Dangerous Gliders (again)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: A cold country
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal: ".. I assumed I wouldn't meet any gliders in IMC .."
Maybe you saw them below you just under the cloudbase ??
Anyway, you can fly gliders in IMC, if such glider is equipped for and pilot trained for IMC ..
Maybe you saw them below you just under the cloudbase ??
Anyway, you can fly gliders in IMC, if such glider is equipped for and pilot trained for IMC ..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
You don't say whether or not the gliders were in VMC or not if they were below the clouds.
There was a similar discussion in an earlier thread about what happens when someone flying on instruments point to point actually routes the wrong side of a line feature, so bringing themselves into potential conflict with someone following the VFR rule. When the collision happens, who is at fault?
In the open FIR we all have a responsibility to avoid collision. Gliders try very hard to avoid collision - when we hear an aircraft nearby (C130's are always good value) our heads whizz round like a barn owl's trying to see where the plane is. I've never known a glider pilot of my acquaintance who would risk his life on the 'Rules of the Air'
As for the glider pilot landing badly at the aerodrome - I have seen this too - it could easily be a pilot on their first cross-country for their Silver badge. Just look at the behaviour of some student pilots on their QXC.
You don't say whether or not the gliders were in VMC or not if they were below the clouds.
There was a similar discussion in an earlier thread about what happens when someone flying on instruments point to point actually routes the wrong side of a line feature, so bringing themselves into potential conflict with someone following the VFR rule. When the collision happens, who is at fault?
In the open FIR we all have a responsibility to avoid collision. Gliders try very hard to avoid collision - when we hear an aircraft nearby (C130's are always good value) our heads whizz round like a barn owl's trying to see where the plane is. I've never known a glider pilot of my acquaintance who would risk his life on the 'Rules of the Air'
As for the glider pilot landing badly at the aerodrome - I have seen this too - it could easily be a pilot on their first cross-country for their Silver badge. Just look at the behaviour of some student pilots on their QXC.
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
Robin,
"You don't say whether or not the gliders were in VMC or not if they were below the clouds".
Sorry, I don't understand what I said to prompt you to ask me that. Do you mean the statement that Englishal made?
The pilot that almost landed on us was an experienced pilot, with his own glider. As far as I can remember he was taking part in a competition but his airmanship and sense of self preservation was far below a safe standard, whatever his experience. Had I not managed to take control from my student and avoid him (it was a close call, we were on the point of lift off and on the short runway) any one or all of three of us might not be here today.
"You don't say whether or not the gliders were in VMC or not if they were below the clouds".
Sorry, I don't understand what I said to prompt you to ask me that. Do you mean the statement that Englishal made?
The pilot that almost landed on us was an experienced pilot, with his own glider. As far as I can remember he was taking part in a competition but his airmanship and sense of self preservation was far below a safe standard, whatever his experience. Had I not managed to take control from my student and avoid him (it was a close call, we were on the point of lift off and on the short runway) any one or all of three of us might not be here today.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Northamtptonshire
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with Genghis that glider pilots should be encouraged to make use of RT although many will never stray more than 10 miles or so from their home base. I have found most people would rather a glider called on RT even if they don't have a license. Most modern gliders have RT or people carry a ICOM with them.
It would be good to get more of the differing 'sides' of aviation meeeting and talking as already suggested. Maybe organise a pprune fly in to a busy gliding site to get the everyone talking?
It would be good to get more of the differing 'sides' of aviation meeeting and talking as already suggested. Maybe organise a pprune fly in to a busy gliding site to get the everyone talking?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
Sorry - it was the weekend. It was Englishal's message I meant.
Actually you are right about some competition pilots (sorry ChrisN) who press on too much. Some of them are not the nicest of people - you don't get to be good without some element of arrogance
Sorry - it was the weekend. It was Englishal's message I meant.
Actually you are right about some competition pilots (sorry ChrisN) who press on too much. Some of them are not the nicest of people - you don't get to be good without some element of arrogance
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm,
It's an interesting discussion and we certainly don’t have any good answers available to us yet. Perhaps when transponders are made available at icom size, weight and power consumption we might be halfway there. Even then, I doubt it will have the effect many of you seem convinced that it will. What we have at the moment in terms of electrickery is almost worthless in a practical sense. Strobes?... I can honestly say that in the air I have never consciously noticed another aircraft because of its strobe. Usually I see the aircraft and then notice it has a strobe. Maybe it does draw my attention in a subconscious way? but I really don’t think so. The transponders available at present are too heavy in both weight and power consumption, they are way too expensive (what cost life? risk/cost assessment is yours to make on that and something we have to balance in all aspects of life) and I doubt they’d have the desired affect on safety anyway. Radios are OK and a listening watch may improve your situational awareness of other traffic. However, one of the things I love about gliding is the freedom to escape all that and just fly. Irresponsible?... I don’t think so, outside controlled airspace a radio is not needed and IMHO unnecessary if airmanship and lookout are maintained.
