Dangerous Gliders (again)
Radar reflectors do work, but the device G described is an orthogonal reflector and not a Luneberg lens.
In a previous existence I ran a place that tested and measured radar cross section (RCS) and as a service to small boat owners conducted a whole series of measurements on various types of radar reflector. This was published in Practical Boat Owner magazine a few years ago, over about three issues.
Overall, a simple, adequately large, orthogonal corner reflector works as well as, and often better than, any of the expensive devices. The only merit that the luneberg lens posesses is that it gives an accurate radar cross section, making it useful as a calibration aid. Compared with a simple corner reflector it is heavy, expensive and gives virtually no real advantage in RCS.
Making a lightweight corner reflector is easy. Just get some 1" thick expanded polystyrene insulation sheet (styrofoam for our colonial cousins) and cut out three squares, as big as you can fit into the space you have available (big is good!). Cut slots from a corner to the centre of each square and very carefully glue them together so that the internal corners are exactly at 90 deg (this is important for best performance). When the glue has gone off, carefully glue aluminium cooking foil (aluminum for our friends over the pond) as smoothly as you can to the inside of every internal corner.
The result will be a very effective reflector that will be extremely light in weight. For best results, mount it so that one open face points upwards at normal flying attitude, rather than having it with one point up.
Take a look at pictures of the alloy corner reflectors in adverts to see how the thing should go together (a google search should hopefully show some pictures somewhere).
In a previous existence I ran a place that tested and measured radar cross section (RCS) and as a service to small boat owners conducted a whole series of measurements on various types of radar reflector. This was published in Practical Boat Owner magazine a few years ago, over about three issues.
Overall, a simple, adequately large, orthogonal corner reflector works as well as, and often better than, any of the expensive devices. The only merit that the luneberg lens posesses is that it gives an accurate radar cross section, making it useful as a calibration aid. Compared with a simple corner reflector it is heavy, expensive and gives virtually no real advantage in RCS.
Making a lightweight corner reflector is easy. Just get some 1" thick expanded polystyrene insulation sheet (styrofoam for our colonial cousins) and cut out three squares, as big as you can fit into the space you have available (big is good!). Cut slots from a corner to the centre of each square and very carefully glue them together so that the internal corners are exactly at 90 deg (this is important for best performance). When the glue has gone off, carefully glue aluminium cooking foil (aluminum for our friends over the pond) as smoothly as you can to the inside of every internal corner.
The result will be a very effective reflector that will be extremely light in weight. For best results, mount it so that one open face points upwards at normal flying attitude, rather than having it with one point up.
Take a look at pictures of the alloy corner reflectors in adverts to see how the thing should go together (a google search should hopefully show some pictures somewhere).
When Sir Humphrey Davey developed a process for extracting a new lightweight metal, he called it "Aluminum", he was then overriden by the Royal Society who re-named it "Aluminium". So the Americans and Canadians have it right, and we Brits have been inconsistent.
G
G
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Genghis,
I'm glad to hear that most of the time glider pilots display superb airmanship and are given a friendly welcome. That being the case, I see little point in worrying about, or commenting upon, the rare exceptions (that prove the rule). In my experience, there are, and always will be, a few 'bad apples' in any activity or endeavour.
It's also great to hear that you've flown gliders. I infer that you haven't done much cross-country soaring, though; would that be accurate?
I do hope that any minor incidents will be accepted as the exceptional cases they are, and that the UK, with its magnificent gliding tradition (cf. Philip Wills, Ann Welch, Derek Piggott, et al.) will remain as hospitable as possible for future generations of soaring pilots.
I'm glad to hear that most of the time glider pilots display superb airmanship and are given a friendly welcome. That being the case, I see little point in worrying about, or commenting upon, the rare exceptions (that prove the rule). In my experience, there are, and always will be, a few 'bad apples' in any activity or endeavour.
It's also great to hear that you've flown gliders. I infer that you haven't done much cross-country soaring, though; would that be accurate?
I do hope that any minor incidents will be accepted as the exceptional cases they are, and that the UK, with its magnificent gliding tradition (cf. Philip Wills, Ann Welch, Derek Piggott, et al.) will remain as hospitable as possible for future generations of soaring pilots.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Abingdon, Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis.
