Class E airspace & gliders.

[RAT 5]

This is just a question to those who have more knowledge of the subject; both as CPL's & glider pilots, and also with more in-depth knowledge of how airspace categories are created.
EASA is tasked with air safety. In this scenario I wonder if the rules need reviewing with regard to air safety and if EASA are even active on this front.

I've just read a report of a near miss between a powered glider in class E airspace and a commercial jet. Wx was severe clear. Jet was IFR on radar ATC to an ILS; glider was VFR and not in radio comms with relevant ATC. Evidently the rules state that a powered a/c has to have a mode S transponder ON when above 5000' amsl or 3500' agl. In this instance, because the engine was OFF it was effectively a glider, so no requirement for a transponder. Hence ATC could not identify it, nor could the jet's TCAS. Neither was there any requirement for the glider to have radio comms with local ATC. Radar could see many primary targets, but on a closing HDG to ILS the crew could be overloaded.
So here we are in 21st century EU, with one a/c having all the bells & whistles of TCAS & transponders, and the glider having everything switched off and relying on Mk.1 eyeball. Indeed, it seems the only Mk.1 eyeball of the glider pilot saved the day. The jet guys saw it too late.
How on earth, or in the air, can it be SAFE to have a bit of kit on board an a/c that is mixing it with IFR traffic and have it switched off? Neither the jet not ATC knew the glider was there. Is it going to take a mid-air for the rule makers to see sense? What is ECA doing about it to lobby EASA? Are the technical arms of the pilots' unions not tasked with promoting the safe operations of its members and the industry as a whole? What are the more learned opinions? It seems bit like driving down the motorway in fog with your lights OFF because it's daylight.
Surely any a/c entering airspace where there is commercial traffic under IFR performing IFR approaches should announce itself to ATC, even if VFR, and have mode S ON. The kit is on board. Why would there be resistance to such rules in the name of safety? And what's just an engine got to do with safe flight operations? (and pls do not mention LaMia)

[Ian W]

This is not a new problem. I remember in the mid-70's having to separate inbound IFR flights from glider competitions. There is also this case in the US: http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20060906X01297&ntsbno=LAX06FA277A&akey=1 Hawker 800 collision with a glider. Sounds much the same Hawker IFR in descent and glider VFR.

There are simple battery powered beacons that could be used that would at least alert the powered aircraft TCAS.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Let me guess: this surely was in UK airspace? Someday someone is going to realise they really made a puddle of it. Perhaps even something will be done. Someday, but probably not someday soon. No fatalities as yet.

[oggers]

Well, if a safety case can be made then we can replace class E with class D or even C and job done. But not only would that upset a lot of users who would have to upgrade their kit to continue to use airspace that they have always operated in, it would also require more resources for ATC to deal with the extra workload. It also would not stop the occasional glider or puddle jumper from blundering into controlled airspace anyway.

I expect the class of each area of airspace is under ongoing review that attempts to balance public safety with access. Seems to me the best thing is to just get on with mandating ADS-B as a requisite for all aircraft that wish to use class E. But it still won't stop infringers.

This incident should also serve as a reminder to all pilots that they have a responsibility to look out at all times when VMC regardless of whether they are IFR or VFR, being vectored, or getting a separation service.

[RatherBeFlying]

Many air carrier aircraft now emit ADS-B which makes their position visible to PowerFLARM. Before PF I had three interesting encounters.

With PF I catch them 10+ miles away.

Transponders are battery hungry; very few gliders have the capacity to always have one on.

Class E is a hodgepodge airspace. Yes there are approaches used maybe half a dozen times a day. Do we really want to make them all Class B and C and shut down the many airspace users for a very few movements a day?

Oh yes, the local IFR frequency is never published on VFR charts; so how can anybody expect VFR users to know about IFR traffic.?

[maxred]

Was he in an airway?

IFR traffic in Class E airspace is controlled by ATC, and the weather and speed restrictions make sure that IFR and VFR can see and avoid each other.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Class E is a hodgepodge airspace. It looks like that, yes. Still: there's none here in BE but there's plenty of it in Germany, where I often fly, yet I never hear of any issues there? Perhaps they're better at hushing up... ;)

the local IFR frequency is never publishedWhat is an IFR frequency? I think a lot of the UK difficulties are due to the lack of a one to one correspondence between any 3-D position and a service/frequency. All over the continent, if one is at coordinates lat x / lon y / elevation z, there is one and only one service to talk to, and one frequency for all that are within their area. No question of "IFR frequencies", thus. I think the UK needlessly complicates matters, thereby increasing danger, by refusing this simple arrangement, leaving pilots the choice of a service to tune into.

[blind pew]

What's wrong with looking out?
In my first airline we wrongly believed that looking out wasn't necessary...until Zagreb. We certainly didn't know that both Germany and Switzerland mixed VFR and IFR traffic.
I had an airmiss in the Ekron hold with a German reg. Cessna..fat pilot with a cigar in his mouth...Zurich Atc didn't bother using primary radar.
We also had a few other very close airmisses..one between two circling DC9s and two involving heavy jets and military who were all on radar but different controllers.
North of Montpellier an airbus hit a glider...atc were at fault (and the airbus crew) and the glider was hit from behind.
It's a bit like the idiots one sees everyday playing about with electronic gadgets in their cars.
See and be seen.
It's everyone's airspace and why should we give up even more personal freedoms when all it needs is a bit more common sense and some professionalism

[Jim59]

Many air carrier aircraft now emit ADS-B which makes their position visible to PowerFLARM. Before PF I had three interesting encounters. Sorry to disagree, but there are two types of PowerFLARM... Not all work with ADS-B

PowerFLARM Core comes in two variants, PURE and ADS-B. The ADS-B variant has all the functionality of PURE, but with an additional SSR (Transponder) and ADS-B receiver for 1090ES. In addition to FLARM equipped aircraft, you will also be able to see transponder equipped aircraft. Aircraft without 1090ES ADS-B Out capability will be shown with approximate range and altitude difference (Mode-C). Aircraft with ADS-B Out will be shown identical to FLARM aircraft.

[Jim59]

Just to clarify, most Class E airspace in the UK is also a TMZ as detailed in the IAIP (extracts below).

Although Class E is controlled airspace, in which an air traffic control service is provided to IFR aircraft only, VFR aircraft may also operate within it and do not require a 'clearance' or need to be in contact with ATC, they will, however, require a functioning Mode S SSR transponder. VFR aircraft operating without a transponder can access the airspace, but must first establish two-way radio contact with air traffic control before entering. VFR flights that request an air traffic service will be assisted with either a Basic or a Traffic Service, subject to the operational capacity of the air traffic unit. Additional procedures are to be introduced to accommodate gliding activity through airway N560 between the Scottish TMA northern boundary and Inverness.