If I sound like I’m burying my head in the sand, I am not. I’m all for any idea that is sensibly priced, workable and of real safety benefit. The transponder/TCAS is not in my opinion and is just a backdoor way to ease the introduction of airspace charging. As things stand I think perception of risk is possibly greater than the actual one … if good airmanship is used! There is no excuse for poor airmanship in ANY aerial activity and that is where good instruction and personal preservation come in.
SaS
Whenever I come across your posts I seem to be left feeling completely exasperated! We are all entitled to our views, and I respect yours even if I do find them rather pious. What worries me however is that you are teaching future pilots. I’ve no doubt you are very good at what you do in a technical sense, but you are also in a position to influence not only the way they fly, but also their attitude toward other airspace users. Your whole attitude to anything other than commercial aviation is awful. I get the feeling that if it wasn’t for the fact students and PPL’s are your bread and butter (for now) you’d like to see them banned from flight thus leaving the whole sky for CPL’s and above (note commercial not necessarily professional). Not a personal attack … just an observation, sorry.
SS
It's an interesting discussion and we certainly don’t have any good answers available to us yet. Perhaps when transponders are made available at icom size, weight and power consumption we might be halfway there. Even then, I doubt it will have the effect many of you seem convinced that it will. What we have at the moment in terms of electrickery is almost worthless in a practical sense. Strobes?... I can honestly say that in the air I have never consciously noticed another aircraft because of its strobe. Usually I see the aircraft and then notice it has a strobe. Maybe it does draw my attention in a subconscious way? but I really don’t think so. The transponders available at present are too heavy in both weight and power consumption, they are way too expensive (what cost life? risk/cost assessment is yours to make on that and something we have to balance in all aspects of life) and I doubt they’d have the desired affect on safety anyway. Radios are OK and a listening watch may improve your situational awareness of other traffic. However, one of the things I love about gliding is the freedom to escape all that and just fly. Irresponsible?... I don’t think so, outside controlled airspace a radio is not needed and IMHO unnecessary if airmanship and lookout are maintained.
If I sound like I’m burying my head in the sand, I am not. I’m all for any idea that is sensibly priced, workable and of real safety benefit. The transponder/TCAS is not in my opinion and is just a backdoor way to ease the introduction of airspace charging. As things stand I think perception of risk is possibly greater than the actual one … if good airmanship is used! There is no excuse for poor airmanship in ANY aerial activity and that is where good instruction and personal preservation come in.
SaS
Whenever I come across your posts I seem to be left feeling completely exasperated! We are all entitled to our views, and I respect yours even if I do find them rather pious. What worries me however is that you are teaching future pilots. I’ve no doubt you are very good at what you do in a technical sense, but you are also in a position to influence not only the way they fly, but also their attitude toward other airspace users. Your whole attitude to anything other than commercial aviation is awful. I get the feeling that if it wasn’t for the fact students and PPL’s are your bread and butter (for now) you’d like to see them banned from flight thus leaving the whole sky for CPL’s and above (note commercial not necessarily professional). Not a personal attack … just an observation, sorry.
SS
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that's not quite fair SS, You see I really quite like the more relaxed side of flying, getting into a light tail dragger at a small private strip, having a bimble and just relaxing, nothing better.
BUT, I have no tolerance of anybody putting other people in harms way. My only experiences of gliding have been mainly negative, cutting up the circuit whilst I've had first solo's up is bad enough.
As I'm not "into" gliding, my perception may be skewed by my experiences, I know there are some very consentious glider pilots out there, in fact most likely the majority. (I have many friends who fly the things and those who fly both powered and gliders are normally pretty switched on and generally have excellent handling skills)
I certainly don't think everything but commercial aviation is awful. We take up too much space as it is, I'd love to have as wide a range of flying in the U.K as possible (apart from Gyro's, I'll fly anything that's fun)
Hopefully my ex-students would testify that I have tried to instill a "professional" attitude in them, no matter what they fly in the future. I think it's something that can help keep you and others alive. Lastly if flying isn't fun, why do it?? I eat, breathe and drink flying and because I take so seriously I have no time for putting other people at unnecessary risk, do what you like to yourself (go and buy a flying flea if you want) but others have a right to go home at the end of the day.
