Flying at 250 Kts in E,F and G airspace.

[ATC Watcher]

A bit of saftey discussion during that hot Summer.
Because of the exceptional weather conditions during the last weeks, numerous gliders (including myself ) found themselves at altitudes above 3000 m ( FL100 +) for very long periods (6 to 8 h per day ) . While always operating in VFR country (G,F or E ) the number of Irish low costs 737s and Military types I have crossed is too numerous to say. nothing dangerous mind you, , but we always missed by pure luck.
We are all supposed to separate ourselves with the "seen and be seen "concept but how does this work when one is doing 250 Kts and the other 50 ?
Our Irish low cost friend is going down into second zone uncontrolled airfields where Para, gliding and GA activity is , especially on Summer days, intense.
The most stupid situation I saw was in Poitiers (F) where the European Twin Glider championship was held during 15 days 3 weeks ago and an Irish 737 came down in the middle of the pack every evening at the same time as the circuits returns...
95% of the gliders do not carry SSR and Poitiers has no radar and is a class E CTR. ( not even radio contact is mandatory )
But friends also reported incidents in other places where paras were seen falling around the same 737s on several occasions.

I do not want to start a sensational debate, but merely to raise a point that possibly should aim at making us aware of the danger, looking more outside and possibly fly at a (much) lower speed below 10.000 ft for instance, when in those areas.

I would perticularly appreciate the views of our Irish friends .

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Above 10,000ft in the UK and you are in Class A airspace and can't legally be there. <NOTE TO SELF: just check that before pressing submit> ;)

Like many I assumed similar regualtions applies on the continent outside specialst areas.

If you don't show up on radar, you don't carry transponders and your flight path cannot be filed or predicted then I believe the onus is on you to avoid scheduled IFR traffic by whatever means possible (RAS/RIS/Airmanship).

Cheers

WWW

[Staple]

"Above 10,000ft in the UK and you are in class A airspace and can't legally be there"


News to me...!!??

[Pub User]

WWW

Clearly it's been a little while since your Air Law exams! Good job you don't need to know this stuff to do your job.

Just to refesh yourself, here's a link for you:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/DAP_ACD_3_VFR_Airspace.pdf

[radar707]

WWW, do you include Scotland in your version of the UK???

Scottish TMA is Class D up to FL245

[Spitoon]

pub user, it's interesting that you seem to think that a pilot doesn't need to know about airspace classification to do his or her job - or did I just miss some irony somewhere?

Is WWW's appreciation of the environment that he flies in is typical of a 'Low cost First Officer'? That would be worrying to say the least!

[DFC]

It is sad to see how low people have to go to have a swipe at Ryanair.

Everyone who flies knows (or should know) that there is NO speed restriction above FL100. The see and avoid principle also applies at those levels also in C,D,E,F and G airspace depending on flight rules.

Furthermore anyone who flies must know that powered aircraft give way to airships and gliders.

This is fear is a non flier who has found a new excuse to complain about Ryanair.

Sad indeed.

DFC

PS Surprised at WWWs answer.

However along the same lines, all airspace in France above FL115 is class D and VFR flights require clearance.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Tried to correct post but having ISP problems...

WWW

[Radar]

DFC,
Steady on mate! It's all too easy to fob it off as one more swipe at 'The Flyin'Harp'. I don't think ATCWatcher's post was anything of the sort. Seems to me more like a call for consideration of a potential problem than anything else. The examples quoted refer to France but the airspace structure in Germany raises the same issues. Thankfully both give us non-commercial types a decent level of access to airspace. Sorry ..... forgot, us non fliers.

As for WWW's thorough and highly informed musings on the subject .... :rolleyes:

[Mach Buffet]

To those glider pilots out there:

Below 10,000 ft I have a lot of bright lights turned on in order to allow other traffic seem me - that includes you. I also carry a Mode "S" transponder that allows other aircraft to "see" me on a psedo radar screen.

What do you have - nothing! You do not have transponders, an few if any have radios. Not only that, you usually paint your aircraft pure white which also minimises your visibility. Perhaps you should be a little more considerate of the threat you pose to other traffic by being so inconspicious.

I am also on an IFR flight plan, and adhering to it, therefore my workload in the cockpit precludes me from looking out the window all the time. I will take whatever action is necessary to avoid all the traffic I see, but given the difficulty posed by gliders - their size, slim profile, colour, lack of lights, don't be surprised if you are never seen by an airliner crew.

In the interest of self preservation I suggest that you assume that an airliner crew cannot see you regardless of right of way rules, and give them a wide berth.

