Airliners mixing it with gliders and puddle-jumpers?
 

I've just been reading an old, closed, thread "LTN arrivals" and wonder about some of the arrivals which seem to have started flying at lower alts over Cambridgeshire, below the controlled airspace with base 5,500ft msl.

I noticed a twin-jet flying southwest over Gransden Lodge when I was flying near there in Nov 09. It was at 4,000ft (level with me) and overhead an active glider site. A few days later I was on the ground at that airfield and a similar flight occurred. Recently [I was on the ground in my garden and] noticed something similar and complained to Luton, who told me that it was an Easyjet positioning flight. It was 10 Apr and I reckon LTN were on 08 that day.

This increase in activity bothers me because it is over where I live, but more to the point it seems less than sensible for airliners to be mixing it with gliders who are all but invisible to the eye and radar. Why are they not above 5,500ft and in the controlled airspace?

Why? surely they have the same right as you in be in Class G airspace.

The jet could have been on it's way back from an air test to the north or out of Cambridge. The a/c can't simply join controlled airspace at any level due to other traffic that may already be there.

It may have been more expeditious for the jet to join Luton at 4A so as not to get in the mix of Essex traffic.

The default clearance for aircraft coming out of Cambridge that want to join controlled airspace to the south is to fly towards Barkway at 2.4A and contact Essex Radar. Essex will then when able give that aircraft further climb and routing in instructions when it's safe to do so.

Just look at the likes of Newcastle 40% of the IFR inbounds route through class G airspace mixing it with fast jets not so fast jets, gliders, light aircraft, micro lights, hang gliders etc etc. With only one linking airway from the South West what else can they do!

Class G Airspace and rights
 

I don't dispute that; I complained about an airliner going over my house at 4,000ft, not about the one in the same Class G airspace as me.

I don't think you can have read my post: it was an Easyjet positioning flight that flew over my house. That doesn't sound like an air test.

Thanks for the explanation, anyway.

This monitoring on my part came as a result of the flawed and aborted NATS consultation last year (or was it the year before). The argument was started among non-aviation types in the area about the base of the holds for STN and LTN, whereas my assertion has always been that the base altitude is immaterial: the aircraft will drop out of any stack when it can and make its way towards the approach at whatever altitude the captain decides with ATC. It's the general practice that we, the public, need to consider, not the holds and their altitudes.

GAT, gliders and airliners in Class G airspace
 

Thanks for that information. But my question is, is it sensible or good airmanship to mix it with light aircraft and gliders? How is separation from gliders maintained?

positioning from where? in which area do you live?

The captain does not decide what level they leave the stack at. The approach controller manages the stacks, gives vectors from the stacks and descends the aircraft. Normally the aircraft will leave the stack at min stack level, FL70 or 80 normally (depending on the QNH)

The changes they wanted to make would have decreased the noise heard for many people, kept the aircraft higher for longer and decreased the area in which the aircraft were flying. It would have also given a separate stack for Luton inbounds and therefore keeping them higher for longer instead of being restricted to 5A flying E to W over Duxford/Fowlmere/Royston area which happens now.

You don't, it non-controlled airspace

<<the aircraft will drop out of any stack when it can and make its way towards the approach at whatever altitude the captain decides with ATC. >>

The writer of this gem is, apparently, a QFI. I am surprised at his lack of knowledge.

The irony of an ex-mil FJ pilot complaining about noise and seemingly also unaware of the "see and avoid" principle in Class G airspace is not lost on me! :rolleyes:

BugOutWest, for someone who has if your profile is to be believed spent their life in aviation, a lot of it at my expense as I'm a tax payer, I find this to be NIMBYism at its worst.

When you were blatting about yourself making lots of noise in FJs, did you ever spare a thought for the folk you were making noise over? A modern airliner must be much quieter than a 1980s vintage mil jet.

Holds etc ...
 

Well, I suppose that's why I'm airing my ideas here. I don't know much about controlled airspace, except when I have been forced to use it -- very rarely. That's what the RVCs are for.

And how the rules are laid out and how operators operate are sometimes subtly different.

For instance, I know that I may fly at 2,000ft over an ATZ, or 3,000ft over a MATZ, but to do so without talking to ATC would be poor airmanship and perhaps more than a little dangerous.

So, my point is, that it's just as risky and lacking in airmanship for a large aircraft to fly over a glider site at or just above the top of the launch envelope without knowing where the gliders are flying.

How do you know the pilots hadn't briefed themselves on their route and knew what they were overflying. Was the Easyjet in contact with ATC? Did ATC pass this local information to the pilot?

It sounds like you are presuming that this Easyjet a/c was bumbling around class G on it's way to Luton, and not talking to anyone.

