF air traffic
controllers with the aim of improving awareness. As pilots, we can each learn which airfields
are likely to be busy and which are almost inactive.

We are trying to educate air traffic controllers about how, for soaring pilots concentrating as
they must on a number of tasks including staying airborne, radio calls can be very
distracting. The problems with using a phone while driving are well known. When providing
an awareness radio call, all that should be required from the glider pilots having made
contact is something like ‘For your information glider XYZ is 3 miles east of your airfield
climbing in a thermal at 3000’ and is then heading south. No service required.’ The better
informed air traffic controllers will simply thank you for the call. Others may attempt to
impose a service on you, which you don’t need to take if you are outside an ATZ or
controlled airspace.

A recent helpful discussion with Gloucester airport has identified that when the Cheltenham
East (CHE) TP is used by thermal soaring cross-country gliders, there is a potential for
significant disruption to approach or departure traffic. Any TP with an ILS feather across it is
probably best avoided. If it is offered a planned task, why not challenge that decision?

Thanks for taking the time to read this. As noted earlier this year, if we all follow good
practice, we can maintain risk at a reasonable level, demonstrate that gliders do not pose
the level of risk that some incorrectly assume, and have a much better case to oppose future
airspace grabs. In operating as responsible airspace users, we should always remember
that the old maxim of aviate, navigate, communicate (in that order) still holds true. There is
certainly no sense in losing situational awareness in a gaggle while fiddling with a radio. But
the more we can communicate responsibly, the less likely we are to come into conflict with
traffic which might otherwise look for more controlled airspace. Good pilots will strike the
right balance.

Kind regards
John Williams
Sarah Kelman, Andrew Roch
–
Airspace Committee
Mark Holden
–
Competition Committee
Pete Stratten
–
Safety
Committee
/////////////////////////////////

ShyTorque

13th Aug 2015, 10:25

I often find having to use the radio very distracting in my job.Yes, must interfere terribly with the game of Scrabble/Ludo/draughts etc... ;)

Gonzo

13th Aug 2015, 10:55

I was actually being mostly serious! ;)

I'm really not sure equating using the RT when gliding to using a telephone when driving is doing anyone any favours.

thing

13th Aug 2015, 12:27

I don't really get the 'soaring pilots must concentrate on a number of tasks besides staying airborne'. So does everyone else and they seem to manage the radio. I might add I'm a glider pilot as well as powered.

Broadlands

13th Aug 2015, 18:26

Encouraging more glider pilots to obtain (and use) an RT licence would help overcome the perception that the radio is a distraction, and improve situational awareness for everyone.

Professor Plum

13th Aug 2015, 19:33

Thing: I agree with you.

I speak as a military pilot, who did a bit of gliding in the past. Admittedly 15 hours or so, around 10 years ago.

When I fly aerobatics, I do so with a traffic service wherever possible. As to whether it's an annoyance, well id rather not crash into someone! Safety first.

I am happy to be educated, but I don't understand how a basic service can get in the way of flying a glider. Everyone on frequency (especially ATC) will know you're there. That's a good thing, surely?

DaveUnwin

13th Aug 2015, 23:21

I agree with Paulishome. The thing about soaring is that its a very dynamic sport, and situations change constantly. Up at 5,000ft, cruising downwind under a stonking cloud street with an airfield or two within easy reach, there's no pressure and the radio's easy. Descending through 1500ft in sinking air over not-terribly-friendly terrain is an entirely different matter.

thing

14th Aug 2015, 04:23

But then you're into aviate, navigate, communicate Dave. No one would expect someone trying to pick a field in trying circumstances to be thinking about putting out a radio call. Although having said that I would rather be in an ASH 25 at 1500' looking for a field than an Arrow.

Heston

14th Aug 2015, 06:49

The other salient factor is that gliders are often in a competition, not just enjoying a gentle cross country soaring flight. The pilots are among the most driven and competitive people I've ever met. An ounce of their attention not devoted to flying the glider better than all the others is an once of attention wasted.

I have flown with some of the signaturies of the letter - they are top notch people, some with careers in professional aviation away from gliding - and they know their stuff. It was a well balanced and sensible reminder to the gliding community.

thing

14th Aug 2015, 09:25

I agree with you there Heston but it's not an excuse to let basic airmanship go to pot. I know steam gives way to sail etc but being a bit more SA savvy will help us all; the gliding fraternity get to twirl around in their circles safely and I get to go where I want keeping well clear of them. I sometimes get the impression that by some sort of magic it's my responsibility to spot every glider in the sky while they go hither and thither hoping that I've seen them and if I get too close I'm one of those idiot tin can drivers who hasn't a clue and probably has his head in the cockpit twiddling his knobs.

I will repeat that I'm a glider pilot myself so see it from all sides.

PaulisHome

14th Aug 2015, 09:29

I think I agree with most of what's been said in the earlier replies.

When I fly aerobatics, I do so with a traffic service wherever possible. As to whether it's an annoyance, well id rather not crash into someone! Safety first.

Traffic service I understand. If I can get one, it's useful. You're getting usable information about other traffic, and you've been positively identified. But it's only available if there aren't many aircraft around.

But to get slightly off topic, what's the point of a basic service? I don't think it helps you avoid crashing into anyone.

As defined, IIRC, a basic service doesn't give any traffic information. But there is a tendency for controllers (without radar) to start passing vague information about the whereabouts of other traffic. It's of limited use, IMHO, particularly if there are five times as many aircraft around as that controller knows about. So the value of the information is low - all it's doing is taking up radio and workload capacity. And if the controller does know about all the aircraft they can't possibly pass useful information about them. Hence the 'No Service Required' approach.

A case in point. Last week I was in a competition which went past (and over) the Mildenhall CMATZ. About 40 gliders, many of whom gave them a call. It's what they wanted, but I can't see how it was useful - they probably didn't know who was who. Conversely, later on, when I was on my own, I received, (unasked, but welcome) what was essentially a traffic service and information about a PA28 which passed within a couple of hundred metres and a couple of hundred feet. But my glider is (unusually) transponder equipped, so that was feasible, and in that area, traffic density was low.