[pulse1]

MB,

Can you explain how a glider doing 50kt can give a wide berth to a jet airliner doing 250kt+ "?

That's a bit like the papers decribing the collision between a Red Arrow and a yacht off Brighton as "the yacht (doing 5kt?) sailed across the path of the Hawk (>250kt?).

Surely the greater responsiblity in avoiding collisions must go to the faster aircraft.

However, as an ex glider pilot, I do agree with your overall comments.

P1

[DFC]

Mach Buffet,

Being on an IFR flight plan does not absolve a flight crew from the responsibilities of lookout.

Anytime any aircraft on any flight plan is in VMC, the flight crew are required to keep an adequate lookout.

There is no getting round the fact that gliders have right of way and as I pointed out in my last post, it is not up to the glider pilot to avoid you but for you to avoid the glider.

Unfortunately, your attitude to the equipment on your aircraft and your unwillingness to maintain an adequate lookout can only be compared to the Captain of the Titanic.

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

Still think that the whole topic was started as a Ryanair swipe because firstly of the ill informed information in the initial post and secondly French regional aircraft fly to all sorts of regional airports in France and have done so for years yet for some reason they never got a mention. Funny that.

Regards,

DFC

[johnpilot]

Hello guys. Just a few words on the topic. Crashing into a fellow pilot regardless of who is to blame is not a desirable outcome for either of us. Looking out when on the approach and landing phase is of course of great essence in avoiding other traffic. The Ryanair Flight Ops is aware of these issues in French airports, but also in Germany and Austria. The Chief Pilot has issued specific memos, and route briefings for airports like Carcassone, Hahn, Poitiers etc have specific instructions to be followed. Amongst other things, reduce to minimum approach speed as soon as practicable, follow only the published STARs and SIDs, and if lack of such procedures then fly the full approach procedure, never accept self positioning or visual approaches, and finally turn on all lights. (I asked if we should turn on all the lights inside the cabin and the flight deck but they thought I was not funny) Airmanship though is a two way road. We will try our best to avoid all those out there having fun, but they should also show airmanship in avoiding crossing the localizer, or flying on the published SIDs or STARs. Most VFR traffic is local traffic so learning where they shoud avoid flying is not that difficult. It is not long ago that I was in Perpignan and we had a TA while on the localizer bellow 2000 ft fully established. Not a nice situation to be in while training a new f/o. In East Midlands at our training center just before you enter the Sim there is a big chart with all the french airfields and the class airspace. On all our route briefings it has on the top corner the class airspace the airport is in, so this is still part of our training. Poitiers and Carcassone is flown by Buzz on behalf of Ryanair, so this particular time I do not think we can blame our Irish pilot friends as buzz has none of them.
We are all here to have a safe, efficient, and pleasnt flight for all involved, pax and crew.
JP:D

[Findo]

ATC watcher I wonder why you have had so many close encounters with Irish 737s ?

History shows that many UK and foreign airlines have operated public transport fixed wing and helicopters outside controlled airspace. Many have been involved in incidents because unfortunately you cannot get into most east coast airports and remain inside controlled airspace.

If you want to examine the figures you'll see that the majority of incidents involve fast jets.

The only 737 I can recall in the last 10 years was in the Scottish TMA on base leg to Edinburgh in Class E airspace. A hang glider ( I think) did what he was allowed to do by our antiquated rules and flew there without talking to anyone and could not be seen on radar.

If you want an improvement in air safety then the rules and classifications of airspace need changing to protect people like that from themselves and paying members of the public.

Mach buffet also makes good points about how little you do to make yourself more conspicuous.

[S76Heavy]

The fact remains that in todays fast environment "see and avoid" can only be described as inadequate as the sole method of avoiding collisions. Yes, we all know that we should keep a good lookout, but there are a lot of things we should be doing at the same time and often in a cockpit that was not designed to give us the view required to maintain a decent lookout.

So I agree that if even only in the interest of self preservation, our glider friends should make an effort in making themselves conspicuous and avoiding areas where other traffic can pose a significant risk. It's not about "having the right" to be there, but whether it is smart to be there. After all, being right does not mean a thing when you hit the ground in pieces after a mid-air..

[ATC Watcher]

Whaoo ! .. quite some answers to do :rolleyes:

WWW : problem is wider range than the UK only .In France Class G can go up to FL195. .
Gliders cannot avoid large jets coming down from their cruising levels at 250 Kts especially when they come through the cloud base..

