Dangerous Gliders (again)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with MikeGodsell on this - it should be easy for gliders to contain, within their fuselage, a radar reflector. Without Mode C, the RIS wouldn't know their level but a powered pilot could correctly assume they will be below, probably just below, the cloudbase.
As a separate matter, the technology to make a low power transponder is straightforward. The #1 reason they aren't on the shelf is that not being mandatory, few glider owners are going to buy one. The #2 reason is that (if/when they become mandatory) they would have to be Mode S and it would then be relatively trivial for Garmin or Honeywell (Garmin in particular) to generate a low power design and, marketed worldwide through their well established avionics channels, it would push whoever developed the original product out of the market.
As a separate matter, the technology to make a low power transponder is straightforward. The #1 reason they aren't on the shelf is that not being mandatory, few glider owners are going to buy one. The #2 reason is that (if/when they become mandatory) they would have to be Mode S and it would then be relatively trivial for Garmin or Honeywell (Garmin in particular) to generate a low power design and, marketed worldwide through their well established avionics channels, it would push whoever developed the original product out of the market.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 423 Likes
on
223 Posts
Thanks TugpilotSmiffy,
I think and hope that in truth we are in general agreement , as we both probably knew all along
Sorry - I probably got a little too bunched over your dogleg suggestion - it had been a very long day and I felt that I was being tarred with all the worst misdemeanors you have experienced in your time at Lasham.
However, it just isn't practical for bigger aircraft to plan doglegs for sun avoidance or to zig-zag across track by a few degrees (actually to avoid the sun from ahead it would be more than a few degrees). We fly too many sectors in a day to plan doglegs in advance to take into account the sun's position - in any case, let's face it - it's not often too sunny in UK! However, we do have an excellent glareshield on the front screen and coupled with a good pair of sunspecs we can cut out most of the glare. Alternating across the planned track isn't a good idea at all because the pax would feel sick in short order, especially if you bear in mind that we often fly from one end of the country to another and back a few times in a day. Our operation is VERY different to flying a light aircraft and we do have different things to take into account (if that sounds rather patronising, my apologies).
We can't use often controlled airspace because it doesn't often go where we need to go to and because of our constantly flexible and often very short notice itinerary we couldn't file the required written flightplans in time, especially when sat in a field! We often fly more than a dozen sectors a day and transitting Class G is the only way we can do it. At this time of year icing is a problem if we tried to get up into the routes, although we do cross through class A and D airspace (and land therein, including Heathrow / Gatwick / Luton, Stansted / Brum etc) on a very regular basis. Just as often we land where there is NO airspace protection at all, not even an ATZ or an aviation site marked on the chart.
We certainly do NOT blunder through glider sites - a midair would be just as dangerous to us as to the other aircraft, and sudden manoeuvring for avoiding action could injure our passengers, who are secured by a lap belt at best. We go around or very well above marked glider sites and we do of course read the daily NOTAMS (actually we carry a copy with us in flight). In addition I personally check for signs that the site might be active, including looking for the winch or other vehicles and aircraft on the ground, considering the weather and wind direction and consider the possibility of tug launches. I also recently went against the grain within our company and asked for a new letdown procedure to be amended because it took us too close to a glider site for my liking.
Fat, dumb, happy? I keep trying with the diet. I'm not dumb, although I think I'm reasonably happy because I know I'm using all the airmanship I've gathered over 30 years of professional flying and trying my damnedist to reach retirement age without busting my fairly uneventful career or my ar$e.
I have certainly never given cause to upset the folks at Lasham, the British Gliding Centre, by flying over below 3000ft, not least because the CAA chart shows possible activity to 3700ft.
However, regarding aspersions of my knowledge of the different types of airspace, Lasham does NOT have an ATZ so don't be surprised if aircraft sometimes give scant avoidance based on the chart marked circle alone, which they are quite entitled to do, provided of course that they see and avoid gliders and obviously, the launch cable. If they encounter a light aircraft tug, tow cable attached or not, on it's way down, normal rules of the air apply!
P.S. Talking of airmanship, is that Lasham tug pilot whom I often watched severely pushing his luck by landing with the tow cable attached and dragging through the trees in the woods on the other side of the road still alive?