Strongly object to your comment about gliders being less well maintained than powered a/c. I work on the licensed side (I do not have a license),and play with gliders. PFA aircraft and microlights do not necessarily use 'certified' parts. Are they dangerous too?
Most glider pilots will sense 'something wrong' with the aircraft long before a power pilot would. With all that noise and vibration he wouldn't notice the tail fall off until the stick went slack. Most glider owners are seeking perfection in all directions with their aircraft and I suspect you will find the MAJORITY of gliders better maintained than the powered sort. I also suspect that the average glider pilot will be much more familiar with the workings of his machine than the power pilot.
Mike W
Strongly object to your comment about gliders being less well maintained than powered a/c. I work on the licensed side (I do not have a license),and play with gliders. PFA aircraft and microlights do not necessarily use 'certified' parts. Are they dangerous too?
Most glider pilots will sense 'something wrong' with the aircraft long before a power pilot would. With all that noise and vibration he wouldn't notice the tail fall off until the stick went slack. Most glider owners are seeking perfection in all directions with their aircraft and I suspect you will find the MAJORITY of gliders better maintained than the powered sort. I also suspect that the average glider pilot will be much more familiar with the workings of his machine than the power pilot.
Mike W
Gliders and permit aircraft are not considered in-law to be as safe as certified aeroplanes; they aren't subject to the many and expensive restrictions upon certified GA - although by comparison with many activities all are extremely safe - the BGA regime is a good sound one, but based upon the minimum acceptable safety standards for private aviation - not the public transport standards imposed upon much of GA. The same is true of the PFA and BMAA - again superb organisations ensuring safe flying, but not working to PT standards and would be absurd to suggest that they either do, or should.
Incidentally I don't particularly agree that it's the lack of engine noise that means glider pilots are more likely to spot a fault than a powered pilot. Most glider pilots are far better stick and rudder aviators than your average spamcan driver and much more tuned to their aircraft. I'd expect a PPL or CPL flying 100+ hours per year to show the same sensitivity.
MLS - I've landed at a great many strips and gliding sites in the UK, Europe and US, where I have aways taken pains to understand and fit in with their local procedures on each occasion. I only suggest that glider pilots exercise the same sense and courtesy when away from their own local gliding sites, whilst making sure that other aviators are aware of the location of the intensive sites - it's not exactly a great deal to ask is it?
Incidentally, the late great Ann Welch was a good friend of mine, and until the day she died (or at least about a fortnight before when I last spoke with her) did not stop banging on about the importance of good airmanship and educating all pilots in best practice - and she was capable of being extremely critical (quite regularly in fact, there are a couple of people at CAA who still cringe when you mention her name
). This was not incompatible with her welcoming nature and belief that all varieties of private aviation should be encouraged. I'm not in her league, but hope to take the same tack.
G
Incidentally I don't particularly agree that it's the lack of engine noise that means glider pilots are more likely to spot a fault than a powered pilot. Most glider pilots are far better stick and rudder aviators than your average spamcan driver and much more tuned to their aircraft. I'd expect a PPL or CPL flying 100+ hours per year to show the same sensitivity.
MLS - I've landed at a great many strips and gliding sites in the UK, Europe and US, where I have aways taken pains to understand and fit in with their local procedures on each occasion. I only suggest that glider pilots exercise the same sense and courtesy when away from their own local gliding sites, whilst making sure that other aviators are aware of the location of the intensive sites - it's not exactly a great deal to ask is it?
Incidentally, the late great Ann Welch was a good friend of mine, and until the day she died (or at least about a fortnight before when I last spoke with her) did not stop banging on about the importance of good airmanship and educating all pilots in best practice - and she was capable of being extremely critical (quite regularly in fact, there are a couple of people at CAA who still cringe when you mention her name
). This was not incompatible with her welcoming nature and belief that all varieties of private aviation should be encouraged. I'm not in her league, but hope to take the same tack.G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 22nd Oct 2004 at 22:27.
G wrote:
"When Sir Humphrey Davey developed a process for extracting a new lightweight metal, he called it "Aluminum", he was then overriden by the Royal Society who re-named it "Aluminium". So the Americans and Canadians have it right, and we Brits have been inconsistent."