DG : No, I am not having a go at Ryanair in particular, far from it. ( I appreciate them for other reasons ;) ) reading again my post, I understand you can take it this way but rest assured that was not the intent at all. But it is a fact that the 5 close encounters I had in the last 3 weeks 3 were RYR 737s, 1 USAF C17 and one GAF Tornado. I am trying to have a discussion on what I feel is a problem , nothing else.
Why not mentioning French Regionals : less problem for us , possibly because they mostly come in the early morning and late evenings ( no glider activity then ) and mostly use turboprops, and are possibly more aware of the surroundings, particularities of the places. But there was serious calls with Proteus (flying for AFR) and even a collision in Quiberon with a small aircraft 3 years ago.
Speed restrictions : You are misinformed : In France and Germany it is 250 Kts indicated below FL100 ( see their AIPs)
Likewise No, not all airspace in France is class D above 115. Above the Alps and the Pyrennees it is above 195, ( and these large areas below are precisely there for gliders )

And , by the way I do fly around 300 h a year as PIC.

Mc Buffet : It is exactly people like you that I am afraid of ; Not having time to look out the window when in IFR in VFR country on a bright day ? Do not forget that if you hit me, you are very likely to go down with me….

John Pilot : Thank you. This is the kind or post I expected to read. The Landing lights are helpful on departure, ( first you hear about the take off on the R/T, assuming you are monitoring the correct frequency , bearing in mind in class E it is not mandatory !) you know where to look, can predict the path the aircraft will go and try to keep away . The problem is in my opinion on APP, when the jets are coming from their cruising alt down to the fields. Most of us are a few hundred feet feet below cloudbase and we do not know where the jets are going to come down through that cloudbase. . Also we normally do not look upwards, but horizontally to keep away from other gliders )

I mentioned Poitiers because 2 of the “encounters “ I had took place there,. I have learned in that the local authorities created “Cones “ to be avoided 15 Km wide and 3000 ft hight to protect the arrivals and departures near the runway. But this Cones practices are local initiatives, are only known to local based club, not to transiting gliders . Yet I believe the problems are at distance further than that and at higher altitudes.
The other was near Hahn in Germany. The airport there is supposed to be surrounded by a TMZ ( transponder mandatory Zone ) and we keep away from that. It you look at the map you will see that on the East you have only a 3 NM corridor between the TMZ and the Frankfurt TMA, and on the West, a 8NM corridor between the TMZ and the Buchel TMA. This is the only place we can fly, and this is where the concentration of the gliders is strongest on the correct days. .
Yet I met a 737 and a Tornado in that airspace which indicated, in my opinion , a lack of knowledge of local practices.

As to painting our gliders bright orange, do you really think that will change anything ?
The gliders I fly have wings less that 10 inches thick and the fuselage has a cross-section around 2- 3 feet in diameter, if I am flying towards or away from you the color does not make a difference.
Unfortunately gelcoat ( the coating of the gliders ) does react badly to UV and as white is reflecting most of it, nearly 100 % of modern gliders are white.
Transponders : we are getting into it , but GA mode S transponders ( that will be mandatory in the next 5 years or so depending on which State you are registered ) are not yet available in sufficient numbers to cover demand.
That might solve part, if not most of of the problem, but not the speed one , also TCAS is very poor in azimuth detection and also not everyone has one (Military , GA jets, ) .. In any case it will be years before all gliders are SSR equipped and we have to accomodate each other until then.


Findo : Your databse seems to be excluding mainland europe .. look at the latest report for France or Germany for instance.
In the last 2 years in France there was a collision between a A320 and a glider in Montpellier, and others serious airprox above the alps .

S76 Heavy : Do you thonestly think what you are saying ? I am not claiming any "right to be there ", neither Have I said that I am right and the fast jets are wrong. I am trying to find a way to accomodate each other safely - in a better way.

[av8boy]

Just to try to tighten this up a little...

Let's just assume, for the sake of argument that:

1. A glider, which is properly equipped for the operation under the applicable regulations, is operating in a geographic area and at an altitude where the pilot of that glider has the right to operate;

2. An air carrier aircraft is also operating properly within the applicable regulations in the vicinity of the glider; and,

3. The air carrier must, under the rules, yield right-of-way to the glider.

In the US (yes, I know this wasn't in the US, but speaking conceptually...), the right-of-way rules are expressed in:

§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an aircraft on water.

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.

(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories --

(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;

(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, airplane, or rotorcraft; and

(3) An airship has the right-of-way over an airplane or rotorcraft.


OK. So you're flying a glider and God is on your side. However, God, to my knowledge, has yet to envelope any gliders in a protective cloak in which operations may be undertaken with impunity. I mean, what are you going to say as that 73 bears down on you? "Yeah. I see him. But he can't hit us. It's illegal for him to hit us." Perhaps true, but certainly an impractical approach to fostering aviation safety.