Paul

DaveUnwin

14th Aug 2015, 09:59

I still don't see the problem with the BGA's letter and find its tone and advice perfectly reasonable. The stumbling block on this thread seems to be some pilots not getting the 'soaring pilots must concentrate on a number of tasks besides staying airborne'.
On Wednesday I flew a powered aircraft and a sailplane, back-to-back.
I did not have to 'concentrate on staying airborne' in the powered aircraft at all. I find the engine to be very helpful in this respect.
The radio is a powerful tool, which is why the BGA is advocating its use, but the point I think the letter is also trying to make is "don't drop the plane to fly the mike!"

thing

14th Aug 2015, 14:41

i think we are getting tied up in semantics here. If you are flying a glider and are able to communicate then do so. No one is asking anyone to fly into the ground for the sake of a radio call. Some (in fact a lot) of glider pilots aren't confident in using the radio; if we can overcome this then surely it's a win win for everyone.

DaveUnwin

14th Aug 2015, 15:20

"If you are flying a glider and are able to communicate then do so"

Errr, isn't that what the BGA's letter says? Some of the posters on this thread indicated that they had a beef with the BGAs letter, whereas I think its perfectly reasonable.
You said that "I don't really get the 'soaring pilots must concentrate on a number of tasks besides staying airborne' and I was just trying to point out that simply staying airborne in a powered aircraft doesn't require any concentration at all - whereas in a sailplane it does,
The radio is a powerful tool, and I agree with the BGA in advocating its use, but "don't drop the plane to fly the mike!"

Mach Jump

14th Aug 2015, 15:55

I agree with DaveUnwin. The content and tone of the letter seemed perfectly reasonable to me.(and I'm not a glider pilot)

Having glider pilots talk to ATC/AG on the radio is a relatively new thing, and neither side is familiar with the other yet. Both sides may need educating as to the needs of the other, and any effort to promote the education process is to be applauded.

MJ:ok:

John R81

14th Aug 2015, 19:08

Rotor, not Glider.

Letter seems fine to me. Anything to increase awareness and therefore safety.

Ridger

14th Aug 2015, 23:33

Can't help thinking if gliders had transponders then the requirement for RT is reduced... Tin helmet ON!

thing

15th Aug 2015, 00:15

@Dave:

I think the letter is a great step forward and fully agree with your 'Don't fly the mic' comment which of course applies to any type of aircraft. I would also agree with MJ that it's more of a cultural problem than an ability one. I just thought that the phrase in question was a little strong in implying that there isn't much spare capacity for transmitting because of the peculiarities of glider flying. I'm a very average Joe glider pilot having scaled the dizzy ranks to a silver but I've never had a problem using the radio at any time so I think it's over egging it a bit to imply (and I may be reading it wrong) that gliders are a special case. Surely the bizzare maelstrom of machinery known as a helicopter shouldn't be transmitting at all if we're talking about spare capacity.

bad bear

15th Aug 2015, 18:48

hi Broadlands, in reply to your original question
An interesting view from the BGA. Don't quite agree with the tone though, or that using the radio is a distraction.

Any comments/views?

I think its a well written letter and vey sensible.

Using the radio can be a distraction for a glider pilot flying cross country as the soaring part of the flight does use up a lot of the available mental energy, add to that the navigation which is constantly being re-planed as the flight progress to maximise the time spent in the "good air" i.e up-going. Glider flights tend to be constantly changing altitude which brings different bits of controlled airspace in to play and requires a lot of attention not to infringe airspace. When less than half cloud base glider pilots need to split their attention between soaring and working out how and where to land if the need arises. If those tasks are not enough there is the need to constantly look out and some "domestic" in cockpit issues that longer flights require..The flights tend to be on average around 5 hours long which also saps brain energy, thats quite a long time to concentrate. Compared to other types of flying the work load is very high. Imagine flying a light aircraft and being instructed to climb and descend continuously and divert 30 degrees right for 15 miles then released to own nav before being instructed to change track again and find the frequencies of all ATC units on the varying route....Glider pilots also monitor the gliding frequencies and get useful information on the air ahead so do need to prioritise on monitoring that. But it is appropriate to call or monitor any ATZs we go near and occasionally ask for a clearance through CAS.
Personally I monitor 2 frequencies most of the time but while transiting Oxford recently the controller was doing radar, tower and ground at the same time, much as I wanted to get an idea of where other traffic was I had to leave the frequency as the noise was excessively distracting, especially as I had switched box 2 to Benson, hence it would be useful to educate that controller that he should only do 1 task on the frequency , radar, if he wants to get more gliders participating.
Many controllers do want to hold on to us as long as possible even if they have no useful info to give us and insist on knowing where we came from, where we are going, no of people on board and type etc when all many of us want to do is announce our presence and intentions on the frequency , this does add to our work load and distracts from look out.
Very few controllers understand how to work with gliders so I find the workload on the radio when gliding rather than power flying requires a lot more thought on my part and it becomes hard to explain to some controllers that I can't maintain an altitude or heading easily, even reporting my position is an issue as my gliding nav equipment is in Km s rather than nm s and I don't always have VORs in my database, I guess I could give my position from a BGA way point in kms but that probably wouldn't be much use to a controller or powered pilot?
Basically many glider pilots do call and the letter encourages others to do more, but, it is a distraction than needs to be managed and controller training would help. The BGA has offered to send pilots to the various ATC training colleges and not many have taken up the offer
bb

FullWings

16th Aug 2015, 09:06

I think it’s a good letter, especially considering what the target audience is for it: glider pilots.

There is no doubt that using the radio for ATC comms while trying to soar cross-country adds significant workload to what might already be a challenging activity. Practice helps, as does a transponder but most glider pilots are reluctant to engage with ATC unless they really have to, for the above mentioned reason.

Yes, it is good airmanship to avoid possible areas of conflict and to increase general situational awareness by conversing with ATC but we are talking about uncontrolled airspace here, Class G. See-and-be-seen, random separation, FLARM, TCAS, ADS-B, etc. Any sort of service you get OCAS will be by definition incomplete as who knows what’s out there?

Flying a powered aircraft from A to B (maybe even via C!) along a straight line at a consistent altitude and speed is very different from the average glider which operates through quite a large height band, changing speed and track and altitude almost continually, occasionally stopping to circle. Any information about a glider rapidly becomes stale and it is difficult for ATC to help much if they don’t have a secondary contact.

It is very much a two-way process of understanding: glider pilots are getting better at contacting airfields to give and receive traffic information and ATC are improving their understanding of the typical flightpath and workload that glider pilots face, especially when getting closer to the ground. This is good but it still has some way to go, hence the open letter to encourage this sort of activity.