Notifications
2.5.1.1 The following airspace is notified as Class E Airspace:
(a) Parts of the Scottish Terminal Control Area below 6000 ft (See ENR 6-2-1-5);
(b) part of Airway N560 (between Glasgow VOR GOW and KOKAL) (See Note);
(c) part of Airway N562 (between Turnberry VOR TRN and Machrihanish DME MAC) (See Note);
(d) part of Airway N580 (between Glasgow VOR GOW and Tiree VOR TIR) (See Note);
(e) part of Airway P600 (between Aberdeen VOR ADN and BUDON) (See Note);
(f) Airway Y904 (between Aberdeen VOR ADN and Wick VOR WIK) (See Note);
(g) Airway Y905 (between Aberdeen VOR ADN and Sumburgh VOR SUM) (See Note);
(h) Airway Y906 (between RIMOL and Stornoway VOR STN) (See Note); →
(i) Airway Y911 (between BOYNE (FIR Boundary) and Isle of Man VOR IOM) (See Note);
(j) Airway Y958 (between BRUCE and TOBMO) (See Note).

Note: Additionally notified as Transponder Mandatory Zone airspace for the purposes of Article 39(2) and Schedule 5 paragraph
3(6)(b) of the Air Navigation Order 2009.

[Maoraigh1]

"Class F Advisory Routes" were crazy - traffic IFR in IMC or VMC, but VFR traffic permitted as if in Class G. EASA rightly objected.
They became "E+", open to Mode S with Charlie, without talking to ATC, but to non-transponding aircraft in radio contact with the relevant ATC, only if given permission.

[eagleflyer]

The mentioned incident most certainly happened in Germany. I know of a couple of fairly recent ones regarding inbounds to Zurich and numerous others at various other airfields across Germany, mostly small ones with no TMZ, D or C airspace. I filed a couple of reports myself. When looking at such an incident one has to consider that it might be seen with different eyes. I have made the experience that some encounters will be a nearmiss for one crew (mostly the airliner´s) and a non-event for the other (mostly the glider´s).

As an ATCO I see more and more gliders flying with their transponders turned on, especially in the vicinity of IFR-airfields without airspace protection. This is mostly a good thing, but sometimes it can drive you crazy because there are so many targets on a nice Sunday afternoon.

As a glider pilot however I know that still relatively few numbers of gliders are transponder equipped, especially the ones operated in clubs. Installing a transponder and a new 8,33kHz radio can easily cost a third of the current hull value, which is why clubs are reluctant to do it. Also there´s the mentioned power problem, you´ll need an extra battery or solar panels. The new 200.000$ motorgliders are mostly outfitted with some sort of transponder, often even with ADS-B in/out, which helps a lot both ways.
What almost every glider and many airplanes do have (in Europe) is FLARM. That´s a low power anti collision device with rather limited range.

I think the concept of having heavy jets in E is not without faults, in the perfect world the airlines would certainly prefer to have class A - D all around their flightpaths. However my opinion is that class E works sufficiently well as long as everybody plays by the rules and knows what he´s doing. It´ all about training and information. The local USAF units regularly invite pilots or talk to them during events. This has reduced the number of incidents around the two airbases in the western region of Germany.

As someone who has a good view to both sides of the medal I would like to keep it as it is, with well-sized protected (B / C / D) airspace around major airports, but only TMZ or less at airfield´s with sometimes less than 20 IFR-movements per day. What would help is depicting the airspace situation on the approach plates. As a solution with a good in-/output relation one could also think of putting FLARM sensors around airfields and make that data available to everyone via ADS-B.

As an advice for glider pilots:
-ALWAYS keep a good lookout!
-Know where you are, electronic devices are a great help, but don´t let the distract you.
-Call the tower before transiting across the extended centerline of an airfield. You can tell them you´re there and they will tell you about any expected traffic.
-Try to avoid thermalling anywhere close to the extended centerline, especially at glide slope level (roughly 1000ft/3NM).
-DO NOT BY ANY MEANS bust the VMC minima. Riding along at the cloud base will make you wonder where that noise is coming from with no chance to avoid the source of it.
-Swich on your XPDR if you´re equipped and the battery is ok.

For heavy metal crews:
-Always keep a good lookout down low.
-Make your company provide you with the airspace structure of departure and destination airport, know the rules.
-Don´t request descend unnecessarily early.
-Don´t do visual approaches that will place you where noone will expect you to be.

As an ATCO:
-Keep your traffic in protected airspace as long as possible, even if it means a detour, level off etc... If you didn´t and something bad happens you will not be happy again and be hung by your balls.
-Have a good idea about present soaring conditions.

[Maoraigh1]

The Jetstream "Drone" trials, with human pilots only for T.Off and land, will likely be flying in Class E+, at about 15,000 ft, near to Feshie Gliding site, as their route is between Lancashire (Warton?) and Inverness.

[Silvaire1]

Surely any a/c entering airspace where there is commercial traffic under IFR performing IFR approaches should announce itself to ATC, even if VFR, and have mode S ON.

In the US, virtually every airliner route under IFR flies through Class E airspace where VFR traffic is not required to be in ATC contact and is unlikely to have Mode S. The key is understanding that IFR in Class E does not provide a 'sterile' environment in visual conditions, and flying accordingly. Eagleflyer's post lays that out pretty well, for all concerned.

[mary meagher]

Amusing that Jan Olieslagers immediately assumes the traffic conflict was in the UK. Whereas Eagleflyer, who is a German glider pilot as well as an ATCO, has posted VERY VERY GOOD ADVICE for all you power pilots and airliners that enjoy flying in unprotected airspace....

Quite simply, he says "have a good idea about present soaring conditions!".

So on a day with no lift for gliders to soar - no cumulus clouds, no wave bars, it is very unlikely that gliders may get in your way.

On a very good day, during a gliding competition, the directors will publish NOT JUST ONE task, but several to choose from. Probably only one will be decided on and flown depending on when thermals get going and how long they last. There may be quite a flock of gliders following a cloud street line of energy. Which can be pretty intimidating. A right turn into an area with no cloud may be a good move to avoid them. Or a climb to smooth air at a higher altitude. Gliders actually prefer bumpy air...

[Jan Olieslagers]

Amusing that Jan Olieslagers immediately assumes the traffic conflict was in the UK.

Even more amusing that none has yet answered... sounds like a suppressed "guilty, your honour" :)

But I gladly agree: Eagleflyer has offered excellent advice. Thanks!