FJ and past noise
 

I'm not immune to a bit of irony, but the tables are most definitely turned, now, spekesoftly :-) (haven't got the hang of putting the emoticons in the text). There are far fewer FJ mates around now, and they practise more at medium level. And yes, I have had the odd airprox when my lookout was poor (in my younger days), but that was just me and my nav (sometimes) and a puddle-jumper. I'm concerned at the proximity of a large, relatively unmanoeuvrable ac to small, almost invisible gliders.

Of course a FJ is noisier, especially one of the ones I flew (it was limited to 450kts at 250ft over land as a result). Of course I spared thoughts for those underneath me, but it was my job and I avoided built-up areas at low level. And in those days, the sound of freedom was enough justification ...

But I live nowhere near an airport, military or civilian so noise from an increasing intensity of airline traffic is of course a concern, especially when I don't believe in allowing the UK to become more of a hub for the rest of Europe.

But that's not my argument: I am an aviator, and as such I believe that the practice of mixing airliners with small GAT or gliders (which, as I said, are nearly invisible) is more risky than necessary. My complaints about noise are minor (a twin-jet at 4,300ft is pretty quiet -- not as noisy as the aerobatter nearby, for instance).

Stacks and NATS consultation
 

That is information that I didn't have, that the min level is the min leaving altitude/FL; thanks Vortex issues.

And your points about the NATS consultation makes me believe that NATS should have had you on their PR team, explaining what and how would happen with the new holds for Luton and Stansted. The noise envelope graphics they used were obscure to a great proportion of Joe Public and some of the assumptions/facts that they used were incorrect.

But, we shall see how it goes next time.

It would be good to meet some of you chaps over a beer to discuss it, but this information has been most useful, thanks.

BugOutWest,

All the control for the traffic you're talking about is done down at Swanwick.

With your QFI hat on get in touch with the folk down there and bring yourself and some of your studes down for a visit, you'd be very welcome I'm sure.

Good plan!
 

Excellent idea, Roffa. Thanks

Bug out west a fj QFI? My a**e (arse). :O

I'm not! :}

Gliders - Radar - In my 28 years of experience a primary radar will show gliders up very well!

Primary returns?
 

OK, now I feel a prat (ignoring BtB and Grabbers). So a controller will be able to deconflict gliders from other aircraft under normal circumstances?

I must admit that I thought that plastic structures would do a good job of transparency to radar waves.

You would be hard pressed to find a controller giving a Deconfliction service in an area of high activity. They may at best get a Traffic Service and told where there the gliders are ie.

"Big Jet 123, area of high intensity gliding in your 12 o'clock, 5 miles, keep a good look out" :E

Deconfliction
 

Thanks Vortex issues, that's all I need.

I'd be cautious in generalising about how well gliders show on primary radar. My experience suggests that some gliders are detected on some types of primary radar.

Primary radar
 

Sounds like BoW has a point. It's not a great place for airliners to be, in among the plastic aircraft.

Bugoutwest is right to be concerned about CAT flying outside CAS, in a busy part of the country, at levels used by light aircraft (including gliders). If CAS is available it should be used. Flying over a busy gliding site or aerodrome at these sort of altitudes and speeds, in an unmanoeverable jet is pretty poor airmanship. Airline pilots will not be keeping a good lookout and they are unlikely to be supplied with a deconfliction service (particularly in an area of high traffic density). Gliders do not always show on primary radar and when they do, are often mistaken as clutter or simply ignored by ATCOs. Some of the comments in reply to Bugout (while probably technically correct) show naivety and a lack of appreciation.

I don't think many CAT pilots would do it out of choice.

Ops tells you to shift an airframe the IFR flight plan gets submitted a couple of hours slot comes up on it due to flow restriction in an area sector. The aircraft is required 30 mins ago to be somewhere. Crew get told to take it VFR. Its legal so you have to do it or risk having a no tea and biscuits or possibly worse.

Until the ANO is changed so its not legal, it will continue to happen whatever the opinion of pilots or ATCO's.

Could I suggest that the mixing of operations may not necessarily be the problem? I learnt to fly in an environment where many different types of aircraft were mixed with many other types. Uncontrolled airspace almost did not exist - but the freedom of VFR flying was still preserved away from terminal areas.

If the glider and airline are both in receipt of a suitable ATC service, could adaquate separation be performed? The fact that the glider is nearly always invisible on radar may be a problem if the glider issues inaccurate position reports? Or is the fitting of a mode-C/S transponder feasible?

Glider kit
 

I suspect that many gliders don't have radios, let alone transponders: weight is a major consideration as well as cost.