That's as may be, but I'm not sure it's inconsistent. After all, the stuff was named by a society with royal patronage, which makes it definitive in my book.
Anyway, I've been trying (in vain) to teach an Idaho-based friend to pronounce the word "aluminium" correctly for the past few years, and I'm not going to give up now..................
"When Sir Humphrey Davey developed a process for extracting a new lightweight metal, he called it "Aluminum", he was then overriden by the Royal Society who re-named it "Aluminium". So the Americans and Canadians have it right, and we Brits have been inconsistent."
That's as may be, but I'm not sure it's inconsistent. After all, the stuff was named by a society with royal patronage, which makes it definitive in my book.
Anyway, I've been trying (in vain) to teach an Idaho-based friend to pronounce the word "aluminium" correctly for the past few years, and I'm not going to give up now..................
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis makes a very good point about Gliders operating at aerodromes.
As far as I am aware that while the rules of the air clearly require power to give way to gliders, they also require all aircraft including gliders to comply with the rules for operation in the vicinity of an aerodrome.
---
VP959,
As for Royal Patronage, Hapsburg sounds better when pronounced Windsor especially when one is at (First World) war with one's own family at home in the fatherland!
Regards,
DFC
As far as I am aware that while the rules of the air clearly require power to give way to gliders, they also require all aircraft including gliders to comply with the rules for operation in the vicinity of an aerodrome.
---
VP959,
As for Royal Patronage, Hapsburg sounds better when pronounced Windsor especially when one is at (First World) war with one's own family at home in the fatherland!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fleetwood
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main thrust of this thread is of course collision avoidance, not who invented the corner reflector or whether aluminum or aluminium is correct. 
Whilst a corner reflector will increase the RCS of any plastic aircraft, its only of any use when it comes to collision avoidance IF and only if:
a) the intruder aircraft has radar and sees the returns, or
b) the intruder aircraft is in contact with a radar service that sees the returs from the glider.
Not all low flying fast jets are fitted or even designed to be fitted with radar, neither are many other aircraft that could pose a threat.
Although it is possible that the intruder is in contact with a radar service, there is no guaruntee of this., or the significance of the radar return.
What is needed is a lightweight handheld Mode S transponder/comms/nav unit that costs peanuts and needs microAmps of current to run so that you can carry it in your flight bag or stow it in the cockpit.
Only problem is no one makes one because no one wants one heheh. If we can have multi band mobile phones with video and voice and data comms, why not a tranceiver with a vor built in and transponder? ICOM do the first two so why not the last as well?
just my two penneth
Oh and why not fit LED strobes to increase visual conspicuity?
soz for any spelling/ grammar mistakes...
Ian
Whilst a corner reflector will increase the RCS of any plastic aircraft, its only of any use when it comes to collision avoidance IF and only if:
a) the intruder aircraft has radar and sees the returns, or
b) the intruder aircraft is in contact with a radar service that sees the returs from the glider.
Not all low flying fast jets are fitted or even designed to be fitted with radar, neither are many other aircraft that could pose a threat.
Although it is possible that the intruder is in contact with a radar service, there is no guaruntee of this., or the significance of the radar return.
What is needed is a lightweight handheld Mode S transponder/comms/nav unit that costs peanuts and needs microAmps of current to run so that you can carry it in your flight bag or stow it in the cockpit.
Only problem is no one makes one because no one wants one heheh. If we can have multi band mobile phones with video and voice and data comms, why not a tranceiver with a vor built in and transponder? ICOM do the first two so why not the last as well?
just my two penneth
Oh and why not fit LED strobes to increase visual conspicuity?
soz for any spelling/ grammar mistakes...
Ian
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to strobes and transponders for gliders, I wish there were practical solutions available. Unfortunately, technology has not yet gone far enough to help, either with package or with battery power. Most gliders have one, or at best two, 12v 7ah batteries. I have just ordered a new glider which has one 12v 7ah battery and one of 12v 2.1ah, to drive everything. This glider has no solar cell augmentation, though a few very new gliders designs do. Those are barely adequate to drive the principle instruments I want, leaving nothing over.