Broadlands

16th Aug 2015, 21:03

I agree with the majority of contributors to this thread and see it as encouraging that it is supported by the wider community. I have flown in regional competitions and now have about 1500hrs (gliding) so do understand all the issues highlighted, but definitely do not agree that glider pilots are under so much pressure that the radio is dangerously distracting.
Although well written, I do think the letter has some comments where the tone is misleading. There is a small subsection of glider pilots who do not have any intention of conforming or doing anything they are not required to do and thus are the ones least likely to obtain an rt licence.
They are also those GA who make no allowance for gliders and do not take time to understand why a glider may be close to cloudbase on their planned track.
On the whole a reasonable letter but I still think there are some personal views that could have been toned down.

mary meagher

18th Aug 2015, 19:22

thing, me old buddy, can you possibly tell us more about your gliding experience? you say you have gained the Silver Certificate, that's 5 hours endurance, climb of ? meters, and 50 kilometers x-country. But have you ever flown in competition, with a flock of other gliders sent on the same task?

Believe me, going all by your lonesome on a 50 k. task, one has all the time in the world to announce to the nearby Brize Norton, or Upper Heyford, your position,maneuvers, and intentions. That is, if your basic K8 or K6 has been equipped with a radio...though any competition glider is required to have a working radio, the more basic gliders seldom do.

But also believe me, if you are flying in competition, WHICH HAS BEEN NOTAMMED, if anybody bothers to read notams these days, you have got very little left over attention from KEEPING A BLOODY GOOD LOOKOUT, staying airborne, staying on track, and when you get low, chosing a suitable field. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate etc etc. To any ATC looking at the radar, a flock of gliders on task must be impossible to assist; and can only help the situation by informing people with engines flying in straight lines at predictable altitudes, what may heading their way!

I have had from British controllers very helpful advice, including Brize, on one occasion when I was - on my own, not in a competition, trying to fly 300 k in a standard 15 meter wingspan glider. Got low after getting past Brize, and they relayed a request to Fairford, and got me permission to land there!
Lovely. The Officer in charge at Fairford (he was a Yank) helped move the glider off the runway, bought me a milkshake and a burger, and gave me 4 tickets for the tattoo the following week!

Jim59

19th Aug 2015, 10:02

...if you are flying in competition, WHICH HAS BEEN NOTAMMED,...

Mary, the NOTAMs are not very helpful.

E.g.: MAJOR GLIDING COMPETITION INCLUDING CROSS-COUNTRY ROUTES. INTENSE ACT WI 10NM RADIUS xxxxxxN yyyyyyyW (aerodrome name). UP TO 100 GLIDERS AND 10 TUG ACFT MAY PARTICIPATE. GLIDERS WILL NORMALLY OPR BLW THE INVERSION LVL OR BTN THE TOPS OF ANY CU CLOUDS AND 500FT. It then provides contact details for more information on daily task routes.

Bearing in mind that tasks may be several hundred km long, that tasks will not be published until mid-morning after the competition pilots' briefing (and may be changed on the grid only 20 mins before launching starts) when power pilots will have completed their flight planning, that there may be multiple contests on at the same time in the same part of the UK then the only value is to warn you that there could be more than the usual numbers of gliders anywhere within 100-200 miles of the launch site - but outside controlled airspace.

Gingerbread Man

19th Aug 2015, 10:37

I also like the 'No service required' approach. I don't generally think a basic service is much use - controllers start trying to relay traffic information, but it's too general to be useful. Being told about a an aircraft five miles away doesn't help me very much - I'm more interested in the ones within a few hundred metres. All it says is keep a good lookout, which I'm doing anyway.

Just in case you weren't aware, the above is all you should expect from a BS where traffic information is concerned. You often get more because of Duty of Care, but TI is not required to be anything more than generic on a BS.

Traffic information is simpler from an ATCO point of view when you're working aircraft going in straight(ish) lines from one place to another. When multiple aircraft start to remain in one area, it gets a bit tricky. For a start, they can become a blob on the radar screen and it gets harder to tell which is which. If you're orbiting and the radar refresh is every 6 seconds, then there's the problem that any clock code issued will probably be out of date. Then there's the issue of repeated conflicts with the same aircraft. How many times should an ATCO issue the same piece of traffic before you and they get fed up?

That's not a complaint, just a bit of an insight to the other side.

mary meagher

19th Aug 2015, 19:58

Jim59, as your sample NOTAM (could be Lasham, Dunstable, or any club on the calendar (see BGA competition calendar on their website) mentions, gliders are usually working height bands BELOW THE INVERSION, or BETWEEN THE TOP OF ANY CUMULUS CLOUDS AND 500 feet above the ground.

They don't go anywhere if its raining, or if there is no convection. And night flying is most unusual! So if I were flying power on a good soaring day, I would fly above convection - smoother air anyhow. Or before 10 am or after 5 pm. Then you should be quite clear of glider traffic.

Mach Jump

19th Aug 2015, 22:04

..BETWEEN THE TOP OF ANY CUMULUS CLOUDS AND 500 feet above the ground.

So if I were flying power on a good soaring day, I would fly above convection - smoother air anyhow. Or before 10 am or after 5 pm. Then you should be quite clear of glider traffic.

Wow, Mary. Thank goodness you don't work for a Regional Airport Airspace Planning Team! :eek:

MJ:ok:

mary meagher

20th Aug 2015, 06:42

Did you mean the Regional Airport Airspace Grabbing Team? if they get enough airspace reserved for commercial and military aviation, the rest of the flying community is going to be restricted to Wales or Scotland. Shame about that, all you recreational flyers! no more enjoyment for you!

Simon T

20th Aug 2015, 08:24

If I am in the air I use a radio and a transponder. That helps me stay safe and helps others to know where I am and what I am doing and stay safe as well. Why shouldn't I expect anyone else who is in the air to do the same? If it's too difficult (following; Aviate, navigate, communicate) for some they need training, if it is still too difficult they need to find another hobby

mary meagher

20th Aug 2015, 08:46

Very good, Simon. But all too often those using the radio and a transponder forget TO KEEP A GOOD LOOKOUT! too busy looking down at all the gadgets in the panel. If you rely on your radio and transponder and ATC to look out for you and keep you clear of other traffic, you may have some uncomfortable encounters, and that is not necessarily with gliders. I suggest you go for the IR and fly only in controlled airspace. The rest of us are required to keep clear (unless we have permission) and so the uncontrolled airspace has developed horrendous pinch points.

