Midair near Gympie, Qld
I would suggest that FLARM takeup in Australian gliding operations has probably been quite high. We know we have a visibility issue - we're hard to see from some angles, and the very modes of soaring flight involve potentially flying in close proximity to other gliders some of the time. I've looked at a few of the glider instruments panels appearing the Facebook pages for the club whose aircraft and esteemed member were involved in this accident. Those photos show FLARM units - and an up to date VHF radio. None of the photos were of the Astir involved in the accident, but given that for FLARM to be effective it needs to be fitted to all aircraft normally operating in the area, I would almost expect that it was fitted and operational in this aircraft. I can't comment as to whether it was fitted in the RAAA registered aircraft (I would almost expect not) and if it was, most probably we wouldn't be having this conversation. However, that's not altogether the point of raising this here. If the glider has FLARM fitted and operational there should be a record of the flight(s) up to and including the accident. This may be useful in establishing the movements of the glider involved.
Concerning radio reporting - I know my club was and is fastidious about radio reporting (on the CTAF as it happens). A radio check (amongst other essentials) is part of the challenge drill to the pilot by the person hooking on the cable prior to launch. It may be pre-launch policy Australia wide - I don't know (there was a time when I would have). However, even so I once had an aircraft from one of the training concerns operating out of Parafield flash past me about a hundred metres away when we were both still inside the CTAF boundary for our operation - there was no radio call heard by me or others in our network. This discussion could have been about me.
Factually, radios are only useful on avoiding potential conflict if they are used - especially by pilots transiting through a known CTAF location. Having said that, the CTAF frequency where I used to fly was /perhaps still is, so congested with input from over a dozen different aviation operations within radio range that useful or essential information can be doubled on another transmission, or filtered out by the crew in (say) an instructional flight. Working thermals keeps a us fairly busy, and concentration on the 'aviate' part of the equation can sometimes overtake the 'communicate' capabilities - as it perhaps always should, but at a potential cost if the information missed were to be critical. There are no easy answers in some of these issues. We all just have to be aware of the possibilities using eyes firstly, but also such other means as are available to keep it safe and avoid sad events such as this one. We can learn from this.
Concerning radio reporting - I know my club was and is fastidious about radio reporting (on the CTAF as it happens). A radio check (amongst other essentials) is part of the challenge drill to the pilot by the person hooking on the cable prior to launch. It may be pre-launch policy Australia wide - I don't know (there was a time when I would have). However, even so I once had an aircraft from one of the training concerns operating out of Parafield flash past me about a hundred metres away when we were both still inside the CTAF boundary for our operation - there was no radio call heard by me or others in our network. This discussion could have been about me.
Factually, radios are only useful on avoiding potential conflict if they are used - especially by pilots transiting through a known CTAF location. Having said that, the CTAF frequency where I used to fly was /perhaps still is, so congested with input from over a dozen different aviation operations within radio range that useful or essential information can be doubled on another transmission, or filtered out by the crew in (say) an instructional flight. Working thermals keeps a us fairly busy, and concentration on the 'aviate' part of the equation can sometimes overtake the 'communicate' capabilities - as it perhaps always should, but at a potential cost if the information missed were to be critical. There are no easy answers in some of these issues. We all just have to be aware of the possibilities using eyes firstly, but also such other means as are available to keep it safe and avoid sad events such as this one. We can learn from this.
How do we know that the two pilots weren’t aware of each other ? Were there a medical issue that caused one aircraft to suddenly veer into the other ?
There is a media report of the aircraft falling out of cloud. Perhaps one aircraft had lost control and spun down onto the other aircraft… looking out the window won’t help there.
I’d posit that in aviation ‘learning’ comes via researched and verified information.
I’d posit that in aviation ‘learning’ comes via researched and verified information.
Input from a glider pilot of 45 years experience was offered in the spirit that is PPRuNe speculation and discussion without necessarily implying any specific circumstances surrounding this event.
Transiting Benalla a few weeks ago I got my first response in Two years from a glider from my standard “ten mile” call. From the tone I think it was an instructor and he warned that they were circling over the town- not much thermal activity elsewhere. He was near my altitude and even knowing roughly where to look, I couldn’t see him. So much for see and avoid.