Re strobes, I picked up the following on the (mainly American) soaring website - "ras":
One quote: " . . . the distance at which the strobe was noticeable during the day was so relatively short that there
was minimal benefit to the installation"
Another: "The other issue is power consumption. The Whelan Cometflash strobes in my Mooney draw about 7 amps at 12 volts. They're bright, perhaps even bright enough to be effective in daylight. On the other hand, the strobes in my Stemma draw only about 2 amps . . . nowhere near as bright, they would be next to useless in daylight."
For gliders with 7AH battery, the Mooney-type strobe would drain it in an hour, even without the other glider instruments taking any current. In practice a separate battery would be needed for the instruments etc. Some gliders have provision for two batteries, and/or a 12AH capacity, but even so there is little hope that present strobe technology would be practicable and helpful.
I wish there were an effective solution, but it seems that there is none yet.
Re transponders, Mode S will require fewer interrogations I believe, so average current draw will be less than most of today's technology. To stay within reasonable battery requirements, however. the ICAO requirement for 100w output needs to be reduced. That is one of the assumptions behind the "LAST" (low cost, light weight) developments which were started. I have not heard of any such change being approved by ICAO yet - does anyone know?
My guess is that either strobes or transponders will need at least one extra 12v 7ah battery each. Gliders are simply not designed with room or weight allowances to accommodate those. No good blaming the pilots for that.
One last comment. This thread was started following a newspaper reports of airproxes involving gliders and remarks by the airprox people. I have not yet finished reading all the airprox reports, but those I have read included one helicopter going right down the centreline of a gliding site runway at about 700 feet agl, when wire launching was active and a glider was on the downwind leg (the helo was using GPS for nav, and had not plotted the line on a chart to see what he might encounter); and a civil Hunter going through the Lasham area not seeing any of the several gliders he nearly hit.
Chris N.
Re strobes, I picked up the following on the (mainly American) soaring website - "ras":
One quote: " . . . the distance at which the strobe was noticeable during the day was so relatively short that there
was minimal benefit to the installation"
Another: "The other issue is power consumption. The Whelan Cometflash strobes in my Mooney draw about 7 amps at 12 volts. They're bright, perhaps even bright enough to be effective in daylight. On the other hand, the strobes in my Stemma draw only about 2 amps . . . nowhere near as bright, they would be next to useless in daylight."
For gliders with 7AH battery, the Mooney-type strobe would drain it in an hour, even without the other glider instruments taking any current. In practice a separate battery would be needed for the instruments etc. Some gliders have provision for two batteries, and/or a 12AH capacity, but even so there is little hope that present strobe technology would be practicable and helpful.
I wish there were an effective solution, but it seems that there is none yet.
Re transponders, Mode S will require fewer interrogations I believe, so average current draw will be less than most of today's technology. To stay within reasonable battery requirements, however. the ICAO requirement for 100w output needs to be reduced. That is one of the assumptions behind the "LAST" (low cost, light weight) developments which were started. I have not heard of any such change being approved by ICAO yet - does anyone know?
My guess is that either strobes or transponders will need at least one extra 12v 7ah battery each. Gliders are simply not designed with room or weight allowances to accommodate those. No good blaming the pilots for that.
One last comment. This thread was started following a newspaper reports of airproxes involving gliders and remarks by the airprox people. I have not yet finished reading all the airprox reports, but those I have read included one helicopter going right down the centreline of a gliding site runway at about 700 feet agl, when wire launching was active and a glider was on the downwind leg (the helo was using GPS for nav, and had not plotted the line on a chart to see what he might encounter); and a civil Hunter going through the Lasham area not seeing any of the several gliders he nearly hit.
Chris N.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
It is easy to cite examples of poor airmanship. How about the glider pilot who arrived completely unannounced in marginal visibility at an RAF airfield (despite having a radio, decided not to bother calling ATC), cut into the circuit pattern already occupied by 4 aircraft, flew over a departing aircraft cleared for takeoff on the duty runway, already rolling, and landed a few metres ahead of it? The pilot of the powered aircraft was unable to stop in time to avoid the glider and had to take violent avoiding action by yawing off the side of the grass runway to overtake on the left? Caused 3 more aircraft to go around by depositing his aircraft on the duty runway. When taken to task by ATC, the glider pilot answered that "powered aircraft must give way to gliders".
