Dangerous Gliders (again)

[robin]

Well said Chris -
by the way, do you have the Ka6 still?

[chrisN]

Robin, the Ka6E is sold to someone rebuilding it after we found a bit too much glue deterioration - entailing wing fabric removal and recovering - for me to want to fix.

I am temporarily flying a Lak 12 which is now also for sale.

I have a new glider on order, and am exploring having a transponder aerial installed in its fin. I am hoping that is far enough away, and/or shielded from the pilot (me!) by enough carbon fibre in the fuselage, not to be a safety issue, but I don't know for sure.

Also I don't know if a transponder antenna of today will work with any transponder of today or future - if anyone on this forum knows (based on expertise, please) I would be pleased to hear.

I have in mind perhaps fitting one of the cast-off Mode A/C transponders presumably being ditched in their hundreds by power pilots needing to replace them with Mode S for 2005. I could then try it out, at least within the limited battery life which present technology uses.

(I have in any case ordered an extra 7AH battery to be fitted, partly for this and partly for other ancillaries - so its shared use will give perhaps 2-4 hours transponder operation, based on information I have received so far. I would use it mostly when near CAS likely to have heavy stuff with TCAS entering or leaving it in the Class G that I would be in. Also, Essex Radar have a habit of talking to power pilots flying just outside the Stansted zone, though they rarely find time to talk to glider pilots - but at least they could see my squawk and tell the other guy if they see a potential conflict arising.)

Chris N.
-----------------------

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Airbus Girl, you make some good points but I take exception at some.

Jag pilot "showing off" get real, do you really think he flew within 100m of two gliders for the fun of it, dont think so.

I have flown both gliders and fast jets and have no problem with gliders using the see and be seen principle, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to see a glider when you are doing seven miles a minute at low level?? Didnt think so, maybe you could consider your posts a little more before making sweeping statements about how it is all the powered guys fault for not doing enough look out. Effective lookout is indeed the key, but there is lookout at 120 kts in your cessna and there is lookout whilst trying to navigate at low level doing one mile every 9 seconds. If you look inside for a few seconds (which you have to do) to check fuel/hdg/time etc then where you were and where you are can be 0.5-1nm apart.

I hear all points made and it appears to be a difficult problem to resolve. Glider pilots can hear people coming but can not easily get out of the way. Rest assured, fast jets do not do it to make a point or becasue they cant be bothered to avoid you or any other inane reason that has been inferred on this thread.

Robin, we dont actively plan to fly through an area promulgated for high gliding activity, it sometimes happens due to poor weather, fuel, being bounced........the list goes on, the flip side to your argument is why would you plan to fly a glider in a military LFA? Unless you actively promulgate an avoid with the standard 2nm/2000' dimensions then it is game on and the responsibilty resides with all professional aviators to see and be seen.

DS

[PPRuNeUser0172]

With all due respect Mr Skylark, you are rather stating the obvious with your reference to maintenance of Gliders vs powered aircraft, lets face it what is there to go wrong with a Glider? You kind of have the luxurious advantage of having very little mechanically to worry about. Also, to claim that most powered pilots wouldnt notice if their tail fell of or some such tripe really demonstrates the inane nature this thread is taking on.

I think we are missing the point of why this thread was started.

If you dont have anything sensible to contribute then stick to what you know best..............whatever that is.

[Skylark4]

Dirty Sanchez.
Pull your neck in big boy. you are talking through the wrong orifice. What I know is mending aeroplanes, including the types you say you have flown. The modern Glider is far more sophisticated and complex than your club 150 and the average silver C glider pilot knows more about aerodynamics than you do unless you are a very unusual jet jock.
Don't bother to respond to this. I shall not respond further.

Mike W

[D 129]

Aluminium Foil

When I took up power flying after 20 years of gliding ... an "old and wise instructor" urged me to tell all my glider friends to carry a packet of "bake-o-foil" when they went up.

Apparently this can greatly increase the primary radar return on a glass glider. (It would be of interest to know if this is true or folklore).

Of course primary radar coverage is patchy and if its a poor weather day where the PPLers need a RAS or RIS then the gliders probably won't be up anyway ...

Fitting transponders to gliders (Mode S Climb - unable to comply !) is not economically realistic. Quite a few gliders are worth less than the cost of a new transponder.