If that's holier than thou', sorry, but I take my duty of care to students and pax very seriously, if someone else jeapordises that then I'm not a happy camper. Airproxes really are scary when you catch a glimpse at the last moment, I estimate if we'd have been 20ft left or right then I wouldn't be typing this and gliders would probably be grounded by the authority. So SS if you and your family had been with me and had that experience, would you be forgiving??
P.S. Instructing is not my bread and butter, never has been. I do it as I enjoy it, very rarely now unfortunately, but I still end up in the club houses for a coffee and chat whenever I pass.
BUT, I have no tolerance of anybody putting other people in harms way. My only experiences of gliding have been mainly negative, cutting up the circuit whilst I've had first solo's up is bad enough.
As I'm not "into" gliding, my perception may be skewed by my experiences, I know there are some very consentious glider pilots out there, in fact most likely the majority. (I have many friends who fly the things and those who fly both powered and gliders are normally pretty switched on and generally have excellent handling skills)
I certainly don't think everything but commercial aviation is awful. We take up too much space as it is, I'd love to have as wide a range of flying in the U.K as possible (apart from Gyro's, I'll fly anything that's fun)
Hopefully my ex-students would testify that I have tried to instill a "professional" attitude in them, no matter what they fly in the future. I think it's something that can help keep you and others alive. Lastly if flying isn't fun, why do it?? I eat, breathe and drink flying and because I take so seriously I have no time for putting other people at unnecessary risk, do what you like to yourself (go and buy a flying flea if you want) but others have a right to go home at the end of the day.
If that's holier than thou', sorry, but I take my duty of care to students and pax very seriously, if someone else jeapordises that then I'm not a happy camper. Airproxes really are scary when you catch a glimpse at the last moment, I estimate if we'd have been 20ft left or right then I wouldn't be typing this and gliders would probably be grounded by the authority. So SS if you and your family had been with me and had that experience, would you be forgiving??
P.S. Instructing is not my bread and butter, never has been. I do it as I enjoy it, very rarely now unfortunately, but I still end up in the club houses for a coffee and chat whenever I pass.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Burgess Hill, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quite agree with what Shortstripper has said on the general subject. I dont think the extra burden of equipment will make any difference. More it is training that is needed of the few that cause the problems. Surely already Glider pilots have no right to fly into Class D or other controlled airspace without speaking to someone on the radio. They should be outside controlled airspace unless they have permission to be inside it, just like I should be.- thats not to say that maybe some controlled airspace is too big and needs to be reduced!
I wonder if some of the gliders wandering through "busy training circuits" have actually been outside the airfield ATZ, its those people flying "bomber command" circuits that are in the wrong! But on the other hand I cant really see a problem if a glider comes into the ATZ and lands without radio as long as he uses good airmanship, after all we should all be looking out. And we do check what is on the approach before we line up and take off dont we- and not hang around on the runway for ages before going, leading the the possibility that someone who wasnt on final when you checked, has now turned short final and you are in his way on the runway. Ive had to go around a few times when someone has lined up with plenty of time to go and for me to land, only to have them sit there, gliders dont have the chance to go around.
I wonder if the radio license is a problem. Certainly when I did mine it was very complex and much of it irrelevant and all based on a lot of old fashioned RAF procedures. That was 20 years ago, so maybe its improved now. But perhaps there needs to be a basic radio licence without all the stuff needed for IFR across the Atlantic out of radar cover with all these position reports- that we never use when flying around Europe even IFR. Just a basic course of what to say when joining the circuit etc.
IF you just listen to new student pilots telling their life story over the radio every time they call up, thinking that everyone needs to know all of this. I also wonder why, when I call up 10 miles south of the field routing overhead towards X, I get asked for my point of departure and destination. Surely totaly irrelevant to the controller or anyone else, just adds to the radio chatter and I guess gives him something to write down in his book for the audit by the bosses?
If the radio license was simpler, then Im sure more glider pilots would use their radio. I wonder what the microlight people do, a lot of them seem to have radios?