Heston

20th Aug 2015, 08:49

"Why shouldn't I expect anyone else who is in the air to do the same? If it's too difficult... ... they need training, if it is still too difficult they need to find another hobby"

That attitude reads as breathtakingly ignorant and arrogant. Maybe you need to find out about other types of flying. Paramotors, gliders, microlights and many vintage aircraft often don't have transponders and many don't have radios either. In order to stay safe you need to be aware of that when you're flying around in Class G.

Jim59

20th Aug 2015, 09:12

Simon T,

"If I am in the air I use a radio and a transponder. That helps me stay safe and helps others to know where I am and what I am doing and stay safe as well."

How does that work? You have a transponder, I have a transponder, but I still don't know where you are!

Regarding the radio, we are in Class G airspace North of Luton. I'm talking to London Information, You are talking to say Cranfield as you are near. How does the fact that we are both using radio help?

Both aids may give a false sense of security when only a good lookout may save you. If you want a useful aid then consider FLARM!

Why shouldn't I expect anyone else who is in the air to do the same? If it's too difficult (following; Aviate, navigate, communicate) for some they need training, if it is still too difficult they need to find another hobby.

I think Heston said it all...

TheOddOne

20th Aug 2015, 09:25

If you want a useful aid then consider FLARM!

Not really.

There are people with FLARM, there's other folk with transponders. There's folk flying metal aircraft that show up as a primary on RADAR. I found out Monday that our TMG, even with a great lump of a Volkwagen (sorry, Limbach) engine still doesn't show on primary 10 miles from the radar head.(no FLARM or transponder, just a radio). Radio isn't actually a waste of time, but is of limited value for traffic avoidance.

The only solution is to make it law that every airborne vehicle above 400' agl carry ADS-B (when they get it working and light enough). Until then, lookout!

TOO

thing

20th Aug 2015, 19:33

Jim59

20th Aug 2015, 20:27

Can I make a wider point about something that nags at the back of my head occasionally. There appears, to me at least, to be amongst some flyers a bias towards whatever it is they fly, be it powered, gliders, microlights, paragliders or whatever. The truth is, if you hit someone while flying, it doesn't matter whether you are in the right or in the wrong. What matters is that you are most probably permanently dead. We all need to recognise the strengths and weaknesses of each others aircraft and the strengths and weaknesses of the pilots thereof and stop trying to score points.

Whilst I agree 100% with the sentiment, there seems to be a better than 50% survival rate amongst glider pilots following collisions - mainly because they usually wear parachutes. The fact that most incidents are glider on glider with lower energy than many powered aircraft probably contributes to the high percentage of successful bail outs.

thing

20th Aug 2015, 20:41

Can't argue with that Jim, but if you whack a glider with a spam can then the chances are that all occupants will be deaded. I spent many years in the RAF and even with Mr Martin and Mr Bakers finest seats a remarkable number of young men failed to reach their dotage through mid airs. Just as I arrived at Coningsby in '74 on F4s the Sation Commander Gp Cpt Bluck clobbered a Pawnee at low level and finished up as pink mist. His Nav was to be married the week after.

Simon T

20th Aug 2015, 20:58

Mary, I didn't say I use a radio and a transponder to the exclusion of all else. Simply that I carry and use them and that I think it's reasonable to expect others to do the same for the sake of everyone

to those who say it's arrogant, sorry if you feel that way but why is it nessasarry for some types of flyers pass exams, to carry and use radios and not others,who easily could?

Is it the use of technology you guys are objecting to or the thought that someone else might know where you are?

Simon

Prop swinger

21st Aug 2015, 09:06

Firstly, you don't need to pass an RT exam to fly, it is perfectly legal & possible to get a PPL(A) without using a radio.

Secondly, you are arrogant because your attitude is "I'm-so-perfect-I'm-so-wonderfull-everyone should-be-just-like-meeee-because-I'm-so-great".

The notion of a radio as a collision avoidance system is laughable, transponders are only marginally more useful, particularly for the majority of pilots who can't get a traffic service in Class G. I can point to plenty of instances of transponder equipped aircraft colliding.

Glider pilots aren't opposed to technology per se, just overpriced, useless technology. Transponders are yesterday's tech, favoured by the type of pilot for whom the primary purpose of flying is to play pretend-to-be-an-airline-pilot. Glider pilots prefer aircraft to aircraft awareness and collision avoidance systems. This is the future of collision avoidance but, of course, bypasses the radar controller and thus deprives you of the chance to play the vector Victor, clearence Clarence, roger Roger game you so enjoy.

PaulisHome

21st Aug 2015, 09:37

Is it the use of technology you guys are objecting to or the thought that someone else might know where you are?

Neither. Probably 70% of cross country gliders carry Flarm, and almost all of those are trackable on OGN (which has a feed to FR24, which is why you can see them there). So neither technology or being seen are an issue.

The issue is effectiveness, and a lack of evidence that radio and transponder are particularly useful in preventing mid airs. Sure, they have their uses - I carry and use both in my glider, and this thread is built on a BGA letter encouraging glider pilots to call certain ATC units on the radio, and I support that.

But.

A radio gives slightly improved traffic awareness, assuming everyone is on the same frequency. They aren't in class G, and anyway the information is generally too imprecise.

Whilst my having a transponder helps ATC keep the heavy and fast stuff away from me, it does very little to help me avoid the average GA pilot, unless at least one of us is in receipt of at least a traffic service. As discussed earlier, a basic service doesn't do it. And traffic service isn't available when it gets busy.

For gliders, the risk is glider-glider collision. This is at least an order of magnitude more likely than hitting anything else. For that, the technology of choice is Flarm (after looking out the window). A major benefit of Flarm is that it actually gives information about traffic to the pilot that's carrying it. Now, there are other technologies that do that (eg TCAS, ADSB), but for cost and regulatory reasons they aren't extensively carried in the GA community. (The equivalent risk to powered GA is other powered GA by the way).