[RAT 5]

Thanks guys. Germany and Class E around a medium busy ILS airport. I wonder how many of these young bucks flying their shiny jets look outside that much. We all know they should, but.....They have 150hrs spam can stuff and then are hammered in the sim with IFR SOP's. LoCo cockpits now, commonly, have a total of 6 years in them. I wonder if they really understand the threats of Class E. If you are trailing a glider, you in a shallow descent with an attitude of zero degrees & 210kts and the glider in nearly level flight at 80kts, they will be invisible to you. They are the VFR traffic avoiding you by sight, but you are the shark coming from their 6. They have a transponder, may be, but it's not on. They have a radio, but are not talking to ATC. I'm sorry, but how daft it that? If an EU official is downed tomorrow the rules will change the next day.
The whole public, when the know the facts, will throw their hands up in a "how could this be allowed to happen" moment. I get a €50 in France for doing 5kms over the limit. Safety? Bollox. I hit a glider up the jacksie............ because he was invisible but could have been seen, electronically. What then?
TEM tells me it's time to change the rules. Either no Class E around IFR radar airports, or change Class E rules. It's an accident waiting to happen, AND it is easily preventable. Guys will scream about transponders, but why not the minimum of a radio just to warn guys where you are. We do it over Africa, we do it on N.Atlantic and other remote areas. We tell guys we are around. It is a self-preservation thing. Why not with gliders?
And I fly recreationally as well as jets, light a/c & paragliders. In the latter we are warned to keep the hell away from any powered a/c airfield. Good advice because we don't; have the manoeuvrability if a sail plane: but one thing for all gliders is lift. You hate to lose it and if you see the perfect source & trigger it is like a moth to a flame. I'm on the side of safe skies for everyone, but I sense from the replies there is not a universal strongly supported case for change. Surprising. It is still an open debate. OK, but let us have that debate and analyse the merits of both sides. Let us NOT just bumble along hoping it'll be alright.

One thing: I suspect these replies come from above average aviators who are diligent about their professional & pleasure flying. One thing I was told many years ago, and i agree with; a weakness inherent in those of above average ability and thought is that they think they are average. They mix with and debate at their own level. It's not easy to appreciate there are some puppets out there. That's not arrogance, just..... How old are the rules of todays airspace? When were they last reviewed? And are they in tune with todays environment?

[Silvaire1]

I'm on the side of safe skies for everyone, but I sense from the replies there is not a universal strongly supported case for change. Surprising. It is still an open debate. OK, but let us have that debate and analyse the merits of both sides. Let us NOT just bumble along hoping it'll be alright.

In the US that debate was resolved by the early 90s based on real world experience, and occurred between over a roughly 15 year period initiated by two airliner/GA mid-airs over major cities in Southern California (in 1978 and 1986). Mode C transponders are generally required above 10,000 ft, and near large airports up to 10,000 ft. Airliners must have TCAS and use it as they pass through mixed IFR and VFR non-communicating aircraft in the Class E that covers most of the US below 18,000 feet. The system has proven to work in airspace with very high GA utilization and did not require Mode S or separating airliners into their own radio communication mandatory airspace.

Negative transponder aircraft with no engine driven electrical system are exempt from the Mode C transponder requirement above 10,000 ft in the US. Some feel that particular exemption, for sailplanes only and not powered aircraft, should be debated. There is no push from anybody influential for airspace changes that would preclude airliners from mixing with VFR non-communicating (or non-radio) traffic in Class E.

I think the biggest issue in the EU is non-uniorm airspace between countries, making it near impossible for any international IFR pilot to remember the rules and expectations for traffic avoidance when operating at any given airport. A simple, uniform Pan-EU airspace structure would add more safety than any overdone system that separates airliners from everybody else, or demands radio communication.

[RAT 5]

In the US that debate was resolved by the early 90s based on real world experience,

One of my points exactly. In the EU the increase in commercial air traffic during the past 20 years, has been huge. The LoCo's operate into many 'regional' airports with a density of movements not envisaged when the airspace was created. 20 years ago was the start of easyjet & RYR. They now have 600a/c between them. The spored the growth of many other similar type operators. Regional airfields became airports and massively busy. Some still do not have radar nor ILS. In the EU, only at the LoCo and turbo-prop regional level, there must be >1500 extra a/c in there past 20 years operating into some still very basic airfields. I'm not suggesting all airfields become radar ILS equipped; that requires much capital investment. All I'm suggesting is that the aviation environment has changed rapidly & hugely since the last review of airspace regs. The number of a/c is planned to increase greatly in the next 10 years. The number of affected airfields will also increase hugely. They all want a slice of the pie and some golden eggs. The infrastructure investment is going into terminals and parking space, not into the ATC and NAV facilitates. Meanwhile the regs are still the same as 25 years ago when the skies were a much quieter place.
I suspect there is a lack of awareness & knowledge at the high end. A mid-air will waken everyone up. Sadly, an increase in airmiss reports may not be enough to prompt change.

[Piper.Classique]

I've got a Flarm in my glider. I can't run a transponder, all the battery space and power is claimed by the vario, radio, and Flarm. There isn't either room or electricity or indeed money for a transponder. I use my eyes, aided by the Flarm and a bubble canopy. Now, if you are worried about flying in class E instead of grabbing more airspace look at the possibility of getting Flarm certificated for your use, as what it will show you is gliders! We don't want a midair any more than you do. Or use the airports that are already in class D airspace. Not that that will help glider pilots beaten out of the sky by light aircraft, which is statistically far more likely.

[mary meagher]

RAT 5 admits to being an ATPL in 738 Boeings and other aircraft. He is very familiar with the heavy traffic flying through 23? (how many! ?) different countries with different rules over the continent of Europe: gliders are involved in this mix, and so far, glider pilots who are trained to LOOKOUT LOOKOUT LOOKOUT (from their first flight) seem to be able to dodge the spamcans.

Silvaire does not go into detail in his profile, but in his post on this thread says that the American system works fine; does not require Mode S for separation.

Well, I have flown extensively (1,800 hours in gliders, 1,300 in power & IR) in the US of A and Britain, and a few excursions over France, Spain but never so far Germany or Poland....

The US of A has no problem with gliders colliding with power of any kind because there ARE VERY FEW GLIDERS FLYING IN THE United States! and most of these pilots are even older than me! ...so self preservation is ingrained. Not only are there very few gliders actively flown in the US...their training glider - the Schweizer - is a tin pig, mainly valued because you can tie it down outside and it will survive. I don't know what sort of training glider they use these days, perhaps someone from California can tell me...whatever, I bet it is NOT made in the US.

Anyway, relative to the cost of Avgas in the UK, its cheap cheap in the US, so when I went over there to visit family, the economy and the huge distances involved and the many many airports that charge no landing fees, inspired me to fly power over there - and gliders in the UK and Europe.