I think and hope that in truth we are in general agreement , as we both probably knew all along
Sorry - I probably got a little too bunched over your dogleg suggestion - it had been a very long day and I felt that I was being tarred with all the worst misdemeanors you have experienced in your time at Lasham.
However, it just isn't practical for bigger aircraft to plan doglegs for sun avoidance or to zig-zag across track by a few degrees (actually to avoid the sun from ahead it would be more than a few degrees). We fly too many sectors in a day to plan doglegs in advance to take into account the sun's position - in any case, let's face it - it's not often too sunny in UK! However, we do have an excellent glareshield on the front screen and coupled with a good pair of sunspecs we can cut out most of the glare. Alternating across the planned track isn't a good idea at all because the pax would feel sick in short order, especially if you bear in mind that we often fly from one end of the country to another and back a few times in a day. Our operation is VERY different to flying a light aircraft and we do have different things to take into account (if that sounds rather patronising, my apologies).
We can't use often controlled airspace because it doesn't often go where we need to go to and because of our constantly flexible and often very short notice itinerary we couldn't file the required written flightplans in time, especially when sat in a field! We often fly more than a dozen sectors a day and transitting Class G is the only way we can do it. At this time of year icing is a problem if we tried to get up into the routes, although we do cross through class A and D airspace (and land therein, including Heathrow / Gatwick / Luton, Stansted / Brum etc) on a very regular basis. Just as often we land where there is NO airspace protection at all, not even an ATZ or an aviation site marked on the chart.
We certainly do NOT blunder through glider sites - a midair would be just as dangerous to us as to the other aircraft, and sudden manoeuvring for avoiding action could injure our passengers, who are secured by a lap belt at best. We go around or very well above marked glider sites and we do of course read the daily NOTAMS (actually we carry a copy with us in flight). In addition I personally check for signs that the site might be active, including looking for the winch or other vehicles and aircraft on the ground, considering the weather and wind direction and consider the possibility of tug launches. I also recently went against the grain within our company and asked for a new letdown procedure to be amended because it took us too close to a glider site for my liking.
Fat, dumb, happy? I keep trying with the diet. I'm not dumb, although I think I'm reasonably happy because I know I'm using all the airmanship I've gathered over 30 years of professional flying and trying my damnedist to reach retirement age without busting my fairly uneventful career or my ar$e.
I have certainly never given cause to upset the folks at Lasham, the British Gliding Centre, by flying over below 3000ft, not least because the CAA chart shows possible activity to 3700ft.
However, regarding aspersions of my knowledge of the different types of airspace, Lasham does NOT have an ATZ so don't be surprised if aircraft sometimes give scant avoidance based on the chart marked circle alone, which they are quite entitled to do, provided of course that they see and avoid gliders and obviously, the launch cable. If they encounter a light aircraft tug, tow cable attached or not, on it's way down, normal rules of the air apply!
P.S. Talking of airmanship, is that Lasham tug pilot whom I often watched severely pushing his luck by landing with the tow cable attached and dragging through the trees in the woods on the other side of the road still alive?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: somewhere underneath 3rd rock
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
Nice idea, however there is just about nowhere in many single seaters it could go safely so as to be clear of all controls, etc - the biggest area would be behind the wing spars towards the rear of the fuselage, an area that is generally inaccessible except for inspection.
Having used and tested many designes in the past on boats, the largest that could be accomodated would give a return smaller than the glider in general. Actually, with the boats, we found that damp sails gave the best reflection - I wonder if water ballast would do the same ?
The problem gets worse for the more modern gliders that are built using carbon fibre. This will prevent a transponder arial from working, so it's bound to stop a reflector.
ShyTorque,
Good to read your comments, however as a warning to all, aircraft that fly into a winch cable rarely survive, the glider being launched usually does - based on a very very small number of accidents. I hope I never read of such an accident again.
Nice idea, however there is just about nowhere in many single seaters it could go safely so as to be clear of all controls, etc - the biggest area would be behind the wing spars towards the rear of the fuselage, an area that is generally inaccessible except for inspection.