‘’I don’t understand why it isn’t mandatory today for gliders to have either a radio and effing use the bloody thing or fit ADSB (sky echo?). They seem to have battery capacity for variometers, etc and ten AH of lithium battery doesn’t weigh that much and takes up about the space of a small lunchbox.
‘’I looked at fitting FLARM myself instead of ADSB but it’s cost is prohibitive and it’s alien technology for powered aircraft.
‘’I don’t understand why it isn’t mandatory today for gliders to have either a radio and effing use the bloody thing or fit ADSB (sky echo?). They seem to have battery capacity for variometers, etc and ten AH of lithium battery doesn’t weigh that much and takes up about the space of a small lunchbox.
‘’I looked at fitting FLARM myself instead of ADSB but it’s cost is prohibitive and it’s alien technology for powered aircraft.
Never mind the rocket science stuff. Was it a collision between the Astir and a towplane or a passing aircraft?
In the context of a general discussion about the practicalities of operating in airspace where there are NO calls MANDATED by reference to SPECIFIC distances from or SPECIFIC heights/altitudes above aerodromes in G (apart from the BA and AFIZ humps on the camel), I am intrigued at this earlier comment:
Can you walk me through the distance and altitude parameters that would ‘trigger’ the automatic change from e.g. Area to CTAF? The mention of altitude indicates that distance alone (e.g. 10nm) is not enough. That makes sense (at least to me) and that’s why I usually don’t monitor the CTAF of an aerodrome I’m overflying at an altitude of 9,500’. But perhaps I’m a dangerous loose cannon.
So what would the altitude parameter be? And, more importantly, shouldn’t the parameter be height above aerodrome level?
(Of course, although my question is prompted by the comment that the frequency change could be triggered automatically, these distance and altitude/height decisions are currently being made by individual pilots on the basis of their individual judgments, then (hopefully) implemented manually accordingly.)
With the digital control of most radios and all of the electronic flight bags everybody is using, your radio should automatically change to the correct frequency based on your geographical location and altitude.
So what would the altitude parameter be? And, more importantly, shouldn’t the parameter be height above aerodrome level?
(Of course, although my question is prompted by the comment that the frequency change could be triggered automatically, these distance and altitude/height decisions are currently being made by individual pilots on the basis of their individual judgments, then (hopefully) implemented manually accordingly.)
From the Gympie refueller:
- The collision involved a glider and an ultralight.
- Prior to the collision, the glider pilot was heard to make (in quick succession) three separate radio calls stating his position and that he was thermalling.
- No radio calls were heard from the ultralight pilot.
- The ultralight was observed (from the ground) to be maneuvering erratically.
- The collision involved a glider and an ultralight.
- Prior to the collision, the glider pilot was heard to make (in quick succession) three separate radio calls stating his position and that he was thermalling.
- No radio calls were heard from the ultralight pilot.
- The ultralight was observed (from the ground) to be maneuvering erratically.
I am of the belief that the discussion on radio use here has missed the point. Once upon a time we had a Flight Radio Licence and with training to match and the then DCA/CAA took an interest and provided some standardisation in the training and standards. Of course that Licence, or was it a certificate(?) does not exist these days for reasons that seem to have been lost in history. CASA do not appear to provide any oversight or standardisation on radio procedures etc., and the result is that we now have different flying schools teaching radio procedures differently. I know one airfield where there are two flying schools that teach for example circuit procedures and radio calls differently. What hope do we have unless CASA start to provide some oversight and address standardisation. Part of the problem now is that the CASA flying inspectors (or whatever they are called now) have themselves many different ideas on how it should be done. (Due lack of experience perhaps?) Best CASA sort themselves out first…… until that happens we will not see any change.
Even the CAsA videos get it wrong! Pedantic I know, but it's "Bathurst Traffic ... blah ... blah ... blah ... Bathurst" not "Bathurst Traffic ... blah ... blah ... blah ... Bathurst Traffic".
The broadcast is actually supposed to start with “Traffic”, then the location. The word “traffic” is supposed to alert people on frequency to ‘listen up’ for the next and most important word: The location by reference to which the rest of the broadcast information relates.
A CASA education person said that at a seminar. Makes sense to me. Whether her opinion is shared by others in CASA is another question.
A CASA education person said that at a seminar. Makes sense to me. Whether her opinion is shared by others in CASA is another question.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
The broadcast is actually supposed to start with “Traffic”, then the location.