The power lads really need to route study for glider sites before they go. AND - If there is a glider comp on - THEN READ THE @#&^%$ NOTAMS !.

[Kolibear]

Quite a few gliders are worth less than the cost of a new transponder.

Are the occupants of the glider worth less than the cost of a new transponder?

[ShyTorque]

Quote: "Fitting transponders to gliders (Mode S Climb - unable to comply !) is not economically realistic. Quite a few gliders are worth less than the cost of a new transponder."

Is someone is setting himself up for a joke similar to the one about doubling the value of a rear engined Skoda by filling the petrol tank, I ask myself.....?

Another quote: "Of course primary radar coverage is patchy and if its a poor weather day where the PPLers need a RAS or RIS then the gliders probably won't be up anyway ..."

A totally false statement and a false hope. Accepted, I'm not "a PPLer" I'm an ATPLer but it makes little difference, especially as our type of aircraft travels at an airspeed between 50% and 75% faster than the smaller club aircraft and weighs 10 times as much. We need as much warning as possible so we can take timely avoiding action. We carry TCAS too, to help us but if you aren't on it because you don't carry a transponder, that's one less chance of us being aware of your presence in good time.

Gliders present a tiny visual image until very close, especially if not turning. Sometimes, depending on the light conditions and contrast against the background, they can be seen from a few miles away, sometimes they most definitely CANNOT, even with a prior warning from ATC from a radar return in excellent visibility. Before anyone asks, I have a sight test every six months and I have 6/5 uncorrected vision.

Bearing in mind that the rules are see and BE SEEN, it is everyone's responsibilty to do their bit, including glider pilots. Anything a glider pilot can do to assist the pilot of a powered aircraft to "see and avoid" him should be done. The mentality of someone who thinks that "it's totally the other pilot's responsibility, so he can take care of it" is plain stubborn and plain stupid or he just doesn't understand the problem!

It's ALL of our necks up there, and it's no good being in the right but dead!

ChrisN,

I'm very pleased that at least ONE glider pilot is willing to help himself stay safe. Is it possible to boost the proposed battery by use of a solar panel?

[Say again s l o w l y]

Couldn't a metallic weave be laid into the glider during construction? Not sensible for gliders already built, but for new builds what's stopping this? This would at least help primary returns somewhat.

Is the fitting of transponders more a case of will not rather than cannot?

The power of a transponder signal is surely not as large as some seem to be saying. 200W is a lot of juice, not as much as my microwave however, that reckons it puts out 800W!

[chrisN]

In reverse order:

SAS, I don't know if a metallic mesh could be laid into a new glider. I should have thought so, but with mandatory Mode S coming, would the manufacturers bother with the R&D necessary to prove it out?

Another approach to passive reflectivity, I have been told, is that the sort of three-way-right-angle reflectors used by boats for improved radar detection would need to be about 1 metre in dimensions to be worthwhile, which is far too big to fit into a glider. I am sceptical that it needs to be that big, but again there seems nobody both motivated and in a position to do the research.

ST, re solar cells, I am no expert but I am led to believe that even the CAA-desired LAST (sub 70 watts output power) would draw an average of say 1/2 amp or more from typical 7AH battery. That would last a glider all day. Present transponders draw more like 1-2A average (depending on the number of SSR or TCAS interrogations etc.)

One answer I have received from a New Zealand glider pilot included: "I use 2 batteries linked together giving 14 amp/hours as well as 7amp/h one in the tail as back up. The duration depends on Type. I have a Terra 250D with Mode C encoder, Transponder draws 750 milliamps, the encoder 250 milliamps. The Duration depends on how many Interrogations the Transponder Replies to. If you are getting talked to by several radars it will reply to them all, as well as any TCAS equipped aircraft. They seem to like at least 12 volts so as your batteries start to drop you will disappear if you start talking on your radio etc.. I can get up to approx 4-5 hours, Temp can also play a part in duration. ie in the wave at 20000ft at -25 degrees your batteries start to play up a bit.
I mostly use it for about 1 or 2 hours on a cross country . . . "

On that basis, the unit plus batteries would add several kilograms weight, need the space, and still only give 4-5 hours duration at low levels - less at higher altitudes. We might also need 14v nominal batteries rather than 12v.