So lets improve the airmanship of a few glider pilots as well as a few powered pilots and also learn to live with each other, I find gliders no problem at all, I flown one on a few occasions, had a great time, but got no ambition to have a glider license.
I wonder if some of the gliders wandering through "busy training circuits" have actually been outside the airfield ATZ, its those people flying "bomber command" circuits that are in the wrong! But on the other hand I cant really see a problem if a glider comes into the ATZ and lands without radio as long as he uses good airmanship, after all we should all be looking out. And we do check what is on the approach before we line up and take off dont we- and not hang around on the runway for ages before going, leading the the possibility that someone who wasnt on final when you checked, has now turned short final and you are in his way on the runway. Ive had to go around a few times when someone has lined up with plenty of time to go and for me to land, only to have them sit there, gliders dont have the chance to go around.
I wonder if the radio license is a problem. Certainly when I did mine it was very complex and much of it irrelevant and all based on a lot of old fashioned RAF procedures. That was 20 years ago, so maybe its improved now. But perhaps there needs to be a basic radio licence without all the stuff needed for IFR across the Atlantic out of radar cover with all these position reports- that we never use when flying around Europe even IFR. Just a basic course of what to say when joining the circuit etc.
IF you just listen to new student pilots telling their life story over the radio every time they call up, thinking that everyone needs to know all of this. I also wonder why, when I call up 10 miles south of the field routing overhead towards X, I get asked for my point of departure and destination. Surely totaly irrelevant to the controller or anyone else, just adds to the radio chatter and I guess gives him something to write down in his book for the audit by the bosses?
If the radio license was simpler, then Im sure more glider pilots would use their radio. I wonder what the microlight people do, a lot of them seem to have radios?
So lets improve the airmanship of a few glider pilots as well as a few powered pilots and also learn to live with each other, I find gliders no problem at all, I flown one on a few occasions, had a great time, but got no ambition to have a glider license.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SaS
Surely when a glider cuts in on the circuit, it's because they are low and have to land. We can't fly neat square circuits, and are trained not to.
If you have gliding on an active field like, say Booker, then there are site rules for both gliders and power. I would have thought even a first solo pilot would have had a lot of briefing about glider (and power) traffic.
It makes for a better pilot having to keep your own look-out.
It is a great shame you say your gliding experiences (or is it experiences of gliders?) is so negative. We need to get you soaring..........
Surely when a glider cuts in on the circuit, it's because they are low and have to land. We can't fly neat square circuits, and are trained not to.
If you have gliding on an active field like, say Booker, then there are site rules for both gliders and power. I would have thought even a first solo pilot would have had a lot of briefing about glider (and power) traffic.
It makes for a better pilot having to keep your own look-out.
It is a great shame you say your gliding experiences (or is it experiences of gliders?) is so negative. We need to get you soaring..........
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SX in SX in UK
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the very few times when I've been gliding, I've invariably be asked 'how much do you weigh?', followed by the answer 'One hundred and mumble pounds'. at which point someone has reached into the cockpit a removed/added some ballast.
Why not substitute inert ballast with useful radio and batttery?
In winter, the local gliding club returns from their summer grass strip to join us on the hard runway. This causes no problems, they circle and fly circuits on one side of the runway, we powered people use the other side.
The only time the heart rate rises is when a powered and a glider both decide that its time to land and at this point realise that "its good to talk".
I'm fully aware that the concept of a go-around is unknown to a glider pilot, and that 'finals' means 'finals' , so faced with that situation, I'll cheerfully go around. But it would be safer if the glider and the power-pilot both knew the others intention.
Its all down to self-preservatation, cyclists don't need lights, reflective jackets and a helmet to ride a bike, but on a dark morning, they might save their lives. Glider don't need a radio to fly, but a quick call ' Glider XYZ turning base for landing', might prevent tears before bedtime.
Why not substitute inert ballast with useful radio and batttery?
In winter, the local gliding club returns from their summer grass strip to join us on the hard runway. This causes no problems, they circle and fly circuits on one side of the runway, we powered people use the other side.
The only time the heart rate rises is when a powered and a glider both decide that its time to land and at this point realise that "its good to talk".
I'm fully aware that the concept of a go-around is unknown to a glider pilot, and that 'finals' means 'finals' , so faced with that situation, I'll cheerfully go around. But it would be safer if the glider and the power-pilot both knew the others intention.