I was the pilot of the Bulldog that he landed ahead of. I lost some respect for glider pilots that day........
I was the pilot of the Bulldog that he landed ahead of. I lost some respect for glider pilots that day........
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The purpose of the final paragraph of my last posting was to counter an impression, that one might have got from the newspaper article, that all ten glider airproxes were caused by gliders being in the wrong place.
I do not suggest that glider pilots as a class include only those who reach perfection in their airmanship.
Nor would I class all power or other pilots as deserving of some lower level of respect just because some of them, too, fall from grace.
The main point I hoped to make was that while technology might one day help overcome some, if not all, of the imperfections of human performance, it cannot do so yet in the particular field covered by this thread, nor can some of the earlier suggestions yet be adopted.
Chris N (an imperfect glider pilot)
====================
I do not suggest that glider pilots as a class include only those who reach perfection in their airmanship.
Nor would I class all power or other pilots as deserving of some lower level of respect just because some of them, too, fall from grace.
The main point I hoped to make was that while technology might one day help overcome some, if not all, of the imperfections of human performance, it cannot do so yet in the particular field covered by this thread, nor can some of the earlier suggestions yet be adopted.
Chris N (an imperfect glider pilot)
====================
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand in some countries the gliders enjoy the benefits of reserved areas - whole chunks of sky - which are intended for the sole use of gliders. Maybe we need some of these?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: A cold country
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread ..
Said shortly, I think the main problem is that sometimes one part of aviation have no or little idea of how the other part of aviation works if they haven't tried it - I'm saing some gliderpilots now nothing or little about powered flights, and some powered pilots now nothing or little about gliding and therefore have no or little respect for the other part in the sky ..
In other words ..
I don't know how things works in the UK, or other countries for that matter, but where I fly from, the airport is fairly busy with B-737/B-757/IL-76, Businessjets, GA planes, helicopters and ............ GLIDERS - and it works out just fine. Maybe because the gliders at this airport knows how to operate in a controlled airspace, it's normal to them and there is a mutual accept and respect ..
To say that at a RT course, 95% is irrelevant - that is bull, sorry my french
..
It is as much relevant to you as a gliderpilot as to a powered pilot - as a gliderpilot, you can also fly motorgliders with prop (and soon jet) in the back or the front and hey, they operate (their procedures for takeoff/landing etc.) just like a Cessna or Piper (or heli
) ..
You might not use all the same procedures as a gliderpilot everyday when flying non-powered gliders and neither do they, but isn't it nice to know how your fellows in powered planes or heli's flyes in the sky - I think so - and it just might help accepting the other parts in the sky ..
Having the attitude "I only need this to know to fly, anyother information is irrelevant for me" is a bad attitude ..
There is many similarities reporting to an ATC, nomatter if you fly gliders or powered aircrafts - in my point of view ..
I'm not trying to blame everything on gliderpilots, not at all (I'm one myself beside airplanes and heli's), close to 100% of the gliderpilots in my country flyes with a proff attitude despide it's just funflying. At least as proff as any other GA powered pilot ..
Have seen very poor airmanship with powered pilots too and I believe it's the same problem in both camps, just like we can see bad drivers and cyclists on the road - bad airmanship and lack of mutual accept is a personal problem, an attitude problem - they have to solve it themself ..... or find themself grounded, hopefully ..
I can only acknowledge Genghis's replys - well said
..
ShyTorque, scary example you gave
..
Transponders would be nice in the gliders, if they just weren't so damn expensive, space and power consuming
..
A decade ago a mobile phone was as big as a suitcase, today one can hardly find it. Why the hell hasn't aviation followed with just half that speed - but hey, we just got the Diesel engine for planes, an engine that was invented in 1892. So maybe in another decade or twelve we can get transponders in the size of todays mobile phones ..
Said shortly, I think the main problem is that sometimes one part of aviation have no or little idea of how the other part of aviation works if they haven't tried it - I'm saing some gliderpilots now nothing or little about powered flights, and some powered pilots now nothing or little about gliding and therefore have no or little respect for the other part in the sky ..
In other words ..