[foxmoth]

As an airline pilot who is also a light aircraft pilot and has flown gliders in the past I would hope I am qualified to comment.
Whilst I will keep a decent lookout in VMC many will not, nowadays some of them have done virtually no flying outside CAS, add into this that you are flying an aircraft that is probably travelling at over 200kts and does not have the best visibility in the world it can be quite hard to see other traffic, then add in that manouvering to stay clear of cloud is not so easy as you have an aircraft full of passengers who get concerned if the aircraft is doing a lot of manouvering and it all gets a lot harder than some think.
It may be everyones responsibility, but if the glider (and light aircraft) pilots do not want additional airspace restrictions then they need to do all they can to ensure they do not come into conflict including the use of r/t and anti collision aids.
For anyone that cannot find an appropriate frequency to call on,in the UK give London/Scottish etc Info a call, I am sure they will dig it out for you.

[darkbarly]

I would worry about the risk to GA pilots increasing by allowing Commercial pilots to fly in their airspace. According to a recent study (LSE, the EC, EUROCONTROL AND Future Sky Safety), 58% of European Commercial pilots have flown whilst fatigued.

Think I would rather keep the well rested, slow moving aircraft separated from the bleary eyed fast moving types until the Commission and EASA sort out the FTL rules.

[Jan Olieslagers]

First of all my apologies for wrongly accusing the management of UK airspace http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/worry.gif .

I quite concur with @foxmoth: it is up to everybody to do all they can to ensure safety; and while we may trust the commercial operators to put in a big effort, not the same can be said for all recreational pilots/owners/operators.

I am afraid that, with all respect, I cannot agree with the pro-Flarm point of view:
* Flarm gives a false sense of security: seeing a lot of traffic easily tricks one into believing one sees all traffic. That will never be the case;
* Flarm is not certified and if it were, it would become as expensive as a "real" transponder;

I do however much like the phrase "I use my eyes, aided by the Flarm" :ok: And also I agree that the risk for mid-airs is much higher with small aircraft, powered or not.

What would help is the creation of a "mini"-transponder with much less electrical consumption, by reducing either the transmitter power or the frequency of transmissions. Even better, creating a "low power" mode in standard mode-S transponders, but that might be difficult technically.

Worst of all, there seem to be a type or school of pilots who, even if their plane carries a transponder, do not switch it on - and the same type never calls FIS, when flying OCAS. The one near-miss I lived was with such a guy - I checked his plane later, disguised as a spotter, it had a full Garmin suite. The first thing we should try is to get rid of that mindset among our community.

[The Ancient Geek]

The original discussion is about class E airspace where airlines (usually LoCos) who have moved into secondary airports are mixing with light aircraft with no transponders and often no radio. Confusion reigns and it is ony a matter of time before the airmiss reports become a nasty collision. Gliders are part of the problem and have been reported circling in thermals on the approach path quite legally.

[Mikehotel152]

I am not a glider pilot but I have flown passenger jets into many airports across Europe and, in particular, into Germany, including Frankfurt-Hahn, Memmingen and many others.

There is no doubt that, but for the size of the 737 and its use of bright landing lights which made it visible to the glider pilot, this incident was a hair's breadth from becoming a disaster similar on the scale of the Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) Flight 182 crash in 1978.

Reading through the opinions of glider pilots who are understandably keen to maintain their freedom of the skies and considering the corresponding lack of political will to effect a change in airspace legislation, I regret that it is inevitable that lives will be lost.

RAT5 is absolutely spot on in his/her analysis of the root of the problem - being the huge growth of commercial jet transport into airspace and airports which used to be the preserve of General Aviation.

It's no good people harping on about historic rights and freedoms or telling busy jet pilots to rely solely on their eyeballs to spot a hard-to-see light aircraft while on the final phase of a commercial flight, when lives are quite clearly at risk. :ugh:

[Mr Good Cat]

The original discussion is about class E airspace where airlines (usually LoCos) who have moved into secondary airports are mixing with light aircraft with no transponders and often no radio. Confusion reigns and it is ony a matter of time before the airmiss reports become a nasty collision. Gliders are part of the problem and have been reported circling in thermals on the approach path quite legally.

In the US though, aren't ALL General Aviation aircraft required to have Mode C transponders as all the airspace is controlled, thereby mitigating the collision threat somewhat. Might be a cost issue in EASA states.

[dont overfil]

In the US though, aren't ALL General Aviation aircraft required to have Mode C transponders as all the airspace is controlled, thereby mitigating the collision threat somewhat. Might be a cost issue in EASA states.

Not correct although there are usually mode "C" veils around the busier airports.

[RAT 5]

Should EASA look again at the European rules designed to maintain separation involving commercial aircraft, light aircraft, and gliders?

Most definitely YES.
The world has moved on, rapidly, since the rules were established. They are no longer fit for purpose. GA traffic needs to be absorbed into the system, not precluded. We all want our fun, and safety. At the moment you have low experience pilots in lowly equipped slow a/c mixing it with highly trained well experienced pilots in well equipped hight speed a/c and relying on the slow moving recreational pilot seeing & getting out of the way of the jet. and ATC, the managers of air traffic who are controlling the jet, have no idea the spam can is there.
We've seen similar occurrences in Superbikes and other motor races on the track: the top boys at the front, racing as a pack, catching up to very un-competative back markers. It can cause mayhem, and many have asked the question "why are they on the track at that level?"
They get out of the way, you hope, because some marshal waves a blue flag to tell them of the incoming cavalry charge.
Now there is are situations in the air whereby the slow moving 'back marker' is not being advised that they are entering shark infested waters because they have not switched on their shark sensor bit of kit, nor asked the life-guard if it's safe to enter and where the sharks are. They swim out blind to the threat and hope they can 'see & and avoid' the snapping teeth. Equally the shark gets miffed when it comes upon the minnow unexpectedly and has to pull a 4G serve to avoid banging its sensitive nose.
Needs a serious review PDQ.

[blind pew]

Definitely NOT
From the other thread the problems of fitting a transponder in a glider have been highlighted but there is also a question of reliability.

When I flew heavy jets dispatch with an unserviceable transponder was allowed.
Do we ban them too?

I flew a Stemm motor glider with the owner - had terrible reliability problems with the transponder as did a Longeeze guy who worked in the industry.

I was a member of the club which was involved in the mid air with the airbus - we did a deal with the Dgac at Montpellier to climb into controlled airspace with transponders but we had to fit a second battery, had reliability and duration problems.

The best device for general aviation is the flamm system which was developed by the swiss and sold at cost.

What is needed is pilots looking outside and lazy controllers using primary radar.