Its all down to self-preservatation, cyclists don't need lights, reflective jackets and a helmet to ride a bike, but on a dark morning, they might save their lives. Glider don't need a radio to fly, but a quick call ' Glider XYZ turning base for landing', might prevent tears before bedtime.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First solo's should always be well briefed, but unfortunately when the adrenaline starts flowing, much of it can go out of the window!
I keep meaning to go and have a go in a glider, maybe this thread is the impetus I need to get it organised.
Actually the major problem at one airfield was not gliders coming into land, but cutting across the ATZ to the nearby glider site. Coming into land due to losing height is fine, just let others know you are there, Gliders can be a nightmare to spot unless they are turning and even if you know roughly where they are.
I've operated from a couple of places that have had 3 ccts going at once. One for gliders, one for microlights and heli's with the last for fixed powered machines. It seemed to work very well, since everybody knew what was going on and what was expected. That to me is the ideal situation, all working together so that everybody can enjoy the air safely.
Unfortunately the comments about cessnas doing Bomber ccts are very valid in some places, highly annoying!!!
I keep meaning to go and have a go in a glider, maybe this thread is the impetus I need to get it organised.
Actually the major problem at one airfield was not gliders coming into land, but cutting across the ATZ to the nearby glider site. Coming into land due to losing height is fine, just let others know you are there, Gliders can be a nightmare to spot unless they are turning and even if you know roughly where they are.
I've operated from a couple of places that have had 3 ccts going at once. One for gliders, one for microlights and heli's with the last for fixed powered machines. It seemed to work very well, since everybody knew what was going on and what was expected. That to me is the ideal situation, all working together so that everybody can enjoy the air safely.
Unfortunately the comments about cessnas doing Bomber ccts are very valid in some places, highly annoying!!!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of reliance being placed on electronic equipment. One of our aeroplanes has none. Nil, zip, nada and the only time we have had a problem is when for one afternoon we had full air traffic. When a validated Atco lined up another ac in front of my other half landing from her display. Normally our air ground system puts the responsibility in pilots hands, without much trouble.
The problem here seems to be lack of understanding and comms on both sides. At the very busy airfields where multi functional aerial activity takes place, there does not seem to be a problem. Places where powered, gliding, para etc take place at the same airfield can and do co-exist. This is done by common sense and co-operation. It is not done by the inclusion of thousands of pounds of electronics in each aircraft, forcing pilots heads IN.
I like the idea of a fly in at a gliding site, perhaps we can get a jump plane, microlight and parasailer together.
You will always get the 5% of prats who will just plough on, regardless of thoughts to others. For the rest of us the answer is perhaps much more simple.
Regards
Wide
The problem here seems to be lack of understanding and comms on both sides. At the very busy airfields where multi functional aerial activity takes place, there does not seem to be a problem. Places where powered, gliding, para etc take place at the same airfield can and do co-exist. This is done by common sense and co-operation. It is not done by the inclusion of thousands of pounds of electronics in each aircraft, forcing pilots heads IN.
I like the idea of a fly in at a gliding site, perhaps we can get a jump plane, microlight and parasailer together.
You will always get the 5% of prats who will just plough on, regardless of thoughts to others. For the rest of us the answer is perhaps much more simple.
Regards
Wide
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In one case an RAF Jaguar in the Black Mountains in Wales passed within 100 metres of two gliders. The pilot told investigators that if he had seen them one second later, he would have hit them."
A Jaguar pilot showing off - I could have got him!!!!
Now, the serious stuff.
If power pilots cannot look out the window sufficiently to see other aircraft, be they gliders, other light aircraft, jets or balloons, then they are not obeying the rules of the airspace.
I have flown with numerous power pilots who have no real ability to look out the window. Even when they reckon they can. As a glider pilot, when I fly power in VMC I only use the instruments for a brief glance to cross check every so often. My power-only friends claim they do the same. So I tried an experiment - I covered up their instruments close to an airport. You should have heard the outcry!!!!
Anyone flying in uncontrolled airspace should be capable of seeing and avoiding other traffic, regardless of speed. It is a problem having airliners flying in uncontrolled airspace - they have enough of the airspace already, without using the only bits left to glider pilots.
As for radios, I think many power pilots have got to the point where they seem to completely rely on
radio
GPS
instruments
huge square circuits
I have flown in all kinds of airspace, loads of different countries, and have flown all sorts of aircraft.