With apologies to Roger Waters, I can imagine that a conversation between the two occupants of the glider, having survived the collision, would go something like this as they fell to their deaths:

"I certainly was in the right!"
"you was definitely in the right. that geezer was cruising for a
Bruising!"

Of course, then they die.

So, guess what? The glider guys are correct: they have every right to do what they do so long as it comports with the rules. Further, the heavier-metal guys are also right: if you're in a glider you've GOT to take-on more responsibility than the regs perhaps demand. However, let's not continue to beat on this as a "conform to the rules" argument, because even a strict adherence to the rules isn't enough in aviation in general. If you're going to work to change the rules, that's fine. However, if we're talking about things AS THEY EXIST, then let's be a little more practical about keeping airframes apart and little less pragmatic when it comes to betting your life on the rules.

Rant over.

Dave

[JW411]

av8boy:

Beautifully put if I may say so and I say so as both a glider pilot and a commercial aviator.

I think ATC Watcher was probably trying to say something similar but rather spoiled it by banging on about Ryanair.

I also sometimes have to operate out of airfields which have limited ATC resources and protection and try to be sensible. For example, I will tell my F/O to avoid flying underneath cumulus clouds on a summers day if at all possible for there are likely to be gliders there.

Likewise charging down the leading edge of a wave bar at 250 knots at altitude anywhere near a gliding site is perhaps not the brightest thing to do.

We really should try to understand one another more and stop relying on arcane laws.

[S76Heavy]

ATC Watcher,

AV8Boy has put the point I tried to make in a much more eloquent way than I could hope to acchieve. I never accused you of making the "I have the right to be there" statement, unfortunately I have had dealings with simpletons who did use it.

I have had a few occasions to test the "see and avoid" principle, and lady luck simply happened to be on our side. Otherwise I would not be typing this. BTW I fly helicopters IFR in Class G airspace (North Sea) and there are precious few gliders out there, but the problems with other traffic (usually non-offshore related) are still very, very real. I have friends in the commuter business who have had close encounters with gliders, though.

So like you I try to find a practical solution instead of waiting for the authorities to take their finger out and legislate. And even then we still have to rely on common sense.

[contact_tower]

With todays radar coverage, I cannot se one sigle reason why any european country should have anything but class D or higher airspace above say FL100. One exception might be over oceans where there are not to much traffic. (offcourse areas with oil installations are except from this) Airports serviceing more then 1 or 2 passenger flights a day should have a class D or higher CTR, AND the CTR need a TMA streching to said FL100.

It's not only me that has this view, but Eurocontrol as well....

And the MIL boys argument that they need mass amounts of class G to fly in is :mad: . They manage quite well in class D and A over here.

As for Gliders, I thought the "sail before steam" applied everywhere, sure does here. (But then we have som peculiar deviations from Doc4444 :\ )

[Pub User]

contact_tower

I am suprised at your opinion. As a military flyer I have been completely unable to contact (or be seen by) anyone at levels around FL070 to FL150 on several occasions in Norway.

Additionally, the thread is discussing machines that are often virtually or actually invisible to radar.

[Mach Buffet]

ATC Watcher

you have every right to be afraid - I slow down to 250 kts from 330 kts at 11,000ft. At 250kts I am often only 30 kts above my minimum clean speed.

You mention bright clear day - I've often encountered gliders coming out of clouds, and operting in far less than 5km visibiity.

The simple fact is that the rules predate both you and me and do not adequately cater for todays environment. It's just like the supertanker and the sailboat. The sailboat has right of way. The supertanker captain is incapable of altering course in a hurry, and probably won't see a small yacht until its too late - if at all. The yatty who asserts his right of way when dealing with a supertanker in on a loser.

Likewise, as a glider pilot the rules might be on your side. Sure they might even etch it on your headstone.

[EastMids]

I think that there's been a degree of arrogance on both sides in this debate. One thing for sure, however. The day an airliner bumps into a glider, the airliner might survive and land but there will be one heck of an ill-informed row about it in the press - gliders getting in the way of airliners and putting hundreds of lives at risk, airlines conducting unsafe operations into small airfields which have no radar... I can see the headlines now.