I've flown in Florida as well, fuzzy, and I know that you mean about the many different types, but there are 2 differences, I reckon: most light aircraft get a traffic or deconfliction service (from what I used to hear on the radio with Jacksonville Centre) and all military are flying IFR, even at low level, unless they're in the range or the manoeuvring areas (TMAs).

Tcu:Two days gone and no ATCO responses to that? - c'mon guys!
NS

> Two days gone and no ATCO responses to that?

No €€€. No incentive. No talk. :}

Well, I'm an ex-controller....and bored for a few minutes - will I do?

I spent many years working traffic in a mixed airspace environment (inside and outside CAS, and a variety of different classes) with areas which respectively attracted mil and GA aircraft and gliders. What the controller sees on radar depends on the type of radar and the aircraft characteristics.

One primary radar that I used was excellent at displaying gliders - and anyone with the right knowledge and training could easily be pretty sure they were looking at a glider rather than clutter (just as they could recognise angels, anaprop and other common radar artefacts). And no-one I know ignored the targets that were displayed - they may not have provided a service in an area where there were multiple targets, but they did not ignore them.

This particular radar was not heavily processed and so all of these things could be seen on the display. However, other processing systems typically used today are designed to filter out anything that isn't deemed to be a 'proper' (and I mean no disrespect to pilots who fly things that might not fall into this category) aircraft.

With heavily processed primary,gliders could be partially visible to completely gone depending on the RAG map setting.When they are visible then thermalling gliders look like a windfarm.Single gliders can be mistaken for spurious because the of the low speed and intermittent returns.Some high performance ones like the ASH25 can show,where as the old K8 no chance.
I didn't ignore them.Just vectored the pilot around what I could see,or downgraded the service.If VFRs wanted to overfly the gliding site,then here's their frequency,and the pilot can talk to them.Class G :hmm:

Easyjet (and other airlines) frequently operate crew-only positioning flights into Lasham airfield for maintenance, this being the busiest gliding site in the country. Sometimes they do a visual approach, mostly it's an SRA, but except when Farnborough is closed ie roughly 10pm - 7am weekdays or 8pm - 8am weekends, they are operating under at least traffic service. If the operators and their insurance companies are happy with this, then BugOutWest should accept it's not an unusual or dangerous situation.

Little aircraft should be kept well away from big ones.

Don't let those pesky B737 or A320s anywhere near an A380. They should have separate airfields and separate zones and only the little ones (B737 and A320) should be allowed to fly over peoples back gardens.

:)

Co-operation
 

That sounds like a good bit of co-operation, chevvron.

I should be surprised if that happens around my neck of the woods, though.

seems to be related to the Protocol thread

Atlantic Airlines mixing it with gliders etc ...
 

Hmmm, since my last post I have discovered radarvirtuel.com. From this I managed to find the flight parameters of an Atlantic Airlines B733 (?) flying on an easterly heading over Gransden glider site at between 2,500 and 3,000ft at around 1632Z today.

I wasn't there at the time, but I saw the aircraft from my garden. It was too far away to be a nuisance, of course, but I was extremely concerned at the aircraft's height -- particularly since my son was gliding at that airfield only a few hours earlier.

Again, flying an airliner in open airspace in the vicinity of gliders which are virtually invisible to radar, and which are very difficult to pick up visually is for me extremely poor airmanship.

Any dissenters?

BoW

What exactly do you expect us to do about it Bug?

Current climate of jobs and ops asked me to do it. I would give the choice of doing it or looking for another job along with the othr 1-2k pilots out of work in the UK a good thinking about for all of half a second then agree to do it.

There are quiet a few place round the UK where airliners mix with GA and gliders in Class G. In fact if you wanted to ban it you would cut off the whole of the North and West of Scotland.

Its the company's you will have to speak to/ or make life difficult (through your MP maybe) to get any changes. ATCO's can't stop the practise and for every pilot that refuses to do it there are another 3 who would be quite happy to operate to get a job.

Don't worry, chevvers, they get a Traffic Service when Farnborough is closed..... ;)

If the comment above is accurate then the airliner pilots involved are very brave. Gransden Lodge is a notified cable launch site to 3,000' above surface (250').

Snapshot of the RadarVirtuel picture
 

Well, I've grabbed a snapshot of the Atlantic Airlines track off RadarVirtuel website. Jim59. I'm not sure that it's going to work as a link.

I'm not sure that "brave" is a good way to describe this sort of flight path. He/she might have considered it safe because it was late on a Saturday afternoon. Perhaps Stansted had ascertained that gliding had finished for the day, but I really don't think that an airliner should be there.

BoW

Picasa Web Albums - cmacdb - Airliner tracks