And lastly cost. If you're flying an aircraft that costs, say, £10K, then spending £2K on a transponder that has very limited value to you doesn't seem sensible. Especially if you have to spend more to upgrade the electrical system to support it. And there are lots of gliders, microlights and others in that category. So the cost / benefit is limited - a glider pilot in particular would be much better spending the money on a Flarm (1/3 the price and no regulatory issues), and even then it's hard to make a cost / benefit justification in the UK.

It seems to me that if you want to achieve adoption of a technology, it has to give a benefit to the person paying for it. One day, perhaps the fabled low cost ADSB will be here (and if the developers have any sense it will be Flarm capable as well), and we can get good traffic information on the panel of GA a/c - powered, gliders and all (BTW, that also implies displays that can show that information, in a way that doesn't encourage more head down time - there's always an unintended consequence!). But it seems to be taking a long time.

(BTW, I have roughly the same number of gliding and powered hours, many of the latter IFR, so I'm not coming at this from one side of the argument).

Paul

Pittsextra

21st Aug 2015, 10:22

I think the BGA letter and Paul's reflection of things is spot on.

Re this and similar comments:-

Some (in fact a lot) of glider pilots aren't confident in using the radio; if we can overcome this then surely it's a win win for everyone.

When I fly around I'm sure we might all agree that frankly most GA pilots RT is utter gash. Many struggle with their call sign, let alone the ability to report where they are, at what altitude and the pressure setting they are using.

That suggests to me that they are already at peak capacity so is giving these GA pilots anymore info of further use? Plus we assume we are on frequency and having a basic service telling you "Traffic 2 o'clock, right to left, no height information..." That just reminds you to look out of the window doesn't it? Again assuming we are on frequency..

When we have people getting lost within 10 miles of their home airfield (see another thread) personally I think gliders are the least of our worries!!

Broadlands

21st Aug 2015, 21:30

Well put response by Paulishome.
Give it a few more years and I wonder if we will see Flarm starting to be installed in more GA aircraft.

airwave45

21st Aug 2015, 23:13

Jings, the old "if only I could find a gap in the market" dream.

Most people under retirement age, carry a phone on them that transmits and receives on every band available in every country on the planet (the phone also has the ability to tell where it is and restricts itself to bands legally allowed based on where it is)

A transponder in my glider (and I have a nice unit manufactured by a nice wee Scottish company) is less use to me per gramme than the sandwiches I carry.
The _only_ thing having a transponder active does is reduce the queries from ATC as to my current alt.
It gives me no traffic information at all.

Flarm, does give me traffic info and as it is built into my primary nav computer, weighs nothing and takes up no space, so is very useful.

ADSB, which I could enable given the hardware I'm carrying, could be even better as I would have Flarm and ADSB for a TCAS system, but, the powers that be state I have to install another, certified GPS system (and given that I carry 5 separate GPS systems now . . . ) I'm just not playing that game.
(LX gps x 2, Oudie gps x 1, InReach gps x 1, Samsung gps x 1)

The current certification / legislation / approval of TCAS is a disaster, it's run by coffin dodgers who still believe a map and a stopwatch is the way to demonstrate that you can navigate your way around the sky.
Those with one foot slightly further from the grave believe that carrying a transponder helps you avoid collisions based on, based on, I have no idea what this is based on as my transponder tells me what code I'm transmitting. and nothing else.(maybe there are transponders out there that tell you what else is flying around you ? but I don't have one)

Drop the hurdles and allow manufacturers to come up with one compact box that does Flarm / TCAS / Transponder function.

Back to the letter from the BGA, I still think encouraging glider pilots to talk to traffic units is a good idea, I applaud them for doing so.

There is a bigger problem we have to deal with.
Those who want to play at being "Nigel" will never look out the window, we need a cheap, reliable (but dear god,not certified) method of avoiding spam can drivers when we are out actually flying.
The "Nigels" need a way of seeing us While they are Rodgering Rodger and Wilcoing Charlie, but don't make it too complicated for them . .

Drop the certification requirement and the units in question will be light, cheap and reliable (I know this as your phone is not certified and it is light, cheap and reliable)

vee-tail-1

22nd Aug 2015, 12:15

Interesting thread. Seems to me there is a desperate need for a technical fix to deal with the basic incompatibility of gliders and powered aircraft.

For some here flying is a hobby, and for others a way of life. Most of the glider pilots I have met are passionate about their sport. They accept the challenges and dangers as part of a highly demanding inherently risky but hugely satisfying activity. Glider pilots wear parachutes and are constantly ready to use them for very good reasons. Gliders are constantly turning, climbing, descending, and can be encountered almost anywhere on a good gliding day. Glider pilots inhabit a different reality to those of other aviators and that reality may not include use of a radio for situation awareness.

Flying for me and others of a like mind is not a hobby. It is a discipline and I am just as passionate about it as the glider folk. My flying is about getting safely from A to B to C as safely as humanly possible, without putting my passenger or myself at risk. So each flight is planned to take account of weather, NOTAMs, terrain, danger areas, aircraft serviceability, etc. All known and knowable variables which can and should be considered to ensure a safe flight. But gliders are an unknowable variable which present a very real flight safety hazard. There is no way that I can plan ahead to deal with gliders, since they can appear at any height any place any altitude and going any which away.

The only way I can safely avoid the risk of a midair with a glider is not to fly when the gliders are flying.

So I try to avoid flying at weekends or during particularly good gliding weather, this also tends to keep me out of the way of lesser hazards like balloons and microlights.

Use of the radio with ATC and transponders helps, as no doubt does FLARM, but for now our safety still depends on looking out, and even that is not infallible. Here in West Wales the eventual fix for all this is under development. When UAVs or drones can fly anywhere in any weather without bumping into other aircraft then the situation will be transformed. Until then I at least will prefer to fly during the week and will go sailing at weekends.

DaveUnwin

22nd Aug 2015, 15:22

" The only way I can safely avoid the risk of a midair with a glider is not to fly when the gliders are flying."

That's one way to avoid the gliders, but don't forget to include all the microlights, paragliders, paramotors and vintage aircraft that don't carry transponders (and which are of limited value anyway).

You also say "...without putting my passenger or myself at risk."

You're thousands of feet up in the air my friend - you have already put yourself and your passenger 'at risk'.