Following (God forbid) such an incident, the resulting airspace changes will still take many years to implement, and in the intervening period and beyond both gliding and the airlines may each loose much, not least in terms of bad PR, but also possible restrictions on their operations. So, its in each group's interest to look out for the interests of other if we are to avoid such an incident and the fallout that would inevitably happen after it. For example:

To the glider competition organisers who schedule "circuit returns" at the same time as a "an Irish 737 came down in the middle of the pack every evening"... These white, blue and yellow 737s (and other airline's aircraft) tend to move at roughly the same time each day, and the times at which they move are not a secret - its called a timetable. To plan circuit returns at the time a 737 is highly likely to come steaming down the approach is not the smartest of plans whatever the operational issues for the gliding. Likewise, operating in the vicinity of instrument approaches, especially at times when airline movements are expected, is probably a little unwise.

To the 737 driver operating into an airport that is not controlled, and particularly into one where there are likely to be glider operations... Well, whichever way you cut it the glider pilot has as much right to be in the air as you. Whether we like it or not, operating outside of controlled airspace means keep a look out, whatever type of flight we're on. OK, so gliders may be difficult to spot and avoid, but that does not absolve anyone from the responsibility for looking out for them or taking avoiding action should such become necessary (likewise the glider pilot seeing a 737).

The situation may not be ideal, but its what exists and all parties have to live with it right now. The most important immediate consideration is to make the best of what we have (as nothing will change quickly), for all parties to do their best to recognise the issues the other parties face, to act accordingly, and use best endeavours to ensure that an unfortunate accident does not occur.

Andy

[contact_tower]

Pub user:

Not many places have no radar at FL70 anymore (unless the terrain is higher, which it is in places) , and nowhere is the plane of coverage FL150, unless you are well offshore....(Been a few years since your experience perhaps, or are you rather a Jag flyer of a certain Sqn that lauched 3 of 7 pointy thingys with U/S transponder last winter.... :) )

Anyway, no radar is no excuse to have class G, only makes it more interresting for the controller... :E
As for gliders, the reason for not fitting a transponder is all but gone. The new ones are light, and use less power then the radio in most older gliders.

[MayorQuimby]

ATC Watcher:

Most of us are a few hundred feet feet below cloudbase

What you meant to say, of course, was "Most of us are AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND FEET below cloudbase" ;)

[Pax Vobiscum]

Here lies the body of Joshua Gray,
Who died defending his right of way.
He was right as could be as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

Originally written for motorists, but more widely applicable!

[1000k]

I fly MD80 and gliders.

Heavy jet commercial operations should be i controlled airspace.

The solution to the problem in this thread is ***not*** to increase the amount of controlled airspace.

Occassional flights (less than ten flights a day) to smaller airports should not require controlled airspace.

Free airspace is an asset with a value as high as any other natural resource. In the world of today more and more people understand the importance of not vasting natural resources. Using your free time in the nature rates among the highest in peoples opinions about how to spend your life. Flying gliders should be possible with minimal restrictions in airspace.

In Europe most heavy jet commercial operations are at the main airports within class A airspace. Any new class A airspace should have a pricetag for consuming natural resources.

During VMC and gliding season airports with heavy jet commercial operations and no controlled airspace should have narrow and steep approach corridors. These corridors should not be wider than localizer 2 dots (it's VMC!). In azimuth glidepath 2 dots. The glidepath should be joined from ***above*** (it's VMC!).

In such a corridor it should not be allowed to thermal with a glider if a heavy jet is on approach.

Same procedures for heavy jet departures.

All to avoid controlled airspace for airport with a few heavy jet operations every day....

...which is the way it is in Sweden! Gliding is squeezed to death!

[weasil]

What is Class F airspace used for? They don't have it in australia or the USA where I fly.

Weasil

[wellthis]

Well this: As much as I like floating about, for everything we have set rules and conventions to make them run smoothly. Air rules were probably all written right after WW II, when there were few planes and even fewer gliders. In the name of safety, they might be updated to require a glider to have lights and radios (transponder in IFR corridors), and their drivers be familiar with their airspace and IFR DEP/ARR and keep away. You simply can not go gliding anywhere and everywhere to keep it pure and uninterupted, just as you can not go mountain climbing in a city.

It's not that we don't want to keep an eye out, it's just that we know we won't be able to do anything by the time (if at all) we spot a small thin camouflaged glider. Debating about the right of way is irrelevant here. The jet can not be expected to slow to 150 kts with full flaps and gear on a hot 'thermaly' day (worst for performance!), to accomodate a high flying glider. Afterall, the glider is probably just up having fun (and nothing wrong with that), but the jet is probably running a little behind, carrying a few DMIs, if it's the low-cost guys probably 3-4 more sectors to go, and a plane full of people itching to get home. One must keep things in perspective.

Glider don't really need to be that high. The view doesn't change much from 3 to 10000 feet. If stuck in a thermal, they can always sideslip! So please, be safe. Bring a radio, stay lower, and keep a sharp eye.