The most interesting responses from other power pilots is when I fly:-
my very slow, non radio, powered aircraft at my local airfield (yes, it is allowed to come in non-radio, though you'd hardly believe it the way other people act)
gliders where it IS allowed
I think we need more tolerance, more knowledge and better airmanship on ALL sides. We should all know the rules. I AM including glider pilots and power-pilots here.
I fly gliders, light aircraft and commercial jets.
A Jaguar pilot showing off - I could have got him!!!!
Now, the serious stuff.
If power pilots cannot look out the window sufficiently to see other aircraft, be they gliders, other light aircraft, jets or balloons, then they are not obeying the rules of the airspace.
I have flown with numerous power pilots who have no real ability to look out the window. Even when they reckon they can. As a glider pilot, when I fly power in VMC I only use the instruments for a brief glance to cross check every so often. My power-only friends claim they do the same. So I tried an experiment - I covered up their instruments close to an airport. You should have heard the outcry!!!!
Anyone flying in uncontrolled airspace should be capable of seeing and avoiding other traffic, regardless of speed. It is a problem having airliners flying in uncontrolled airspace - they have enough of the airspace already, without using the only bits left to glider pilots.
As for radios, I think many power pilots have got to the point where they seem to completely rely on
radio
GPS
instruments
huge square circuits
I have flown in all kinds of airspace, loads of different countries, and have flown all sorts of aircraft.
The most interesting responses from other power pilots is when I fly:-
my very slow, non radio, powered aircraft at my local airfield (yes, it is allowed to come in non-radio, though you'd hardly believe it the way other people act)
gliders where it IS allowed
I think we need more tolerance, more knowledge and better airmanship on ALL sides. We should all know the rules. I AM including glider pilots and power-pilots here.
I fly gliders, light aircraft and commercial jets.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AG, you make some interesting points. But you have to admit that the both shape and colour of gliders don't exactly contribute toward the see & avoid principles. I wonder how much more visible gliders would be if they were painted a colour other than white? (Yes, I know this is currently an impossibility).
PS. How can gliders be allowed to get away with flying in cloud?
PS. How can gliders be allowed to get away with flying in cloud?
Anyone flying in uncontrolled airspace should be capable of seeing and avoiding other traffic, regardless of speed.
It could certainly be argued that anyone flying VFR in controlled airspace should be capable of seeing and avoiding other traffic, regardless of speed. (Those who cannot should be IFR and separated from each other by ATC.) DAP's faith in this principle can be examined by looking at the ratio of class E to class A airspace in the UK.
However, those rather abstract principles need to be tempered with a rather more pragmatic approach that when you get up to speeds that are quite moderate even in GA terms, the chance of avoiding a collision visually gets worryingly small. See-and-avoid may work for manoeuvring gliders, but it doesn't work for something doing 200 knots -- and you can scream that pilots "just aren't good enough at lookout" until you're blue in the face but that doesn't change human performance.
Thus the choices seem to be between:
a) the status quo,
b) radically changing the UK airspace system to incorporate more controlled airspace or
c) imposing a see-and-avoid based speed limit in class G and writing off 2/3 of the UK's lower airspace to recreational activities like gliding.
I'm not putting my money on Joe Public writing to his MP to demand option c, are you?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All good points. But it is worrying that such a small group of individuals as GA and recreational pilots is arguing over such fundamental principles.
Surely people like SaS and others can accept that gliders and low/slow types are entitled to flying in UK airspace. Others, such as myself are OK with pilots who prefer the high-tech end, although we may have difficulty in understanding why you might want not to look out of the window.
In both cases, we need to accept we aren't all perfect - that's the nature of the beast. Technology may help, but we've all flown with batteries about to give up, or with a piece of kit not switched on, or tuned to the incorrect frequency
Other pilots are always our problem. We can't control what they do - look at the errors made by ATPLs under ATC control.
I think a bit of live and let live is appropriate here
Surely people like SaS and others can accept that gliders and low/slow types are entitled to flying in UK airspace. Others, such as myself are OK with pilots who prefer the high-tech end, although we may have difficulty in understanding why you might want not to look out of the window.
In both cases, we need to accept we aren't all perfect - that's the nature of the beast. Technology may help, but we've all flown with batteries about to give up, or with a piece of kit not switched on, or tuned to the incorrect frequency
Other pilots are always our problem. We can't control what they do - look at the errors made by ATPLs under ATC control.
I think a bit of live and let live is appropriate here
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Witney
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the orginal posting which started off all this disussion was a bit of a journalistic red herring.