I don't know how things works in the UK, or other countries for that matter, but where I fly from, the airport is fairly busy with B-737/B-757/IL-76, Businessjets, GA planes, helicopters and ............ GLIDERS - and it works out just fine. Maybe because the gliders at this airport knows how to operate in a controlled airspace, it's normal to them and there is a mutual accept and respect ..
To say that at a RT course, 95% is irrelevant - that is bull, sorry my french
..It is as much relevant to you as a gliderpilot as to a powered pilot - as a gliderpilot, you can also fly motorgliders with prop (and soon jet) in the back or the front and hey, they operate (their procedures for takeoff/landing etc.) just like a Cessna or Piper (or heli
) ..You might not use all the same procedures as a gliderpilot everyday when flying non-powered gliders and neither do they, but isn't it nice to know how your fellows in powered planes or heli's flyes in the sky - I think so - and it just might help accepting the other parts in the sky ..
Having the attitude "I only need this to know to fly, anyother information is irrelevant for me" is a bad attitude ..
There is many similarities reporting to an ATC, nomatter if you fly gliders or powered aircrafts - in my point of view ..
I'm not trying to blame everything on gliderpilots, not at all (I'm one myself beside airplanes and heli's), close to 100% of the gliderpilots in my country flyes with a proff attitude despide it's just funflying. At least as proff as any other GA powered pilot
..Have seen very poor airmanship with powered pilots too and I believe it's the same problem in both camps, just like we can see bad drivers and cyclists on the road - bad airmanship and lack of mutual accept is a personal problem, an attitude problem - they have to solve it themself ..... or find themself grounded, hopefully ..
I can only acknowledge Genghis's replys - well said
..ShyTorque, scary example you gave
..Transponders would be nice in the gliders, if they just weren't so damn expensive, space and power consuming
..A decade ago a mobile phone was as big as a suitcase, today one can hardly find it. Why the hell hasn't aviation followed with just half that speed - but hey, we just got the Diesel engine for planes, an engine that was invented in 1892. So maybe in another decade or twelve we can get transponders in the size of todays mobile phones
..
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not anti-gliders at all, I know plenty who fly them, some are even nice people!, but there are massive problems whenever gliders and powered a/c of the larger variety are anywhere near each other.
I had an airprox with a 3 gliders whilst climbing out of a certain midlands airport whilst IN the London TMA! I only caught a fleeting view as we went in between them at well over 170 Kts. Not funny at all.
What were they doing there? They didn't show up on TCAS (obviously) and when we informed London they had no idea about them either.
To be honest as a confirmed powered a/c only pilot I find gliders a menace, I've lost count of the times they have wandered into the busy training circuits at airfields around the country where I happen to have been teaching, no radio calls or even a coutesy phone call to mention that this might be possible.
When I've phoned to mention this, only rarely has there been an apology or suggestion that they may change procedures, the usual response is the "powered give way to gliders, gliders give way to balloons" comments. This drives me insane, just because you may be technically correct, doesn't stop you being dead in a mid-air.
This sounds like a rant and I suppose it is, but the airprox scared the cr*p out of me. So I won't apologise for sounding harsh.
Get radios and transponders fitted and something that will reflect primary radar, until then in my (not very) humble opinion, gliding is a pain in the a**e.
(N.B. Many powered pilots are muppets, but at least we can usually see them and balloons aren't exactly difficult to spot and invariably inform ATC any way.)
ShyT, I'm amazed you didn't end up inside for GBH, what was the outcome of that "incident?"
Genghis, excellent posts, says it all really.
I had an airprox with a 3 gliders whilst climbing out of a certain midlands airport whilst IN the London TMA! I only caught a fleeting view as we went in between them at well over 170 Kts. Not funny at all.
What were they doing there? They didn't show up on TCAS (obviously) and when we informed London they had no idea about them either.
To be honest as a confirmed powered a/c only pilot I find gliders a menace, I've lost count of the times they have wandered into the busy training circuits at airfields around the country where I happen to have been teaching, no radio calls or even a coutesy phone call to mention that this might be possible.
When I've phoned to mention this, only rarely has there been an apology or suggestion that they may change procedures, the usual response is the "powered give way to gliders, gliders give way to balloons" comments. This drives me insane, just because you may be technically correct, doesn't stop you being dead in a mid-air.