In ten years of instructing on class A and gliders the worse pilot wrt to look out was a retired KLM DC 10 instructor. Although he had over 20,000 hours he obviously had never learnt to look out.
Unfortunately he had his own aircraft and besides suggesting that he improved his lookout there was nothing I could do.

The best guys wrt lookout were the ex fighter pilots for obvious reasons.

I would image it's far worse nowadays with the reduction in flight training and the reliance on automatics and simulators.

[Fitter2]

I quite concur with @foxmoth: it is up to everybody to do all they can to ensure safety; and while we may trust the commercial operators to put in a big effort, not the same can be said for all recreational pilots/owners/operators.

How does the 'big effort' square with filing a flight plan in Class D and higher Class airspace from gate to gate, but voluntarily changing in flight to 'point to point' in Class E to save fuel?

Agreed universal ABSB fitment would make their life safer. If the airlines would put together a fund from their fuel saving to fit my glider with appropriate equipment, they are entirely welcome. Or why not just use the airspace provided for their exclusive use? :E

[RAT 5]

Definitely NOT

I would image it's far worse nowadays with the reduction in flight training and the reliance on automatics and simulators.

I agree with many of your comments, and we are of similar generation. Your first comment might be true if the world was as it was many many years ago. Your last comment is more reality, today, and conflicts a little with the first comment.

Remember, this debate is not about implementing a wholesale change, it's about a review. That review may bring about some tweaks, we won't know until it's over. What is for sure; no review = no changes even if tweaks are necessary in todays world.

[nimbusgb]

One of the major problems is the challenge of fitting certified avionics to GA aircraft. With a '60's or 70's S.E.P GA aircraft available for the cost of a family sedan the cost of fitting 8.33 khz radios , ADS/B, Flarm, extended mode transponders, EPIRB etc in a reasonably integrated unit into the panel simply outstrips the cost of the aircraft.

EASA refuses to accept the FAA certification of equipment with tens or even hundreds of thousands of units fitted in the US, requires massive expenditure for certification in a tiny market and requires over the top installation processes.

I'd fit a complete stack to my little ship if it wasn't for the fact that it would double the investment I have in her.

I fly, I look out, a LOT!

[Mikehotel152]

I said this on the related private flying thread:-

If gliders and other light traffic not equipped with transponders are allowed to fly unrestricted across the arrival and approach paths of commercial jets, eventually many people will be killled.

At 200-250 kts the mk1 eyeball will not prevent this from happening.

[The Ancient Geek]

Should that not read "If commercial jets are allowed to fly instrument approaches, often with their heads down, into airfields with uncontolled GA traffic"

Class E airspace was created for airfields with OCCASIONAL commercial traffic, it was never envisaged that low cost airlines would fly regular traffic into them to avoid the high landing fees etc of established airports.

[Mikehotel152]

No it shouldn't. I'm being a realist.

[RAT 5]

Let's not get caught up on how difficult/expensive it is to fit bits of kit to what a/c. I understand that gliders have inherent problems. I understand that older a/c may not the freq spacing required. OK. What might come out of this review is that more airfields are taken out of class E airspace and given a higher category. The rules for Class E then do not change; but some Class E is upgraded.
10 years ago the LoCo's might have had 5-10 flights a day into a small airfield with only a VOR/NDB. Now there could be 30-40 per day and an ILS and the airspace is still the same. Is that a sound safe idea?

The man with the red flag disappeared as he was run over by a car faster than walking pace. The old codger couldn't afford the gym & personal trainer fees to learn to run faster and no young buck wanted the job; they wanted to drive the car.

[nimbusgb]

How does the 'big effort' square with filing a flight plan in Class D and higher Class airspace from gate to gate, but voluntarily changing in flight to 'point to point' in Class E to save fuel?

Agreed universal ABSB fitment would make their life safer. If the airlines would put together a fund from their fuel saving to fit my glider with appropriate equipment, they are entirely welcome. Or why not just use the airspace provided for their exclusive use?

I fear that in the face of the money glider pilots will simply get forced out of the skies. GA in the form of much used SEP's will go next unless owners fork out the £20k or so required for an all encompassing collision avoidance system. Heavy metal will simply insist that their benefit to the economy is the greater need and that'll be it.

[ATC Watcher]

No need to change airspace classification . Just implement class D around airports that receive commercial traffic, or link the CTR with the class C airspace above in HX.

I fly gliders, GA aircraft mostly in Europe and was a Controller for 35 years.
The collision in Montpelier plus the Ryanair pressure forced the French DGCA to do just that some years ago.. Cost money of course , putting real controllers instead of AFIS agents in small airports , but risks of collisions are mitigated to the max that way .
In Germany where the problem is most . A recent airprox in Mimmingen ,(plus lots of close calls near Ramstein and Hahn over the years ) shows us that it will end up in a collision one day . But basically , like with the UAVs , we are all waiting for one for things to change . Sad.

Blind pew,: time to move to the 21st century : today's Mode S transponders ave very small light weight (400 grams) , use little power and are very reliable . ( like the TRIG 21 for instance : Trig Avionics | TT21 (http://www.trig-avionics.com/products/tt21/)) I use one. You can today couple your batteries to a flexible solar panel, power not an issue anymore )

you said :
What is needed is pilots looking outside and lazy controllers using primary radar.
100% with you with looking outside , but Primary radar (where they sill have it) and the lazy controllers will not help in class E, , as radio contact is not mandatory and the primary return of a modern glider is close to nil.

The problem is the heads of people to change habits, not in airspace classification .

[Silvaire1]

The US of A has no problem with gliders colliding with power of any kind because there ARE VERY FEW GLIDERS FLYING IN THE United States!

My limited experience in sailplanes in the US includes flights during which I was looking down at approaching airliners from 17,990 ft (in Class E). That happens all the time at the closest glider field to me. They're still using Schweizers as trainers BTW, but the flights I mention were in a Duo Discus owned by a friend.

Its helpful that US VFR Terminal Area charts show typical airliner tracks and altitudes through Class E, approaching terminal area Class B and departing upward into Class A above 18,000 ft. There's a lot of light aircraft in that Class E airspace, most of them talking to nobody on the radio. Good radar coverage and good approach controllers also help, along with Mode C being almost universal around US terminal areas. Those that don't have Mode C need to be careful, but armed with the right information and attitude among all parties there are very few issues. It's really a matter of organization and standardization as much as technology - which makes one wonder why ADS-B is being implemented... That's another story but I think one (very) long term goal is to replace ATC radar and eliminate transponders. That then provides a route for non-electrical aircraft, given the much lower electrical power demand for ADS-B Out.