The space for solar cells (on top of the fuselage in the only installations I have seen) limits such boost to a fraction of an amp - sorry I don't have specific figures. So it would help, but not be a total solution. If solar cells could be made in a curve, the wing upper surface would provide a huge possibility, but that needs lots of R&D, the temperature under the cells would be a problem for the structure if glass or carbon fibre, and I can't see it happening for years if at all. Pity.

If gliders were designed from the outset for all this, it would be a different matter, but they aren't, and I know of no manufacturers showing any signs of change. That is a fact. Another fact is that the existing fleet (several thousand in the UK alone) is not going to be retro-designed to accommodate such things. The most you can expect is a few idiots like me risking their sex organs by fitting a transponder today, and everyone either grounding their glider or getting Mode S in 2008 by whatever means is then available.

D29: If when I fit mine, I will try to put a sheet of bacofoil between me and the antenna - which might serve as a protective shield (does anyone here know?), and also improve primary radar reflectivity to some extent. If the 1- metre size for an effective reflector is anything like right, however, I doubt if a wrinkled piece of foil will be much use in that respect.

Re relative values - I can't be bothered to respond in what I am trying to keep a sensible discussion.

One last point - this glider-bashing thread and its power-flying adherents seem to be strangely silent about the legions of SEP owners who face similar problems. When I was involved for the BGA, in negotiations about Mode S etc., the PFA and BMAA at least were similarly exercised. In fact, IIRC, I was the only one in the room, from the lighter end of GA, who seemed to see enough merit in transponder technology to want an affordable, packageable, powerable, device at least on a voluntary basis.


Chris N.
============================

[Genghis the Engineer]

As I understand it, PFA and BMAA are quite clear on the point - that they're happy to encourage the development of any such device, they just don't want it mandatory.

G

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Skylark my dear chap, obviously struck a chord there. However just to defend myself if I may, I am quite happy about my knowledge of aerodynamics having studied it in some depth for several years at a higher educational establishment if you catch my drift. So I guess that makes me "unusual". I think you will find that most guys who fly high performance aircraft have a decent knowledge of what keeps them aloft, which again kind of blows holes in your comment.

So less of the sweeping statements and rather trite responses, but then again, who am I to comment, being only a "jet jock"

Blunty by any chance?....................thought so

[MLS-12D]

(1) Yes, air safety could be improved by compelling gliders to adopt all sorts of expensive and/or impractical modifications.

(2) similarly, air safety could be improved, by a rather more significant amount, by prohibiting all IFR flying (sorry, no exceptions for military or scheduled airlines).

In both cases, the authorities have apparently decided that the risks of the status quo are outweighed by the inconvenience of the proposed changes.

The only road to 100% perfect safety in aviation is the permanent grounding of all aircraft. That is not an excuse for reckless flying, but it should be a sufficient truism to cause one or two people to rethink their fixation with the very modest risk posed by glider traffic in shared airspace.

[Teddy Robinson]

My 1.3 Euro's worth

Interesting dabate folks, and the object here is surely to avoid people getting hurt/killed whilst engaged in legitimate use of our crowded airspace whatever we happen to be flying.

Wire mesh and aluminium foil : those days have gone. FIS/RIS is now so geared to secondary radar that one has to ask the controller very nicely to drop out the primary filters if you need advise on weather, or other targets.
Unless you have the frequency to yourself, the answer will almost certainly be a polite no.

See and be seen cuts two ways, and requires an appreciation by all airspace users as to the most likely places for an encounter.

White gliders circling in a tight pack under a white cloud are more likely to be spotted if one appreciates that the cloud in question is particularly attractive from a gliding point of view.

If that attractive cloud happens to be over a much used waypoint such as a VOR, perhaps some appreciation that ones silent flight may be punctuated by another airspace user effecting transit over that waypoint may dictate the prudent choice of another cloud.

Until and unless a suitable electronic solution is found and adopted, education has to be the way, and that includes READING THE NOTAMS !!!, looking out and the admission that nobody owns the sky, we just occupy parts of it.