[maxrpm]

Interesting discussion. Being a glider instructor and an airline pilot I would like to point out a possible missunderstanding in some of the messages above. - This is not a tanker - sailboat situation.
A tanker will run over an unhappy sailer without even noticing. A heavy jet an the contrary will join the fate of his motorfree opponent. Those gliders weight up to 1600ibs. As a 15 ibs bird may damage an airliner without damaging the manufacturer´s reputation, one could say that the risk of an airliner - glider midair is equally shared.

[ATC Watcher]

Thank you all for giving my wife ideas what to write on my tumbstone:ok: but as maxrpm nicely said, it is likely to be valid on yours only.
McBuffet, ease up on the Guiness if you start seeing gliders coming out of clouds in low visibilty :uhoh:
What maxrpm also righly said we are not in a tanker/sailboat situation. I would add that the tanker also does not come from above at 250 Kts.
We are rather in the nuclear sub making an emergency raise / sailboat situation. and we know all too well on how that ends.

But back to the insteresting part of the discussion :

I totally agree that : "debating the right of way is irrelevant "

I fully agree that more Class D everywhere is not the solution , But it is unfortunately exactly the one the authorities are doing , notably in France. Carcassonne and Perpignan are brillant examples. Close the whole thing for 2 a/c a day .
If we bring this discussion in front of the authorities , and bearing in mind what Eastmids said about media coverage if something happens , that is exactly what they will do and we will end up in a "Sweedish "situation as mentionned by 1000 K.

I would think common sense and awareness of one another is probably the best way to go. Unfortunately common sense does not apply to 100% of the players and there will always be someone to remind us that we are not in accordance with the Rules of the air , wether written in 1918 ( the case) or not.

That leaves us with awareness about one another operations and ultimately position.
The position bit is technical ( VHF/ SSR, radar, etc..)
The awareness of each other operations is what we could change, and that what I would like to discuss.

[Mach Buffet]

ATC Watcher,

I have first hand experience of gliders thermalling in cloud from my days in Dunstable and Lasham - albeit many moons ago.

What you may not apprecaite is the relatively poor view from the cockpit of a 737, paticularly over the nose - trying to see below you is nigh on impossible. It's a far dry from the virtually unobstructed all round view through a perspex canopy.

[Arkroyal]

MayorQuimby said:What you meant to say, of course, was "Most of us are AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND FEET below cloudbase"
Why, pray. You assume that the gliders are restricted to VFR flight. They are not, and quite often thermal way inside the clouds providing lift. Personally, I think they are mad, but it is quite legal.

Others here seem to think that the glider pilot is just up there having fun. Many are involved in a very cut-throat sport which rewards the fastest around a set course. They are using navigation kit every bit as advanced as that in the airliner, and dare I say requiring just as much heads in to operate.

Out in the open FIR it is a see and be seen world, but as Mach Buffet says, you ain't gonna get a jet transport much below 250kts, and the view is lousy. In class A airspace they'll be quite legally exceeding 250 below FL100 with ATC permission.

All of which makes comments overheard at a competition recently that the Daventry zone is artificially low, and incursion by way of a 'professional foul' was worth the lost competition points against the near certainty of achieving a final glide solution. Tell that to the 737 driver and his pax descending into BHX.

[Wot No Engines]

Arkroyal,

I would argue that the latest navigational instrumentation has been designed to maximise the time spent NOT looking at it - I want to see what the other 3 gliders within 100m of me are doing - most of what the airliners uses is of no use to me - some of what I use is of no use to the airliner.

The latest kit is driven by GPS, gives moving map displays, thermal analysis, final glide calculations for different speeds - it tells me when to leave the thermal to make the finish in the fastest possible time - and also which airfields are in range if it looks like I won't get home - far safer to land on a real airfield rather than a field.

As to the comments you overheard, if true, the competition director should have been informed. All competition gliders carry a flight logger which records a 3D GPS position and also pressure altitude every few seconds. This can (and should) be used as evidence against a pilot who deliberately infringes controlled airspace and given to the CAA. I have argued this on several occasions.

However, parts of the Daventry zone are relaxed during most competitions, which would encourages some to treat the "relaxed" parts as available all the time - Hanging on to un-needed airspace and then opening it up occasionally is confusing at best - at worst suggests that the lower lever is really a 2000' buffer zone available to be used at will.

All competitions are NOTAMed, and the organisers communicate the set tasks to ATC as soon as they are finalised, however, these are often set very late, mostly due to the unpredictable UK weather - This is so that ATC can advise controlled aircraft that a lot of gliders are likely to be present in certain locations - No idea if this actually happens.