[MarcK]

I was never a fan of the 978 MHz UAT version of ADS-B, but it turns out that it is a win for gliders, etc. Peak power out for low aircraft is 18 watts, not the 250 watts needed for 1090 MHz transponders.

[Denti]

Germany seems to be a special case in some regards. It is one of the countries with the highest number of glider pilots, althoug that number has been shrinking for some time now. Back when i started it was around 35.000 to 40.000 glider pilots, well before the reunification which added a few more. More than 7500 glider planes are registered in germany and the industry around building them is quite powerful as around 90% of all gilder build worldwide are build in germany.

On the other hand one cannot prevent to fly in Class E airspace as Class E is in use over the whole of germany, latest from 2500ft GND upwards until FL100 (130 at the alps) where it is all Class C. Around airports Class E starts even lower and at least in gemany, airline pilots do get yearly refresher about airspace structure and the need for a very good lookout below FL100. It is also suggested to reduce speed as much as possible. In my airline 250kts below FL100 is for that reason a hard limit which can only be breached if ATC requires a specific speed above 250. A simple "highspeed approved" still means that we can fly max 250, even if we are in Class C or D.

The airspace structure around airports gets adjusted every year based on incidents and traffic numbers into those airports. For example NUE had completely protected airspace in the time of the airberlin hub at that airport, but since airberlin pulled out and traffic numbers into that airport plummeted, the airspace was changed and class E between the Class D CTR and the Class C above FL100 reintroduced. That allows VFR flights to pass over that airport without the need for ATC contact, which in the case of VFR can be done in german anyway.

[oggers]

ATC Watcher, whilst I agree with your point of view, can we just clear one thing up:

...but Primary radar (where they sill have it) and the lazy controllers will not help in class E, since it is uncontrolled airspace by definition...

Class E is by definition controlled airspace. ICAO Annex 11 "Controlled airspace. An airspace of defined dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided in accordance with the airspace classification. Note - Controlled airspace is a generic term which covers ATS airspace classes A, B, C, D and E as described in 2.6"

[mary meagher]

Now that we have been banished to the PPRuNe forum that nobody reads or contributes to, I have done the sensible thing at last, and referred to the British Gliding Association website.

The information provided there is absolutely comprehensive and sensible, and without a doubt very few will even find it, let alone read it. Go on, guys, they work very hard to obtain improvements on available airspace, on safety devices, the latest gen. That is, if you are truly interested in avoiding featuring in the news with a catastrophe that might shut down completely what little open airspace remains.

[Denti]

Tell me how "weather and speed restrictions" ensure that IFR traffic can see the VFR traffic in front and a little below, when the IFR traffic is IMC, which also makes it hard for the VFR Traffic to see and avoid it.

If the IFR traffic is in IMC and the VFR traffic is also following the rules for class E, both are already separated by definition. Either 1000ft vertically or 1,5 km horizontally (VFR traffic has to stay clear of clouds 1000ft vertically and 1,5 km horizontally). And of course the VFR traffic needs a visibility of 5 km as well. Below FL100 values in this case as VFR in airspace C is extremely rare here and subject to ATC anyway.

[ATC Watcher]

Oggers : Ooops , you are right of course ! I mixed it up with F ( which if my memory serves me well was removed from the EUR countries that were using it and changed to E in 2 or 3 years ago )
I will amend my post , sorry about that , but does not change my reasoning though.

The advice I always give to ATPLs in my lectures is to avoid to go through isolated Cumulus bases as this is where the biggest concentration of Gliders will be , and to my gliders comrades to always call FIS above 2000m ( 6000 ft) and when overflying CTRs .
Being aware and Avoiding the ILS entry points is another advice , but not everyone is aware of them . Ramstein (ETAR in Germany) has even issued small maps for GA to prevent collisions . A good initiative , but info like this should be embedded into the normal 500.000 VFR chart .

[RAT 5]

Firstly I'm with Mary Meager. This is topic initiated by Professional Pilots to try and enhance the safety of Professional aviation. Why it was demoted to Private Flying is a mystery; and then further demoted to Questions which is listed under Ground Ops & Other Forums. The Mod's have it wrong if they wish to allow this debate to bear fruit.

Regarding the gliders and lookouts: of curse we all should and the vis from a glider cockpit is excellent; but out a glider in a thermal and then ask where is the focus of the pilot? Round & round and looking mainly into the turn and concentrating not to lose that precious lift as YOU CLIMB. Meanwhile the jet pilots are looking out, just having popped out of cloud, and are DESCENDING. The glider will be invisible, out of sight. And notice how gliders are often nice clean creamy coloured and very sleek. They were stealthy before the name was invented.
There is the old story of a Chipmunk doing aeros and making a 'clearing turn'. They pulled up for the loop and looked down on a jet flying through the middle of it. It was not visible during the clearing turn. Even big jets are not 'instantly' visible from a jet cockpit; you need to know where to look and they employ a correct search pattern. It takes training & it takes time. You then need to assess if there is closure or a threat. You need to assess if the target is maintaining altitude & heading, all while you are circling in a thermal. Been there, done that, not easy.
It does seem strange that is some aspects of daily lives, when the public identifies, or even just perceives, a threat to general safety there is a clamour for preventative action. I know it is not always justified and often too much overreaction to sensational hype. At least the topic is discussed and evaluated.
As a profession we are mindful to take preventative action in many circumstances. Being reactive is sometimes an only choice and then we evaluate if we could have 'seen it coming'. Protecting commercial aviation & pax lives seems to fall into that category. Allowing Class E airspace to continue where it is suitable seems OK. Allowing it to continue where it is not and the threat posed is too high seems to go against the basic principles of reducing a known threat and being preventive. Aviation of any kind is always going to be full of threats. the only sure-fire method is to ground everybody; the death of aviation. No-one is advocating that, correctly; so the task is to find a way in which all participants can enjoy aviation in a safe and reasonable manner.
Hence the call for a learned debate at high EASA level with input from exports of all quarters.

[NorthSouth]

the primary return of a modern glider is close to nilIndeed, and since (in the UK anyway) most of the remaining Class E is only there because the gliding fraternity requested it, it seems to me that if there is a safety problem, it should be incumbent on both sides (IFR CAT and VFR gliders) to sit down and sort it out. Some airlines have a commendable risk-minimisation approach by phoning the relevant gliding club before using routes that fly through "their" airspace. But that still leaves heavy reliance on ATC to detect non-transponding gliders. And that's where there's a new problem. Most ATC primary radars nowadays are plot-extracted digital radars that don't display every 'paint', but chunter round a few times before deciding whether the paints they're seeing are moving in a way that's likely to be an aircraft. That means that gliders, which may only paint once every few sweeps, are less likely to show up on those radars than on their analogue ancestors.
I wonder if one practical measure would be to require controllers to inform IFR traffic when it's about to enter Class E airspace? At the moment there's no requirement to do that, so a heavily-tasked pilot in the arrival phase in a busy TMA who is transitioning from Class A to Class E is given no reminder/hint that his/her lookout and crew resource management might need to change. Yes it would require an additional ATC transmission. But isn't that better than the risk of a collision?