Having used and tested many designes in the past on boats, the largest that could be accomodated would give a return smaller than the glider in general. Actually, with the boats, we found that damp sails gave the best reflection - I wonder if water ballast would do the same ?
The problem gets worse for the more modern gliders that are built using carbon fibre. This will prevent a transponder arial from working, so it's bound to stop a reflector.
ShyTorque,
Good to read your comments, however as a warning to all, aircraft that fly into a winch cable rarely survive, the glider being launched usually does - based on a very very small number of accidents. I hope I never read of such an accident again.
Nice idea, however there is just about nowhere in many single seaters it could go safely so as to be clear of all controls, etc - the biggest area would be behind the wing spars towards the rear of the fuselage, an area that is generally inaccessible except for inspection.
G
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
Interesting sets of comments, which go back to my original thoughts.
In my view, there is legal and there is sensible. As ShyTorque says, just because Lasham doesn't have an ATZ it doesn't mean it is sensible to blat through it.
My issue, though, remains with those, possible in the minority, who think that
a) gliders are able to fit the sort of hi-tech fit required to fit in with TCAS
b) are GPS-fixated and enjoy 'join the dots' -flight, irrespective of the areas they are flying through, cos they are in receipt of an ATC service
In my 40 years of flying, I was taught never ever put your all your faith in technology - not even a fuel gauge.
In my view, there is legal and there is sensible. As ShyTorque says, just because Lasham doesn't have an ATZ it doesn't mean it is sensible to blat through it.
My issue, though, remains with those, possible in the minority, who think that
a) gliders are able to fit the sort of hi-tech fit required to fit in with TCAS
b) are GPS-fixated and enjoy 'join the dots' -flight, irrespective of the areas they are flying through, cos they are in receipt of an ATC service
In my 40 years of flying, I was taught never ever put your all your faith in technology - not even a fuel gauge.
Interesting thread.
However, how many mid air collisions actually happen in the UK between gliders and transitting powered aircraft? Obviously there are more glider/glider collisions.
I can only think of one recently and that involved the tug, the glider it was towing and another glider.
I cannot recall any others, anyone any idea?
UV
However, how many mid air collisions actually happen in the UK between gliders and transitting powered aircraft? Obviously there are more glider/glider collisions.
I can only think of one recently and that involved the tug, the glider it was towing and another glider.
I cannot recall any others, anyone any idea?
UV
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
there was the 'bang' at Aston Down with conflicting circuits, but there have been very few gliders knocked out of the sky by a powered aircraft, in comparison to the mid-airs between powered aircraft such as
The Cessna hit by a military aircraft when low and photographing
The microlight hit at Brookman's Park
There have been the similar noises about all aircraft being techno-kit equipped to stop this happening
The Cessna hit by a military aircraft when low and photographing
The microlight hit at Brookman's Park
There have been the similar noises about all aircraft being techno-kit equipped to stop this happening
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually it would be very easy to incorporate, like many design features, in new-build aircraft. That is the usual way of bringing in new safety measures - bring them into the new rules, but don't make it mandatory retrospective.
The last thing general aviation needs is (yet more) idiotic regulations aimed at solving non-problems.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very interesting thread, albeit a little personal and partisan at times.
I'd just like to add my two-penny worth as both a power and glider pilot...
It's been said before on this thread and yes, the rules of the air say see and avoid in vmc, but gliders are very difficult to spot even when you know they're there. Glider pilots that assume that power pilots have seen them and will avoid them, because they have right of way, are guilty of woeful airmanship.
We all must do whatever is necessary to enhance flight safety, and anything that improves our visibility on radar, or better still SSR, should be recommended. Fitting a transponder might cost a few thousand to install, but what is that spread across the average syndicate? My life's worth more than that, isn't yours?
To those that have commented on power pilots with their heads inside checking their GPS/whatever, I'd just like to remind you that if you're above 3000', and within 1000' of cloudbase and/or 1500m of cloud horizontally, you are IFR (regardless of what you are flying). In this case, the 'I' stands for Instrument - that's probably why their head is inside!