[wellthis]

May I be bold enough to ask for the reference of 'ATC permiting aircraft to exceed 250kts below 10000 feet in class A airspace'? Is it not true that ATC has no authority to give anyone permission to go with the wind so to speak.

As for the other point about gliders cut-throat competition environment, I have to point out that sports or passing fancy, it fades in comparison with granny going for a visit with the grand kids, or even the gliding gentle-folks themselves going somewhere on business or vacation. Keeping things in perspective is all one can hope for.

[S76Heavy]

There has been a collision over Germany between a glider and a Cessna, killing 6..:(

It tragically highlights the fact that there IS a problem mixing gliders and other traffic and we need to find a way to solve it.

[PPRuNe Radar]

May I be bold enough to ask for the reference of 'ATC permiting aircraft to exceed 250kts below 10000 feet in class A airspace'? Is it not true that ATC has no authority to give anyone permission to go with the wind so to speak.

You can find it in the document below (you have to be registered to use the site). Note that for the UK at least there is NO speed limit in classes A, B, or C for the purposes of 'see and be seen' collision avoidance. There may be speed limits in place for procedure design or for traffic management purposes (on SIDs and STARs for example). In all the above classes and also in Class D, UK ATC can relax the speed limit if they desire.

Speed Limits - UK AIC (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4Y291.PDF)

[wellthis]

Thank you for your speedy clarification. I guess the speed rule varies in different countries, but I'm curious if you happen to know if this applies to all of Europe, or just the UK.

Although I believe for slower (VFR) traffic and birds avoidance, traffic management in congested terminals, approach planning, etc. it is wiser to slow down below 250. The time delay is only about a minute or two, but it's much safer.

[contact_tower]

Norway and Sweden gives controllers total freedom in giving "free speed" in CAS. You will not however find gliders in the same airspace in these countries, segregation is praticed as much as possible.

[ATC Watcher]

Let me put my other hat as a Controller : Segregation is the way one way of solving the problem and works in areas on dense IFR , Military or even Dense VFR.

It is totally counterproductive in low to extremely low density areas ( and I put 90% of Norway in that category ). First of all if you classify large portions of airspace class D or higher you need to put ATC staff and equipment to control that aispace. This is far from economically viable everywhere. And if you do so, Route charges and Landing fees are going to go up to match the costs. For an airport with 4 IFR Movements a day, it is a bit overdone .
Then if you overdo it ( like in the North East part of France, Luxemburg, etc.. ) leaving no escapes, you will have the competition fanatics quoted earlier fly through without calling anybody. ( unfortunately they are not that uncomon ...)

Fitting every flying object with a transponder will clutter ATC scopes and will overload systems and controllers . I bet you that as soon as SSRs are mandatory for all the first thing authorities are going to do is filter out all VFR codes !

The TCAS visible argument is a valid one but as said earlier works only for TCAS equipped a/c ; not the military, not the GA jets, etc... + with the speed difference and the concentration of gliders in same thermal area, you are likely to get TAs only... Not much use is you cannot see below ( as mach Buffet interestingly reminded us ) .

I thought that if soaring practices were more advertised to airline and military crews, and if lower speeds could be achieved by those jets in the thermically active layers we could gain in safety. This was especially valid for those airlines ( Irish and others )operating in small airports which have a heavy gliding activity in them or around them .

From the discussion so far I get that each group is likely to stay on its position and rely more on luck that anything else to try to avoid each other. :sad:

P.S 1 : Yes we have in competition gliders very sophisticated equipment but that require little head down, the problem is more when it fails you have to open a map and start calculating.
No we do not get ( willfully ) into clouds anymore.

P.S2 : I see that some of the players carry double hat as airline pilot and glider pilot, , but it would seem that it is a bit like bicycles and cars. When you are cycling you shout at the cars, but as soon as you put your bike in the trunck of your car and start driving you start shouting at those damn bicycles not following the rules !
:E

[Obs cop]

Methinks that we need a bit of co-operation here.

Ultimately if a heavy jet collides with a passenger aircraft we all lose out.

Glider pilots need to realise that the rules of the air won't always keep them alive because they are reliant on the see and be seen principle. In the interests of safety they should avoid situations where they may be likely to come into conflict with commercial traffic. However, the problem here relates to uncontrolled airspace and so surely it makes sense that the notams system could help address this. Gliders can travel some distance from the site, so notamming the site is only the start of it. Airlines operating flights in uncontrolled airspace should be made aware of potentiol conflicts brought out by good wave soaring or thermalling conditions in the vicinity of their flight path. For the glider pilot self preservation must also include being aware of commercial operations taking place in your vicinity.