Ideological blockheads insisted we change to the Yank system, and that is why we flipped the "All Sations [place]" for CTAF calls. When broadcasting on Area, I always called just that; "All Stations XXX" for the reason you stated.
Never has been? Are you sure? Really sure?
In any event, I quoted what the start of the broadcast “should be” according to what a CASA person said at a CASA safety seminar. Thank heavens there’s no scope for confusion, otherwise there would be differing and confusing practises in reality. That could be a safety issue.
In any event, I quoted what the start of the broadcast “should be” according to what a CASA person said at a CASA safety seminar. Thank heavens there’s no scope for confusion, otherwise there would be differing and confusing practises in reality. That could be a safety issue.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
So what would the altitude parameter be? And, more importantly, shouldn’t the parameter be height above aerodrome level?
Originally Posted by AIP 10.1.10
Except where the use of a gliding frequency is operationally
necessary, it is recommended that gliders operating above
5,000FT in Class G airspace monitor the Area VHF
necessary, it is recommended that gliders operating above
5,000FT in Class G airspace monitor the Area VHF
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
The broadcast is actually supposed to start with “Traffic”, then the location.
The broadcast is actually supposed to start with “Traffic”, then the location.
Not it's not and never has been (under the NAS). ENR 1.1 para 9.1.13 refers.
Originally Posted by AIP 10.1.15
The standard broadcast format is:
a. {Location} Traffic
b. {Aircraft type}
c. {Callsign}
d. {Position/level/intentions}
e. {Location}
a. {Location} Traffic
b. {Aircraft type}
c. {Callsign}
d. {Position/level/intentions}
e. {Location}
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
When broadcasting on Area, I always called just that; "All Stations XXX" for the reason you stated.
Originally Posted by AIP 11.3
11.3 Radio Telephony Requirements Outside Controlled
Airspace
...
11.3.4 Use of the collective “ALL STATIONS” must precede a general
information broadcast.
Airspace
...
11.3.4 Use of the collective “ALL STATIONS” must precede a general
information broadcast.
With gliders it seems it's not so much the lack of radio use ..more the fact that they're very likely to randomly change direction, at high speed and with a seemingly unbelievable turn radius, whilst looking for the next thermal instead of looking out for other aircraft around them. How gliders, hang-gliders and that ilk don't have more mid-airs is beyond me.
Generally speaking what I believe keeps the collision rate down in gliding is that there is still much emphasis on head out, looking. The use of fancy electronics such as Oudies, fancy GPS mapping outputs etc has eroded this, but the emphasis remains - with variometers, Flarm and other devices using audio signals, to allow the pilot to keep head out more. Sadly it occasionally fails, and visiting or more commonly transiting power aircraft tend to add and additional layer of risk, often being unaware of sailplanes , which are hard to spot when airborne - the common all white colours don't help !
Yes I know this is somewhat irrelevant but holy crap it’s bad:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...s-over-dallas/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...s-over-dallas/
Transiting Benalla a few weeks ago I got my first response in Two years from a glider from my standard “ten mile” call. From the tone I think it was an instructor and he warned that they were circling over the town- not much thermal activity elsewhere. He was near my altitude and even knowing roughly where to look, I couldn’t see him. So much for see and avoid.
‘’I don’t understand why it isn’t mandatory today for gliders to have either a radio and effing use the bloody thing or fit ADSB (sky echo?). They seem to have battery capacity for variometers, etc and ten AH of lithium battery doesn’t weigh that much and takes up about the space of a small lunchbox.
‘’I looked at fitting FLARM myself instead of ADSB but it’s cost is prohibitive and it’s alien technology for powered aircraft.
‘’I don’t understand why it isn’t mandatory today for gliders to have either a radio and effing use the bloody thing or fit ADSB (sky echo?). They seem to have battery capacity for variometers, etc and ten AH of lithium battery doesn’t weigh that much and takes up about the space of a small lunchbox.
‘’I looked at fitting FLARM myself instead of ADSB but it’s cost is prohibitive and it’s alien technology for powered aircraft.
With gliders it seems it's not so much the lack of radio use ..more the fact that they're very likely to randomly change direction, at high speed and with a seemingly unbelievable turn radius, whilst looking for the next thermal instead of looking out for other aircraft around them. How gliders, hang-gliders and that ilk don't have more mid-airs is beyond me.