This sounds like a rant and I suppose it is, but the airprox scared the cr*p out of me. So I won't apologise for sounding harsh.
Get radios and transponders fitted and something that will reflect primary radar, until then in my (not very) humble opinion, gliding is a pain in the a**e.
(N.B. Many powered pilots are muppets, but at least we can usually see them and balloons aren't exactly difficult to spot and invariably inform ATC any way.)
ShyT, I'm amazed you didn't end up inside for GBH, what was the outcome of that "incident?"
Genghis, excellent posts, says it all really.
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 23rd Oct 2004 at 15:44.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Abingdon, Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy Torque,
That was scary!! We do hear of far too many instances like that. The actual number is probably quite low really but the bad PR it generates should be counteracted by the removal of one or two round things from the pilot concerned.
Mike W
Edit to add:-
I wonder if it would be a good idea for some ATC people, probably particularly RAF ones, to visit gliding sites/ clubs/ safety evenings or whatever to give a talk on how to 'approach' a non-gliding airfield. All this business of radio licenses and proceedures etc probably makes the average glider pilot think he will be shot if he presses the Tx key on anything but the gliding frequencies.
Just a thought.
Mike
That was scary!! We do hear of far too many instances like that. The actual number is probably quite low really but the bad PR it generates should be counteracted by the removal of one or two round things from the pilot concerned.
Mike W
Edit to add:-
I wonder if it would be a good idea for some ATC people, probably particularly RAF ones, to visit gliding sites/ clubs/ safety evenings or whatever to give a talk on how to 'approach' a non-gliding airfield. All this business of radio licenses and proceedures etc probably makes the average glider pilot think he will be shot if he presses the Tx key on anything but the gliding frequencies.
Just a thought.
Mike
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
The outcome was that he got an almighty bollocking from the SATCO who also looked up the maximum amount of cash the pilot could be charged for the landing. He was told never to darken the threshold again.
The really stupid thing was that the grass airfield was 3,000 feet wide from the direction this chap arrived yet he landed on the duty runway despite a light wind.
I never got to speak to him as he decided not to wait around although we were only gone for about 45 minutes.
I would think that if I repaid the compliment at his base glider field I might have been charged with endangering an aircraft.
The really stupid thing was that the grass airfield was 3,000 feet wide from the direction this chap arrived yet he landed on the duty runway despite a light wind.
I never got to speak to him as he decided not to wait around although we were only gone for about 45 minutes.
I would think that if I repaid the compliment at his base glider field I might have been charged with endangering an aircraft.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure if it was a Government aerodrome, something much more draconian than a large sum of money could have been implemented .. like escorting the gent off the premises without his glider and denying re-entry to retrieve it
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, technology has not yet gone far enough to help, either with package or with battery power.
Why couldn't someone produce a portable txpdr with a built in barometric altimeter, sqwarking one "Glider" code, which can be taken home in the evening and slotted into the charger, then brought to the aircraft and slotted into a holder on the dash? ATC could then see you, and advise participating aircraft. No doubt the Jag could even see you, maybe even TCAS could see you. No drain on your electrical system, and simple "on / off" opertaion.
I've been flying IFR (outside CAS) with a RIS and received "multiple returns, no height information, could be gliders". Now I was not passing over a "gliding" site, and was in and out of the cloud maintaining speed, altitiude and heading. As I passed over the area I managed to peer down through the cloud and could see gliders below (comfortably well away). I assumed I wouldn't meet any gliders in IMC......
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
A commonly quoted objection to electrical equipment on board gliders is their requirement for power. However, I'm certain it would be quite easy these days to use a miniature battery and a solar panel to power just about anything a glider might need with regard to comms and increasing the visibility of the aircraft.
For example, there are digital watches with altimetry built in so the miniaturised technology is around, even for mode C. I think someone could probably make a fortune in this respect.
Unfortunately, it seems compulsory regulatory action often has to take the place of airmanship in some cases.
For example, there are digital watches with altimetry built in so the miniaturised technology is around, even for mode C. I think someone could probably make a fortune in this respect.
Unfortunately, it seems compulsory regulatory action often has to take the place of airmanship in some cases.