Airline pilots must appreciate that when they are not in controlled airspace, they must maintain a thorough look-out. Gliders are difficult to spot, but most are painted white because of their glassfibre construction. The white colouring minimises the damage caused to the glass fibre by the UV rays of the sun and so the structure retains its strength and longevity. I dread to think what ATC or TCAS would do if 40 to 50 thermalling gliders equipped with lightweight transponders were in one area with constantly changing headings and altitudes(as can be had at competitions), the headaches just don't bear thinking about! Gliders thermalling may only be doing 45 to 50 knots and their options for collision avoidance are limited. They gain speed at the expense of height so if you are descending towards them they have even fewer options left. I also dread to think what wake turbulance would do in the event of a nearmiss.

With such limited airspace in the UK, segregation is not the way ahead, but more communication about each others activities has to be a step in the right direction.:ok: :E

Anyone know why gliders couldn't be fitted with a battery powered strobe light? Anything is better than nothing surely.

[calypso]

To go back to the Tanker/sailboat comparison. A sailboat enforcing his right of way on the approaches of a busy habour would be foolish, likewise we do not expect a tanker steaming into a little cove. If an operator uses a small uncontrolled airport because it is: cheaper, quicker,etc he must accept the cost of longer/ slower approaches. Likewise if I insist in flying my PA28 into Gatwick I will have to put up with some serious delays.

A viable solution would be an approach corridor from defined airway points into the circuit/ILS with mandatory speeeds. Gliding traffic can then keep out of the way. Competitions can be organized away from the corridors.

To make a different comparison, pedestrians have a right of way in cebra crossings. I duly stop to let them pass, rather than say : "well it is two tons of metal you are against". Some days it is raining, perhaps I am distracted, the visibility is poor... I miss somebody waiting to cross and I don't stop. He/she waits a little longer, comon sense prevails. This doesn't excuse me from my responsability to stop.

I realize that the view is not great over the nose of a 737 (I fly one most days) but minimum clean speed is 210kts or less (NG) The responsability must lie with us if we operate into uncontrolled GA airfields.

[g0kmt]

Looking at both sides of the argument it is pretty clear that what is needed is some means of providing additional 3D situational awareness with sufficient resolution and range to let you see conflicting traffic.

The problem of collision avoidance is not just confined to gliders and heavy metal, but all users of the air from Balloons and airships upwards to heavy metal. There are also the personality issues to overcome of the tanker driver and yachtie type.

We all know the Mk1 eyeball is not perfect, it and the brain also get confused.

I noted a couple of posts mentioning Transponders, and Mode S, whilst these are a start, a basic altitude encoding transponder is realy of any use if the platform is also carrying a radar reflector. Also (from memory because its a couple of years since I was involved in researching collision avoidance) I believe that TCAS azimuth resolution isn't that fantastic. Indeed someone else pointed this out already.

There are really two ways of technically achieving collision avoidance, co-operative and self sensing. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Self sensing -
advantages - You dont need anyone else to tell you they are there, so it matters not if their transponder is U/S or not
disadvantages - costly, heavy, likely to be only fitted to larger platforms

Co-operative -
advantages - proably get em light enough to be of use to all, might be cheep enough to make people think they are worth the money
disadvantages - everyone needs to be in on the game or they are worthless. Legislation needed to get em in use!

Something like ADS-B looks like the sort of way to go, it a co-operative system. The FAA are conducting ADS-B trials in Alaska, Safeflight 2001 I think they are called, which appear to have been progressing well.

As an Avionics Systems Engineer (not a pilot, but would love to be (GA) when I get the weight off ;) ) I can see that there are many many technical issues to overcome.

However one solution might be a device, similar to ADS-B mandated to be fitted to EVERY airborne platform that would be:

* capable of transmitting information such as altitude, position, heading, ground speed and maybe platform type.
* It would also need to be capable of receiving such information in a densly populated airspace such as round Oshkosh it would need to be pretty good at data management too :)
* capable of calculating collision threats for each of the targets it receives
* capable of providing the operator of the platform collision threats probably prioritised,
* Cheap and affordable
* Reliable
* lightweight (Mobile phone sized) for GA use
* If portable have a prolonged battery life

Any technical solution would need to be universally accepted and would really still only be advisary because things will and do fail. I believe that safe separation is a multi layered thing with the Mk1 eyball being its last layer of defence.

The above outline is just my view and does not constitute a design :)

Anyway just my spanner in an already confusing works. Sorry for such a long ramble:)