Which brings me round to my final issue. I've lost count of the number of glider pilots that do not know the difference between VFR and IFR, their obligations in differing airspace, etc. Perhaps the best thing that EASA will bring will be a standardisation of groundschool, licencing and RT for all pilots (just why does gliding need its own frequencies? - get a FIS/RIS from a local station and benefit everyone). This really will improve flight safety.
140
I'd just like to add my two-penny worth as both a power and glider pilot...
It's been said before on this thread and yes, the rules of the air say see and avoid in vmc, but gliders are very difficult to spot even when you know they're there. Glider pilots that assume that power pilots have seen them and will avoid them, because they have right of way, are guilty of woeful airmanship.
We all must do whatever is necessary to enhance flight safety, and anything that improves our visibility on radar, or better still SSR, should be recommended. Fitting a transponder might cost a few thousand to install, but what is that spread across the average syndicate? My life's worth more than that, isn't yours?
To those that have commented on power pilots with their heads inside checking their GPS/whatever, I'd just like to remind you that if you're above 3000', and within 1000' of cloudbase and/or 1500m of cloud horizontally, you are IFR (regardless of what you are flying). In this case, the 'I' stands for Instrument - that's probably why their head is inside!
Which brings me round to my final issue. I've lost count of the number of glider pilots that do not know the difference between VFR and IFR, their obligations in differing airspace, etc. Perhaps the best thing that EASA will bring will be a standardisation of groundschool, licencing and RT for all pilots (just why does gliding need its own frequencies? - get a FIS/RIS from a local station and benefit everyone). This really will improve flight safety.
140
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Lasham
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not been on here for a bit so thanks shytorque, peace love and happiness established, if this thread as proved anything, theres good and bad in all forms of aviation, we can probably all learn from each other, and the internet is not really a good way of discussing things, sure if we'd been face to face it wouldn't of got so personal, and nobody would have seen by bad grammer, and thats probably spelt with an a instead of an e.
And out of the sixty odd tug pilots at Lasham there isn't one who doesn't at some time drag that rope through the trees, course I don't do it anymore.
You take care and enjoy your flying.
And out of the sixty odd tug pilots at Lasham there isn't one who doesn't at some time drag that rope through the trees, course I don't do it anymore.
You take care and enjoy your flying.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's good and bad in all forms of aviation, we can probably all learn from each other; and the Internet is not really a good way of discussing things, if we'd been face to face it wouldn't have got so personal.
It's been said before on this thread and yes, the rules of the air say see and avoid in vmc, but gliders are very difficult to spot even when you know they're there. Glider pilots that assume that power pilots have seen them and will avoid them, because they have right of way, are guilty of woeful airmanship.
We all must do whatever is necessary to enhance flight safety, and anything that improves our visibility on radar, or better still SSR, should be recommended.
Fitting a transponder might cost a few thousand to install, but what is that spread across the average syndicate? My life's worth more than that, isn't yours?
To those that have commented on power pilots with their heads inside checking their GPS/whatever, I'd just like to remind you that if you're above 3000', and within 1000' of cloudbase and/or 1500m of cloud horizontally, you are IFR (regardless of what you are flying). In this case, the 'I' stands for Instrument - that's probably why their head is inside!
Which brings me round to my final issue. I've lost count of the number of glider pilots that do not know the difference between VFR and IFR, their obligations in differing airspace, etc. Perhaps the best thing that EASA will bring will be a standardisation of groundschool, licencing and RT for all pilots (just why does gliding need its own frequencies? - get a FIS/RIS from a local station and benefit everyone). This really will improve flight safety.
Interesting question there - given that the definition of IFR.v.VFR in a powered aeroplane depends upon flying speed, altitude and pilots qualifications - what does it do to a glider pilot. Presumably the speed and height rules don't change, but qualifications?
G
G
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not aware of any specific qualifications required for IFR flight in the UK when in VMC. Vanilla PPLs can declare IFR provided they remain VMC.
The problem appears to be when pilots confuse VMC with VFR. Flying near a cloud above 3000' is not VFR!
140
The problem appears to be when pilots confuse VMC with VFR. Flying near a cloud above 3000' is not VFR!
140