[Denti]

I wonder if one practical measure would be to require controllers to inform IFR traffic when it's about to enter Class E airspace? At the moment there's no requirement to do that, so a heavily-tasked pilot in the arrival phase in a busy TMA who is transitioning from Class A to Class E is given no reminder/hint that his/her lookout and crew resource management might need to change. Yes it would require an additional ATC transmission. But isn't that better than the risk of a collision?

Isn't airspace structure something to discuss during he TEM part of the approach briefing? The information is there (AFC in the LIDO world). And for someone operating the first time to an airport with that kind of structure and/or frequent glider traffic around that information should be part of the destination briefing package.

Of course, some airports do give information about gliders, listen to EDDS ATIS on a nice spring/summer day and you notice quite a bit information about glider sectors. And you might notice that that information is for VFR traffic as IFR will be separated from those sectors anyway.

[ATC Watcher]

NorthSouth :
I wonder if one practical measure would be to require controllers to inform IFR traffic when it's about to enter Class E airspace
Indeed that would help a it, but only a bit as you and I know that any modern airliner windows were not designed with spotting VFR traffic in mind.
A glider in a thermal is at 50-60 Kts and as it turns tightly , easily visible but only 1/2 of the time ..
. Any jet coming at it at 250 Kts with current or descending gradients has very little chances of spotting it in time to make effective avoiding action .

A modern glider in transition is around 150 Kts and sleek per definition so extremely difficult to spot if opposite, especially regarding sun position.
Only an electronic solution will work, FLARM is best and/or Mode S Transponder .
But FLARM is not certified ( and won't be since it uses a not released frequency ) and therefore cannot be legally fitted to airliners ( although I know some who have it )

[Mikehotel152]

The fact that this very important topic has been banished from both professional and private flying shows that even the moderators on this website view the danger of a light aircraft colliding with a passenger flight as unimportant.

What hope is there that the authorities will take it seriously? Sadly, none.

When the inevitable happens, the mods should join the authorities and hang their ostrich heads in shame.

[RAT 5]

Hey Mike. On Rumours there is an ongoing topic about Drones possibly endangering commercial a/c. How many air misses have been reported to these? How many near misses have been reported with gliders? More I would suggest. One topic is on Rumours, the other on Questions.
I posted a msg to the MOD's on both forums expressing amazement at this policy. Both posts have been removed. Go figure.

When the inevitable happens, the mods should join the authorities and hang their ostrich heads in shame.

What is the point of having a professional discussion forum if we are not allowed to discuss a critical safety issue to our profession? This forum might be the only method we have to kick start such a debate.

[RAT 5]

Oh dear? I never was a sheep ands it's too late to change. But I am not rising to that bait, but some support would be more appreciated as per Mary Meagre & ATC watcher.

You seem to have posted enough times to learn that this is not about what's right or fair, it's about what you are allowed to discuss.

Indeed: but which part of USSR are you from?

Unfortunately, there were two separate glider crashes in the UK yesterday (Dec. 4).

On Private flying there is a thread about a mid-air between a C150 & glider resulting in death of glider pilot. This is not a Mickey mouse issue and deserves more exposure than 'Questions'.

[Denti]

On Private flying there is a thread about a mid-air between a C150 & glider resulting in death of glider pilot. This is not a Mickey mouse issue and deserves more exposure than 'Questions'.

But in which airspace was it? And was either the glider or the C150 flying IFR? If not, it is quite a different discussion. VFR flight does rely on the big sky principle, however even a perfunctory scan of the airspace is nowadays often replaced by constant staring at the iPad in powered VFR flights.

[RAT 5]

I'm not sure the airspace has anything to do with it; it's the mixture of traffic. The point being that 2 small a/c at slow speeds did not miss each other by looking out of the window, and the glider has a bubble canopy. We do not yet know the relative flight paths, and perhaps never will. I wonder how much effort AAIB will put into it. After watching the Air Crash Investigation between the French Turbine commuter & a Cessna orbiting near SS France it was amazing the lengths the investigation went to to determine the lack of visibility from each cockpit and bad luck involved.
However, here was a collision by 2 small slow a/c being flown by MK.1 eyeball. There are those advocating that relative high speed (250kts) airliners can mix it with & avoid slow moving stealthy gliders with Mk.1 eyeball and also expect the glider to do the same. In the time a glider takes to make a 360 the jet, which was invisible, is now full in your face. The jet has a wide cockpit with not so good 180 degree vision from one seat. Searching for and locating a slow moving small a/c, which you don't even know is there, is not the easiest task, and perhaps not the top focus of a jet crew making a descending arrival into their destination.
All that is being discussed is that IFR commercial traffic does not have to mix it with silent invisible GA VFR traffic during approaches/departures. Remember, over the nose, and slightly below, visibility in a jet climb out is zero. It's worse than descending arrivals and all so unnecessary. Don't need to change the rules, just the airspace.

[mary meagher]

RAT 5 started this thread in a different location. Before it was BANISHED to the little-known forum vaguely entitled "QUESTIONS", the subject had, since the two gliding accidents - one near Leicester, one on Dartmoor, both on December 4...had been discussed in a total of 43 serious comments by concerned pilots, power and glider pilots.

Since being moved to QUESTIONS, on 9 December, it has only attracted 15 comments.

Res ipse loquator....

[mary meagher]

OK, Airpolice, I am grateful to PP for several reasons. First of all the layout is excellent. Easily read on my antique applemac. Compared to the gliding forum, it wins hands down. Also compared to the flying forum.

And we do hear from other English speaking pilots all over the planet. Can't beat the coverage.

The mods contribute their duties of keeping it relevant and clean. The ads which actually pay for the costs are unobtrusive.

All the same I would like a bit of respect for those 3,000 plus hours; I bet I have A LOT MORE TAKEOFF AND LANDINGS in my logbook than most commercial pilots....

[RAT 5]

It seems some, perhaps ATC W, is based in Germany and this is where there is much Class E & glider activity. The German pilots' union is a powerful body. Does anyone know their attitude to this? or do majority of German airlines not operate into airports with Class E, but only the big fields? i.e. not a local problem for their members?

Now there's a Question!