If you're really that concerned about it mate (a Grob 115 hit a glider awhile back - but glider/powered AC midairs really are quite rare) may I politely suggest you stick to sailing. Although even there you may wish to consider the words of John Donne.
"A ship in a harbour is safe. But that is not what ships are for."

vee-tail-1

22nd Aug 2015, 16:32

Well Dave Unwin thank you for your advice. Perhaps I have been getting it all wrong for the last 40 years. :hmm:

Curiously my methodology seems to have served me well in the military and the airlines ... but who am I to judge :cool:

DaveUnwin

22nd Aug 2015, 16:40

Beats me. How does your airline dispatcher and crew scheduler react when you say "looks like a good gliding day today - so no flying for me!"

Allow me to break it down for you.

You said

" The only way I can safely avoid the risk of a midair with a glider is not to fly when the gliders are flying "

and you also said

"Curiously my methodology (I asume you meant not flying when gliders are flying) seems to have served me well in the military and the airlines."

So, for the removal of all doubt, kindly explain how your methodology of "not flying when the gliders are flying" allegedly "served you well in the military and the airlines."

Seems like a simple enough question to me.

vee-tail-1

22nd Aug 2015, 18:20

OMG you are really serious. :eek:

This is the Private flying forum and we are talking gliders & GA type aircraft flying low level in uncontrolled airspace.

There are no gliders in class A where I flew before retirement.

When flying a GA aeroplane in uncontrolled airspace.
"The only sure way I can safely avoid the risk of a midair with a glider is not to fly when the gliders are flying."
That does not imply that I won't fly, but the flight safety risk cannot be quantified and planned for as in CAS.

My main point which seems to have escaped you is the possibility of a technical fix for this.

DaveUnwin

22nd Aug 2015, 19:28

Sorry, please excuse my confusion but you keep contradicting yourself.
Initially you said "Flying for me and others of a like mind is not a hobby."
This implied that you were flying commercially, but you've now added "When flying a GA aeroplane in uncontrolled airspace." This sort of implies you are flying for fun. If you're flying commercially in a GA aircraft, then why not file IFR?

Re improving seperation;- I am fully aware of the possibility of a technical fix for this particular problem. I believe I wrote about it in a magazine about ten years ago.

Oh, - you also said "Until then I at least will prefer to fly during the week."

Now, here's something that I would've thought an ex-military and ex-(or possibly current - who knows?) commercial pilot of 40 years standing might have been aware of, via the NOTAM system;- they hold some REALLY big comps during the week and 60+ sailplanes may launch from the same site and then set off on tasks hundreds of kilometres long..
Hope this helps.

mary meagher

22nd Aug 2015, 20:06

Vee-tail and Dave Unwin, I am sure if you guys sat down in the bar and exchanged stories about the good old days and bought each other a pint, you would get along just fine.

According to your personal profile, Vee-tail, you are ex RAF bomber crew (was that a pilot or other crew?) and you have 11,500 hours in big aircraft, ex BA flight crew....and you are now a professional pilot, retired, living in Wales, and flying light aircraft from time to time. Is this a correct resume?

I am sorry that you have been irritated by the exchange, and seem to be resentful of glider traffic, which is restricted of course to uncontrolled airspace and so squeezed into smaller and smaller corridors. So if you are no longer flying in controlled airspace, it must be a worry to you that you may encounter one or more gliders.

Dav Unwin, I think Vee-tail has found the uncontrolled airspace more dangerous than the flying he used to do commercially; it would be nice to have a technical fix that was effective, but in the meantime, boys, there is no substitute for being alert and keeping a good lookout.

And flying above the level of convection is also more comfortable if you are really worried about gliders!

Vee-tail, let me present you with a challenge. Get in touch with the Black Mountains Gliding Club at Talgarth in Wales, and book an hour in a two seat glider with their local instructor and have a go at some real hill soaring.
It may just open you to a very new and wonderful experience.

Do let us know how you get on, if you are up for it!

Mary

DaveUnwin

22nd Aug 2015, 20:15

Hi Mary, I remember flying your Cub at Talgarth about 24 years ago!

vee-tail-1

23rd Aug 2015, 08:58

Thank you Mary

mary meagher

23rd Aug 2015, 09:27

So will you accept my challenge to fly at Talgarth???????

We would love to hear about it if you do.

vee-tail-1

23rd Aug 2015, 10:57

Mary let me clear up a few misconceptions.

Firstly I have flown in gliders recently as pax in a two seat state of the art Blanik from Nympsfield.

Secondly I like gliders in the same way that I like bikes and windsurfers. Gliders are exquisite examples of function creating form, and their sculptural beauty never fails to delight. The gliders, the gliding community, the whole gliding scene is like a big friendly tribe of enthusiastic people. Indeed I use (and subscribe to) the Wendy weather beacons ... they give me the actual weather for the areas I need to transit in my powered aircraft.

As I glider pilot I might wish to be free of the threat posed by GA aircraft bumbling through my area of uncontrolled airspace.

Equally as a GA pilot I might wish to be free of the threat posed by gliders operating in the area of uncontrolled airspace I need to transit through.

Who is at most risk is debatable, but glider pilots wear parachutes and GA pilots do not, so the threat to life is somewhat biased.

Living in West Wales means an into Sun morning departure, and an into Sun evening return. So I am constantly looking out in the vicinity of Talgarth ... it's a bit like wartime, with the threat coming 'from out of the Sun'. I have sometimes flown very high, just under the airway and encountered gliders. So now prefer to go low following the valleys.

Anyway my main point, which is still up for debate, is that: Within uncontrolled airspace there is a basic flight safety incompatibility between what gliders need and what GA needs. This situation requires all pilots to keep an exceptionally good lookout, but will not be resolved until a technical fix is developed.

DaveUnwin

23rd Aug 2015, 11:13

" Firstly I have flown in gliders recently as pax in a two seat state of the art Blanik from Nympsfield."

The Blanik was indeed state-of-the-art when it entered production - but that was in 1958.

Just helping to clear up a misconception - or are you using the word 'recently' in the loosest possible way?

But seriously, there are less gliders, and less powered aircraft, and A LOT less military aircraft buzzing about in uncontrolled airspace than there was 20 or even 10 years ago, yet (although there was the occasional mid-air) such events were quite infrequent.
Anything, be it FLARM, ADS-B or an as-yet unknown system can only help, but to suggest the current situation is even remotely "a bit like wartime" is, IMHO, just a tiny bit OTT.

mary meagher

23rd Aug 2015, 14:05

O dear. The Blanik twoseater glider suffered a wing spar failure in 2010, and was grounded both in Europe and in the USA.