[hollywood285]

interesting chat everyone!!!!! Gliders are a pain in the butt as we all know but they do have a right too be there as they keep saying!! even a good look out sometimes dont see them, the easiest way is a flashing beacon or wing tip strobes!! eveyone sees them and they stand outin the bottom of a clouds were all you glider boys seem to hang out, im sure they dont draw that much power and even new lyium ploy batterys have high current and weight next to nothing, come on lets make it safe for everyone........

[chrisN]

Hollywood, did you read what I wrote about strobes on 23.10.04 ?

Chris N.

[MLS-12D]

Strange how so many people with little or no soaring experience feel qualified to express opinions re the practicality of various procedures or equipment for sailplanes.

I have never flown a B52 bomber, but I read a magazine article about it once.

[Wot No Engines]

A few observations from one who used to fly gliders in the UK - now flying both gliders and SEP in Australia.

The licensing requirements for radio use in the UK are very intimidating to someone who has not gone through a full power PPL training - I would have loved to talk to ATZs, etc, but was regularly told that without that license I risked prosecution, so I stayed quiet - I also avoided all ATZs, class D, etc. I would have prefered to have a restricted glider radio license though.

Any glider pilot showing poor airmanship and not complying with the rules of an ATZ should not just be spoken to - it probably won't do any good, but take it up with their club CFI.

My understanding is that in the UK, all flying is baned unless specifically permitted - this makes it a privalege, not a right. Pilots abusing their privalege to use any airspace are bad news for all, whatever they fly.

Flying in Oz, I'm terrified by the fact that most power pilots seem to believe that RADIO is the principal means of providing separation when VFR. I also know from experience that a lot could be done to improve the effectiveness of lookout for all, but especially power - I re-trained my power instructor in this at his request as I was always seeing many more other aircraft than him whilst getting used to all these new controls and instruments.

What really confirms this reliance on radio is seeing a pilot instructed to go-around by the tower use the radio before reaching for the power !

I was taught to Aviate, Navigate and Communicate in that order. If i'm too busy doing the 1st 2, you won't hear from me until safe to do so, not forgetting that I've probably screwed up to get to that point, so sorry in advance if it happens.

Most flying here is at common fields, with set circuits, radio calls, etc. It doesn't cause a problem, however, I will and must cut inside if the powered plane in front insists on a 747 style circuit. Usually, ALL fly the same circuit (left hand.

Finnaly, new gliders can be critical on weight, even if that can carry 200kg of water - the issue is not max all up, but max landing weight - big commercials have the same problem - they are usually too heavy on takeoff for a normal landing

[Genghis the Engineer]

See and be seen

Here's a tale to set it all into context.


A few years ago, I was enjoying a non-radio flight at around 900ft on a perfect day off the West of Scotland. It was a permit aircraft (which was yellow with a 30ft wingspan), and I was flying without radio. I had QNH set - being defined as "the altimeter read zero halfway between the low and high tide marks on the beach from which I took off". Visibility was as good as it gets (in Scotland anyhow) - there were islands and towns 30+ miles away that I could see clearly.

Appeared, somewhere around 5-10 miles away, a dot on a reciprocal course, which slowly resolved itself into the shape of a PA28. In between enjoying the scenery, I kept an eye on him - his path would take the PA28 about 500 metres to my left.

Then when he came level he turned left, and flew straight at me. A steep descending turn was all that avoided my making an appearance in the AAIB reports that year. He then continued his turn and came back for a second go - this time passing about 100m in front of me, but helpfully close enough to get his registration.


So, I filed an airprox. The Airprox board report was fairly clear on the point that I'd done nothing wrong (the actual phrase used was "the board members had considerable sympathy for the permit aircraft pilot"). According to their report the PA28 pilot

- Reported 5km visibility (balls - probably trying to cover his backside)
- Wasn't looking out because Prestwick (about 40nm away) from whom he was receiving a FIS hadn't reported anything to him (hardly surprising)
- Only saw me once, and then too late to take avoiding action.


My point is simple, I was in an aircraft with similar size, primary radar return, and visibility as a glider. I was in the right. And had I not been keeping a thoroughly good lookout, I'd be dead.

In the right, but dead doesn't work for me.

G

[robin]

... and the message is what we have been saying all along. Keep your eyes open and don't rely on the technology or a ground-based ATCO to maintain your separation for you in the open FIR

A d*ckhead at the controls, like this PA28 pilot, can mess up any of the TCAs, Mode S and ATC