I think it’s worth quoting a few more of the ENR paras, one of which Checkboard quoted:
9.1.7 is yet another idea on the spectrum of ideas about the ‘appropriate’ frequency to be used at uncharted aerodromes. Remember when the debate raged about whether it should be 126.7 or Area? So now the answer from the brains trust seems to be: You pick!
More importantly, so far as my question about the altitude/height parameter to ‘trigger’ the ‘vicinity’ change to CTAF is concerned, I note the quoted bits use (apparently) altitude for the requirement for gliders to monitor Area - above 5,000’ - but height for the general provision about ‘vicinity’.
Is an aircraft overflying YCOM west to east at 5,500’ supposed to switch to and broadcast ‘overflying’ on, then monitor, YCOM CTAF at or before 10nms onwards? I would have thought yes, because the aircraft will overly YCOM at a height of only 2,400’. But the gliders at 5,500’ within 10nms of YCOM are on Area.
So: What is the “height above the aerodrome that could result in conflict with operations at the aerodrome”? Isn’t it axiomatic that if we all have different answers to that question, there’s a ‘safety’ issue?
And it’s why I’m still interested in understanding what parameters a gizmo would use to do the frequency change automatically.
9.1.7 In the vicinity of uncharted aerodromes, pilots have discretion to use the most appropriate frequency that ensures safe operation. This may be 126.7MHz. However, pilots should be aware that transiting aircraft will be monitoring Area VHF. To ensure mutual traffic awareness, it is recommended that pilots using an alternative frequency also monitor Area VHF.
9.1.8 It is required (unless operating in accordance with procedures in the Part 103 MOS) that gliders operating above 5,000FT in Class G airspace monitor the Area VHF.
9.1.9 An aircraft is considered in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome if it is within 10NM of the aerodrome and at a height above the aerodrome that could result in conflict with operations at the aerodrome.
9.1.8 It is required (unless operating in accordance with procedures in the Part 103 MOS) that gliders operating above 5,000FT in Class G airspace monitor the Area VHF.
9.1.9 An aircraft is considered in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome if it is within 10NM of the aerodrome and at a height above the aerodrome that could result in conflict with operations at the aerodrome.
More importantly, so far as my question about the altitude/height parameter to ‘trigger’ the ‘vicinity’ change to CTAF is concerned, I note the quoted bits use (apparently) altitude for the requirement for gliders to monitor Area - above 5,000’ - but height for the general provision about ‘vicinity’.
Is an aircraft overflying YCOM west to east at 5,500’ supposed to switch to and broadcast ‘overflying’ on, then monitor, YCOM CTAF at or before 10nms onwards? I would have thought yes, because the aircraft will overly YCOM at a height of only 2,400’. But the gliders at 5,500’ within 10nms of YCOM are on Area.
So: What is the “height above the aerodrome that could result in conflict with operations at the aerodrome”? Isn’t it axiomatic that if we all have different answers to that question, there’s a ‘safety’ issue?
And it’s why I’m still interested in understanding what parameters a gizmo would use to do the frequency change automatically.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 12th Nov 2022 at 22:36.
My understanding is that Gympie have introduced landing fees. And they have a receiver to record all transmissions on the CTAF in order for someone to generate invoices for landing aircraft.
Thus, there will be a record of any transmissions or conversation between the glider and the LSA. Hopefully a report will come out which doesn’t provide a simplistic knee jerk recommendation.
Glider pilots are trained from day one to look before turning. Their biggest mid air risk are fellow gliders of differing performance sharing the same thermal. Thus looking out, truly is second nature for them.
As I stated before both pilots were 80 and 77 respectively, at the risk of being ageist, I suspect that may have very slightly tipped the odds against them. But, still you have to be really unlucky to crash into another aircraft when both are being navigated randomly in 3D. Randomly being the key word.
Thus, there will be a record of any transmissions or conversation between the glider and the LSA. Hopefully a report will come out which doesn’t provide a simplistic knee jerk recommendation.
Glider pilots are trained from day one to look before turning. Their biggest mid air risk are fellow gliders of differing performance sharing the same thermal. Thus looking out, truly is second nature for them.
As I stated before both pilots were 80 and 77 respectively, at the risk of being ageist, I suspect that may have very slightly tipped the odds against them. But, still you have to be really unlucky to crash into another aircraft when both are being navigated randomly in 3D. Randomly being the key word.