Any club relying on Blaniks for training was not happy. Not worth the trouble of getting them recertified, I imagine.

DaveUnwin

23rd Aug 2015, 14:06

No possibility of you actually answering my query about your recent flight in that state-of-the-art Blanik then?

PaulisHome

23rd Aug 2015, 16:20

Vee-tail

It seems to me that your problem is not really about gliders, it's about having many other people flying on the same day as you. Imagine replacing each one of the gliders on a good gliding day with a PA28. Would it be any easier or safer for you? Don't think so. Would a basic service ensure you didn't hit any of them? Absolutely not. Could ATC provide you with a traffic service? Doubt it. So your statement "Equally as a GA pilot I might wish to be free of the threat posed by gliders operating in the area of uncontrolled airspace I need to transit through" becomes "I might wish to be free of the threat posed by other aircraft operating in the area of uncontrolled airspace I need to transit through".

The things you do to ensure a safe flight - "each flight is planned to take account of weather, NOTAMs, terrain, danger areas, aircraft serviceability, etc" - Of course, and I do all that when I fly my glider. What's different?

And glider pilots wear parachutes because they routinely and deliberately fly in the close vicinity of other gliders, which as I pointed out earlier, is where the risk to them is. The only powered GA / glider collision I can think of off hand in the last few years is one in which the cause was found to be inadequate lookout prior to aerobatics by the powered pilot - it's not where the collision risk is.

So if your personal risk mitigation strategy is not to fly when it's busy, then fine, that's your call. But recognise that it's because it's busy, rather than that the other aircraft are gliders. And if you really want to avoid the gliders, you can always fly in the places where they are less likely to be.

Paul

vee-tail-1

23rd Aug 2015, 17:35

It seems to me that your problem is not really about gliders, it's about having many other people flying on the same day as you. Imagine replacing each one of the gliders on a good gliding day with a PA28. Would it be any easier or safer for you?

Thanks Paul
OMG! ... a swarm of PA28s in close proximity turning and climbing / descending in random fashion and liable to be encountered anywhere in the area would effectively close the airspace! No it would be hugely dangerous for everyone.

We have rules of the air which transiting GA aircraft observe and some of which would be difficult for a glider to conform to.
Other GA aircraft are a known risk, we will all be using the semi circular rule / quadrantals which gives some protection from reciprocal traffic.
We will be getting traffic advisories from ATC and will be squawking for radar.
Some of us may well be adding to our situation awareness by using the Unicom frequency as it was intended ... broadcasting regular position reports to inform other pilots. Indeed when close to a gliding site I have tried calling on the glider frequencies to get an update on how many are flying and their position. Sadly I seldom get a response.

Yes it would be good sense to use a different route if one was available, but in our overcrowded island that is not so easy to do. If my aeroplane was certified & equipped for IMC and my rating also, then it might be possible to fly IFR in controlled airspace. But that defeats the whole object of retired flying for me ... I just want to safely go places in good weather and enjoy the view, and I really don't want to bump into anyone on the way.

PaulisHome

23rd Aug 2015, 18:30

Hi Vee-tail

To take your points in turn:

If we continue our thought experiment, and replace the gliders with PA28s. Let's say we're operating at typical glider levels - between 1500 ft and 5000 ft.

1. The semi-circular rule. Which is safer - to put all that traffic at a few levels (8 in my example - every 500 ft, even assuming they apply below 3000 ft), or to have them at all levels? I think I'd argue the latter - you're much safer with people climbing and descending. If the cross section of a couple of aircraft is say 20 feet (ie they have to be within 20 ft of height to hit each other), then you have 175 levels available if climbing and descending like gliders, only 8 if flying semi-circular. Much lower risk of collision with the glider like behaviour. (And I'm as guilty as anyone - I have a habit of flying around in power at 'exactly' 2000 ft or whatever - it's the instrument training Much safer to pick a random altitude, eg 3420 ft and stick to that. Or pretend to be a glider and go up and down).

2. Advisories from ATC and squawking for radar: More or less useless - see earlier arguments. It's OK if there are only a few aircraft, but this is a busy day, remember. Too busy for a traffic service.

3. Radio: As (2). Only tells you to keep a good look out. You know that anyway.

I wasn't aware that Unicom was for broadcasting position reports in the Open IFR. I thought it was for airfields without a dedicated frequency. That might just be my misunderstanding though. But I'm not surprised that you don't get a response on the gliding frequencies - I'm not sure what you're expecting. They are mostly very general frequencies - it's a bit like broadcasting on London Info and expecting people to tell you about what's local to you. Even less useful than a basic service from an ATC unit.

Places to avoid gliders: Above the convection layer; (Mostly) below 1500 feet. (Mostly) not under cumulus. That's where I'd go if I was worried.

Paul

Sir Niall Dementia

23rd Aug 2015, 19:14

Bad Bear;

I'm slightly concerned at your post re Oxford. I'm an Oxford based pilot, I fly corporate helicopters, corporate jets and hold a Gold C and am a lapsed instructor (gliding). Ground at Oxford is not currently used and hasn't been used for at least ten years, tower and radar SHALL NOT be combined in UK airspace, it is ILLEGAL. What I suspect you got was a combined tower and approach (procedural) which often happens at weekends.

Also at least two of the Oxford controllers are/were very experienced glider pilots, so can we all start facing the fact that ATC often fly as well and can be found among us at the launch point/club bar.

For those of us who fly public transport in Class G TCAS has become an essential tool in traffic avoidance, not just a great pose, and FLARM is utterly useless in telling me where you are (and trust me the view out of the helicopters I fly is no where near as good as the view out of any glider)

I regularly hear a glider near Cambridge talking to Cambridge Approach at weekends and his position reporting is mighty handy (if you read this thread I was the one telling you to trust your abilities one Sunday this summer when it was all going wrong and you were looking for a field)

Closest I've ever come to a glider outside of a thermal was the Janus which went under my aircraft from seven o'clock to one o'clock less than thirty feet below in August 2014 five miles south of Fairford. No doubt he didn't see me, if he did he was a touch silly and if he had hit me from that angle the seven helicopter occupants would have died and I'm sure a lot of people would have been on here saying "power gives way to glider, ergo it must be the helicopter pilots fault.