In 15 years I can't remember any actual military/glider midair collision.
I can recall one light aircraft/glider midair (near Haddenham, with a brightly coloured wood/steel tube glider, not a white one)
but unfortunately I can remember quite a lot of glider/glider midairs - too many gliders, not enough thermals. Neither FIS nor transponders would have helped those incidents
In 15 years I can't remember any actual military/glider midair collision.
I can recall one light aircraft/glider midair (near Haddenham, with a brightly coloured wood/steel tube glider, not a white one)
but unfortunately I can remember quite a lot of glider/glider midairs - too many gliders, not enough thermals. Neither FIS nor transponders would have helped those incidents
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Excellent post by Airbus Girl ... clearly she has experience in both aircraft types.
So are you telling the girls and guys who have to try and spot you (remembering of course that to abide by the rules of the air, we have to be able to see you first), that you cannot spare some of that 600lb water ballast to make way for a box that could help to,ultimately, protect your pink body.
Strange isn't it, that glider technology has advanced to the point where they fly for over 3000km and a strange number of hours - and yet they have not put the same effort into flight safety...ust a thought!
Strange isn't it, that glider technology has advanced to the point where they fly for over 3000km and a strange number of hours - and yet they have not put the same effort into flight safety...ust a thought!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seem to be a number of different issues involved in this correspondence. My understanding of some of the issues, repeated here in some cases, for clarification, is:
1. Conspicuity markings: (a). Trials have shown that they are ineffective. That may be contrary to expectation, but a single uniform colour is more visible at distance, apparently, than a mix of colours which break up the outline and actually act as camouflage. (b). Modern materials allow nothing other than white except on the very tips of the wings, nose and tail. (By the way, I expect that will be found also to be the case for light aircraft in composite materials when they come into wider use.) If any of the critics of gliders here know better, please feel free to enlighten me.
2. Transponders. There are several potential problem with transponders, not all the same for all gliders. (a). Older gliders did not have 600 pounds of water ballast capacity to give some up for a transponder and batteries. E.g., my old Ka6E, built 1968, has no water ballast, and the max. AUW and the max. cockpit load were already used up by me and the existing batteries and instruments etc.. Nor was there room on the instrument panel for anything extra. To carry a loose transponder in the cockpit would have been hazardous as well as taking me over the max weight limit.
(b) There is an issue with present transponder specifications of transmit power and effects on pilots. Recent correspondence on Flyer Forum has shown various power pilots saying that the radiation at 70-200w output power is like sitting with your head (or whatever) in a microwave oven. I asked why this is not an issue for power planes, and the reply came that they normally have enough metal between the aerial and the pilot to shield it. Few gliders are made of metal.
(c) There, however, some metal and/or carbon fibre bits on glider which can shield the aerial from ground SSR stations. A colleague has fitted a transponder on his glider, with the aerial far enough away (he hopes) to avoid being cooked, but he reports that it is intermittently unreceived by SSR in ATC. (I don't know how he solved the instrument panel space problem). If anyone knows how to square this circle, please make your expert knowledge available - I think the CAA would love to be able to rely upon your expertise, because they are trying to get (d) as a solution instead.
(d) in the absence of somebody's expertise, the CAA have for years been trying to get developed a lightweight, low cost transponder suitable for gliders, microlites, balloons etc.. They need (i) a manufacturer who will do it, (ii) a change in ICAO requirements to allow very low power output which will enhance battery life, address the radiation safety issue, and make package into confined cockpits/instrument panels easier. Trials have shown it should work at lower power outputs, but as yet there is not one on the market. AFAIK, the only "glider" transponders on the market now are to ICAO standards which lead to the safety and battery power problems.
(e) Various glider manufacturers pay varying amounts of attention to safety issues in their designs. Most fatalities and serious injuries in gliders arise from hitting the ground, and primary safety (making gliders less likely to have an accident from e.g. handling problems) and secondary safety (e.g. by cockpit design etc.) have been their priorities, it appears. I am aware of only one collision with an unrelated power plane in the UK in the last 34 years - a Rockwell Commander flew straight into the back of a glider it caught up. It would have been equally fatal for a power plane if he had hit that instead. But such accidents are mercifully rare. It seems to me that until there is universal TCAS or something, power/power, power/glider and glider/glider collisions will remain with us - of the which the first and last two are far more prevalent than power/glider. (There have also been a few power/glider collisions between gliders and tugs operating from the same aerodrome, but present transponder technology would not fix those either.)