[ATC Watcher]

RAT 5 to reply to your question first, yes VC Cockpit has some members flying to those airports , also in the turboprop category but this is not their mainstream membership base ,( i.e) LH Germanwings/Eurowings ) and to be fair to them , they have other priorities those last years:E

There are many such small airports in Germany (for instance in the South West : Hahn , Saarbuecken, Mimmingen, but also Ramstein AFB ( which has more traffic than Mimmingen or Saarbruecken combined ) All have a very small Class D CTR until around 3500ft and class E above until FL100.
Hahn has CTR until FL 65 and established a TMZ ( transponder mandatory Zone) all around its CTR but only until FL65 .So from 65 to 100 , class E

Those airports are mainly used by others EU airlines ,e.g Ryananair, Wizz, but also sometimes TUI fly , all 737s and A320s, Luxair for instance goes daily to Sarrbruecken with a Dash8 .

Main problem why it is (still) like this is the DAeC lobby .( Deutsche aeroclub) which I support for many other reasons but not on that one.. But we are touching the good old German " freedom" concept which was very good after the war but does not work too well with Safety in the XXIst century. . Same for the Highway speed limits . The Porshe BMW and Audi lobby year after year works hard to maintain free speed on motorways , and no-one serious in politics will try to change this , despite concrete evidence that extreme speed on the road is dangerous, kills and pollutes...

But this is Germany ...A country, like Switzerland, where Traditions are strong and more important than mere facts .. It has also a certain charm I must say...:E

[RAT 5]

Much appreciated. An answer if not a reason, if you know what I mean. I can understand the macho car lobby. However, my experience of the autobahns which I use, the touristy western ones, have all been dumped into the 130kph category. It's added an hour to my journey south. No explanation, and yet other central routes that mix trucks & 4 wheel rockets and still unlimited. Strange thinking; and the last 100km to Basle is now reduced to 130 from limited????
Is it going to take a catastrophic crash in German airspace to open eyes? Probably.

[ATC Watcher]

Is it going to take a catastrophic crash in German airspace to open eyes? Probably.
Unfortunately yes, just like with the UAVs , it is not if but when. Sad .

[RAT 5]

ATCW. I once asked permission from my council to cut down a 10m tree in my garden. It was diseased. The tree was dropping dust and sap all over our garden & the neighbours. You couldn't sit near it or leave the windows open. The council 'permission man' was a 'tree hugger' and refused. We then had as huge storm and a smaller tree in a neighbour's garden was blown over and allowed to be removed. We gained signatures from neighbours to say they had seen our tree sway, and we said the roots were being uplifted. The tree hugger still refused. Well, the tree is by the fence over looking the pavement & road; so we said that if in the next storm there is any damage to personnel or property, he the tree hugger would be held responsible. Our cutting permission arrived the next day.

Well, the airmiss and close-prox reports are like our neighbours letters suggesting a danger. The opinions of commercial pilots and gliders pilots are like prophecies. They are being ignored. If the relevant person who is refusing an open debate on the issue, or to address it professionally, is held accountable for the inevitable loss of life it might spark some reassessment. That official could reside in EASA; there will also be someone in the german hierarchy. Why can ECA not lobby the EU transport/aviation commissioner who oversees EASA? Isn't that one of the roles of ECA, to promote the improving safety environment of the industry and its members? Or is that too simplistic?

If the pilots are not doing something about lobbying EASA I wonder why the AEA is not. They have duty of care to their pax, employees, shareholders and assets.

[ATC Watcher]

RAT5 . On the UAVs issue , ECA is very active and a joint letter with all International organisations ( incl. IFALPA, IFATCA, IATA, etc..) was issued a few weeks ago to EU commission .
https://www.eurocockpit.be/stories/20160905/joint-call-to-safely-integrate-drones-uas-into-europe-s-airspace
GATCO in the UK issue a very strong letter and document to the UK CAA urging them to regulate , as there were 52 Airprox with UAVs in the UK the last 10 months.
VC Cockpit made a special 22 pages brochure in German for ILA 2016 urging for regulation before a collision occur. ( Sonderheft "Drohnen & Luftfahrt"
So on that front we/they really all do something .
Unfortunately Gliders/Class E airspace is not seen as a priority yet most likely because the number of reported incidents is still very small.

[RAT 5]

ATC W: :ok:Tx.

[Denti]

Well, the class E problem starts with the fact that class E cannot be avoided in germany. Every airspace above 2500 ft GND or 5000 ft, whichever is lower, and belo FL100, is class E. Lower around airports. And not only glider pilots like it that way, pretty much all private pilots in germany, no matter which type of aircraft they pilot, like that they can freely fly in that airspace without the need to talk to someone. Not to mention the military, they love it too as they mainly fly VFR with their fast jets. And only some of them need a transponder.

Now, the main issue is of course the airspace in the approach and departure path of airports with IFR operation. And that airspace gets evaluated every year and adjusted based on airspace user needs, traffic numbers and incidents. Main group that discusses that is the "Ausschuss Unterer Luftraum" (commitee lower airspace) in which all stakeholders are represented, mainly the DFS, DAeC, VC, airlines and airports. Now, VC represents around 10.000 professional pilots in germany, DAeC represents over 30.000 glider pilots, not to mention ultralight pilots, hang glider pilots, paraglider, parachute jumpers and private pilots flying SEPs, MEP, single turbine etc, helicopters and so on. So the DAeC has quite a huge lobby group, and their representatives in that commitee often fly for major german airlines in their day job, so know both sides of the medal and are very good at counter arguing those that want more restrictive airspace layouts.

And german airlines do training programs on class E as well. It is part of the destination briefing package if there is substantial private aircraft traffic around an airport, the airspace structure is part of the route manual and should be discussed during approach briefing if one of the pilots is unfamiliar with the airport. And of course a good lookout as well as company speed restrictions are encouraged or even enforced. And of course many of the professional pilots started out as a private pilot early on, like myself who started glider flying as a teenager at age 14. Quite a few are still active private pilots and do provide valuable information to their colleagues.

Yes, airprox events do happen, however the numbers are, despite rising traffic levels, very small. Midair collisions happen even less often and mostly between private pilots close to uncontrolled fields, although the military made a few a while back until they changed their training.

[ATC Watcher]

Denti :
Thanks for your detailed answers .I understand the demands and arbitration / compromise made, we do the same in France. There too the Military is now far better than it used to be, Flight Info(FIS) was decentralized to many Approaches ( exactly the opposite of what Germany wants to do btw ) and this works very well. Which is for me one of the key to airspace sharing .
When you have a good FIS ( like in Germany and France those last years) people will use it , and safety will drastically improve. I myself now always contact / listen to FIS when above 1500 ft. But most of my Gliders colleagues still don't , in both countries.