There is plenty of airspace in the UK, it has to be used reasonably and fairly and with KNOWLEDGE. If I'm flying an approach and you're in the feather I'm IFR with all that implies even if I can see forevermore outside. And the feather denotes an instrument approach, not just an ILS. Please if you want to be taken seriously by ATC/CAA commercial operators look at the rules they live by, just fo info as a case in point there is not now, never has been an information call with "no service required" you have called an ATC unit, they have to respond and will pass information on you to others. The only place you may receive an acknowledgement to that is from an Air Ground only unit.

SND

dewidaniels

24th Aug 2015, 13:17

vee-tail-1,

The gliders operating in the immediate vicinity of Talgarth listen out on 130.1 MHz, which is one of the four frequencies allocated to gliding. You're very welcome to communicate your position and intention on 130.1 MHz when passing Talgarth airfield. The air ambulance helicopter does so routinely, and his courtesy is appreciated. You will most likely not get a response from Talgarth airfield, as the airfield does not employ a FISO and is not licensed to provide a flight information service. I would hope that any glider pilots who are close to your intended track would pass on their own positions.

If you're concerned about flying in areas where gliders are likely to be operating, I recommend that you purchase a PowerFLARM unit. This will give you situational awareness of any gliders and other aircraft operating FLARM.

I agree with you that a low cost (and therefore likely to be uncertified), low power device to provide electronic conspicuity and collision avoidance for all Class G airspace users, from commercial airliners to microlights, gliders, paragliders and unmanned air vehicles, would be of great benefit to the flying community. At the moment, we have a plethora of technical solutions (transponders, ADS-B, TCAS, FLARM and now TABS), each of which only meets the needs of a subset of Class G airspace users.

vee-tail-1

24th Aug 2015, 17:57

Many thanks Dewidaniels, it's good to know my position reports on 130.1 are useful to the gliders when transiting near Talgarth.

Yes there does seem to be a plethora of devices out there, and even if there was room to fit them all there would not be 100 % coverage.

There's a lot of development going on at Aberporth to enable drones to avoid other aircraft ... perhaps that is where the technical fix will come from. If and when that happens there's going to be a lot of suddenly redundant avionics!

Windrusher

24th Aug 2015, 18:27

1. The semi-circular rule. Which is safer - to put all that traffic at a few levels (8 in my example - every 500 ft, even assuming they apply below 3000 ft), or to have them at all levels? I think I'd argue the latter - you're much safer with people climbing and descending. If the cross section of a couple of aircraft is say 20 feet (ie they have to be within 20 ft of height to hit each other), then you have 175 levels available if climbing and descending like gliders, only 8 if flying semi-circular. Much lower risk of collision with the glider like behaviour. (And I'm as guilty as anyone - I have a habit of flying around in power at 'exactly' 2000 ft or whatever - it's the instrument training Much safer to pick a random altitude, eg 3420 ft and stick to that. Or pretend to be a glider and go up and down).

In "On the Use of Height Rules in Off-route Airspace" (Journal of Navigation, vol 36, issue 2, pp. 269-287, 1983), R L Ford of the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment analysed the effectiveness of semicircular and quadrantal height rules and concluded that "The application of the standard rules can lead to a reduction [my emphasis] in intrinsic safety unless significant height-keeping errors are present" - essentially for the reason that PaulisHome explains.

The Journal of Navigation - On the Use of Height Rules in Off-route Airspace - Cambridge Journals Online (http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S037346330002498X) (Apologies if you need a subscription for access.)

This was previously discussed on Pprune here
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/419607-semicircular-level-scheme-ocas-safety-case.html#post5780485

Windrusher

FullWings

24th Aug 2015, 20:58

I think this thread has meandered a bit but there are some really interesting points-of-view coming out, which are starting to point towards a common theme:

Class G.

There seems to a fairly widespread view that armed with your +3 Radio of Protection and possibly a Transponder of Truth, you can go heads-down through large tracts of uncontrolled airspace and if you meet anything else it’s their problem.

The primary method of separation is see-and-be-seen VFR, semi-circular IFR. Anything else is nice but don’t count on it.

I’m amazed that people wouldn’t go flying because there might be gliders out there on a good day flying at odd heights and directions. Please do come fly with us but KEEP A GOOD LOOKOUT, like glider pilots do and be prepared to alter course so as not to give other pilots concern. You’d do that in the circuit at an airfield, why not en-route...?

mary meagher

25th Aug 2015, 09:02

For your amusement I repeat the conversation I had talking to Upper Heyford long ago....

"Upper Heyford, this is glider 987"
"Glider 987, squawk 8654 (or whatever)"
"Unable. Negative transponder."
"Glider 987, what is your present height and position?"
"Approximately 3,000 feet over Aylesbury"
"and Glider 987, what is your present heading?"
what else could I say? "I'm going around in circles!"

long pause while those listening in are enjoying the moment

"Glider 987, what are your intentions?"
"I plan to cross over your airspace enroute to near Banbury"
"Glider 987, maintain 4,000 feet when over Upper Heyford..."
"I'll try!"

TheOddOne

25th Aug 2015, 09:49

Ah, the old UHMRA.

Once, in a Jodel.

'Upper Heyford G-ABCD'
Errr G-CD squawk 7040'
'Negative transponder G-CD'
'Errrr G-CD you're not painting'
'That's 'cos we're made of wood...

Fast forward 30 years to last week, in an OGAR touring Motor Glider, class 'G' airspace. Same thing, no transponder, no primary return, but this time controller very helpful with a basic service, just asked us politely if we could avoid his instrument approach 'feather' while he had an airliner inbound. No problem at all for us, he was very happy with our occasional position reports as we went sniffing for lift. (Gained 800' in 3 mins with the engine off, very pleased with that as a beginner to soaring).
Personally, I'd MUCH rather comply with:
a) if transponder equipped, obtain basic service so that the controller can separate deconfliction traffic from me
b) if not so equipped, maintain a reasonable distance from the instrument approach path so that he doesn't have to send airliners miles out of their way. The very LAST thing we want is the nonsense that has occurred elsewhere with similar traffic density of Class 'D' or some ghastly mess of a radio mandatory or transponder mandatory zone which won't improve safety but just make lives more difficult. Our local ATC unit don't want that any more than we do.

TOO