(f) Meanwhile, there is rarely an excuse for glider to make a mess of circuit and landing at a power airfield. There might be the occasional emergency, just as there might be for a non-radio SEP. When I have needed to land at a power aerodrome (or chosen to, rather than pick a farmer's field with a greater degree of risk), my efforts to comply with their practices have been successful and I have not had a poor welcome. I see no reason why others could not do the same. I don't excuse those whose airmanship is at fault. The gliding movement does have training in these things, which works for most, but a minority still sin. I believe there are parallels in the power world, of less than perfect behaviour. If you know a magic solution to stop human imperfections altogether, please bottle it and sell it to the rest of us.
Chris N.
1. Conspicuity markings: (a). Trials have shown that they are ineffective. That may be contrary to expectation, but a single uniform colour is more visible at distance, apparently, than a mix of colours which break up the outline and actually act as camouflage. (b). Modern materials allow nothing other than white except on the very tips of the wings, nose and tail. (By the way, I expect that will be found also to be the case for light aircraft in composite materials when they come into wider use.) If any of the critics of gliders here know better, please feel free to enlighten me.
2. Transponders. There are several potential problem with transponders, not all the same for all gliders. (a). Older gliders did not have 600 pounds of water ballast capacity to give some up for a transponder and batteries. E.g., my old Ka6E, built 1968, has no water ballast, and the max. AUW and the max. cockpit load were already used up by me and the existing batteries and instruments etc.. Nor was there room on the instrument panel for anything extra. To carry a loose transponder in the cockpit would have been hazardous as well as taking me over the max weight limit.
(b) There is an issue with present transponder specifications of transmit power and effects on pilots. Recent correspondence on Flyer Forum has shown various power pilots saying that the radiation at 70-200w output power is like sitting with your head (or whatever) in a microwave oven. I asked why this is not an issue for power planes, and the reply came that they normally have enough metal between the aerial and the pilot to shield it. Few gliders are made of metal.
(c) There, however, some metal and/or carbon fibre bits on glider which can shield the aerial from ground SSR stations. A colleague has fitted a transponder on his glider, with the aerial far enough away (he hopes) to avoid being cooked, but he reports that it is intermittently unreceived by SSR in ATC. (I don't know how he solved the instrument panel space problem). If anyone knows how to square this circle, please make your expert knowledge available - I think the CAA would love to be able to rely upon your expertise, because they are trying to get (d) as a solution instead.
(d) in the absence of somebody's expertise, the CAA have for years been trying to get developed a lightweight, low cost transponder suitable for gliders, microlites, balloons etc.. They need (i) a manufacturer who will do it, (ii) a change in ICAO requirements to allow very low power output which will enhance battery life, address the radiation safety issue, and make package into confined cockpits/instrument panels easier. Trials have shown it should work at lower power outputs, but as yet there is not one on the market. AFAIK, the only "glider" transponders on the market now are to ICAO standards which lead to the safety and battery power problems.
(e) Various glider manufacturers pay varying amounts of attention to safety issues in their designs. Most fatalities and serious injuries in gliders arise from hitting the ground, and primary safety (making gliders less likely to have an accident from e.g. handling problems) and secondary safety (e.g. by cockpit design etc.) have been their priorities, it appears. I am aware of only one collision with an unrelated power plane in the UK in the last 34 years - a Rockwell Commander flew straight into the back of a glider it caught up. It would have been equally fatal for a power plane if he had hit that instead. But such accidents are mercifully rare. It seems to me that until there is universal TCAS or something, power/power, power/glider and glider/glider collisions will remain with us - of the which the first and last two are far more prevalent than power/glider. (There have also been a few power/glider collisions between gliders and tugs operating from the same aerodrome, but present transponder technology would not fix those either.)
(f) Meanwhile, there is rarely an excuse for glider to make a mess of circuit and landing at a power airfield. There might be the occasional emergency, just as there might be for a non-radio SEP. When I have needed to land at a power aerodrome (or chosen to, rather than pick a farmer's field with a greater degree of risk), my efforts to comply with their practices have been successful and I have not had a poor welcome. I see no reason why others could not do the same. I don't excuse those whose airmanship is at fault. The gliding movement does have training in these things, which works for most, but a minority still sin. I believe there are parallels in the power world, of less than perfect behaviour. If you know a magic solution to stop human imperfections altogether, please bottle it and sell it to the rest of us.
Chris N.