Dangerous Gliders (again)

[robin]

Saw this in today's 'Grauniad'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/...333045,00.html

Another attack on gliders, using the standard buzz-words 'Uncontrolled Airspace' and 'No transponder'. Must frighten the poor dears in steerage who read this stuff.

[Sedbergh]

Dashed unfair those two gliders ganging up on a lone RAF Jaguar like that.

[robin]

Oh - but isn't that the Al Queida Gliding Club

[rightstuffer]

I think we should press for VCAS for every glider. It only weighs 150 kilos - and costs about £800K including fitting.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It's a fair comment though - there is a problem, and it's not just that anybody working hard enough to keep a Jaguar in the air will struggle to see and avoid a 747.

Gliders can't be painted in dark colours- which will attract UV and damage the composite structure. They can't carry transponders by and large, because there's no power supply. They can't fly standard IFR or circuit patterns, because they don't have engines that allow them to maintain fixed headings and altitudes. None of these are readily solveable.

There are a few things that could be done - glider pilots could be better educated in circuit patterns before they start cross-country flying. Also, I'm afraid that I've no sympathy for the "we're glider pilots, we don't have to learn RT" view - picking up a FIS on a handheld ICOM takes little effort, and is a big aid to themselves and everybody else. Similarly, there is no good reason why a diverting glider pilot has to join an airfield non-radio - standard circuit calls and a standard-ish circuit are entirely achievable.

The other thing that I'm surprised isn't done is carriage of a Luneberg lense - that is one of those strange right-angled metal things you often see hanging from the mast of yachts. It wouldn't be hard to build one into the fuselage of a glider and it would make a huge difference to primary radar returns. I believe that stealth fighters fly in peacetime with something similar - it makes life much easier for them, as well as the obvious advantage of making sure nobody knows what their wartime radar signature looks like.

Yes the rest of us can, must, and do maintain the best lookout that we can - but ultimately the glider boys and girls do need to help themselves a bit more.

G

Getting reactionary in my old age.

[robin]

So when a glider is hill-soaring the Black Mountains, probably below the tops, how does that help in avoiding a Jaguar.

I suppose you could say they shouldn't be there or they should be flying where they can be seen, but that rather defeats the object of hill-soaring.

A better bet would be to stick a Jaguar pilot in a glider from Talgarth and let his mates loose in the valleys to see how it is from the glider pilot's perspective and how well trained soaring pilots are.

[Genghis the Engineer]

If a glider pilot has asked for FIS and declared himself "manoeuvring below 2000ft at a particular location" or words to that effect, I'd expect the local FIS controller to have passed this information to the Jag - who should then either re-route or at-least know to stop ***ing around trying to get the No.2 electrical system to work after it's dropped out for the 3rd time in 10 minutes and keep his head outside.

I think that you'll find that a lot of military pilots have done gliding at some point, and are quite aware of what you're up to - but it still helps for them to know roughly where you are likely to be. (The same applying to the rest of us as well, whatever the airspace rules say about see and be seen.)

G

[stillin1]

Genghis the Engineer is making a lot of sense.
Before some of you jump on the high horses and gallop for his throat - get real. It takes 2 to collide. Anything that the no-engine brigade can do to improve the situational awareness vs other traffic is a huge advance over the oft blinkered "I'm in a glider so you have to avoid me" attitude.
You are right - I do have to avoid you. Now tell me how? Literally - tell me. get a radio fitted and use it. Get a FIS if you can, fit a transponder (if you can), get a Lunerberg lens fitted (they really do work). Stay the hell away from controlled airspace, airfield climb-out and approach lanes, MATZs etc etc.
Just like any airspace user - play your part in keeping it safe for all of us

Now count to 10, take a deep breath and really let me have it!

[MLS-12D]

I think we should press for VCAS for every glider. It only weighs 150 kilos - and costs about £800K including fitting.

This was a joke ... right?

Personally I have no objection to installing Luneberg lenses in sailplanes; but it has to be kept in mind that these are purely passive devices, and will not trigger TCAS warnings.

[robin]

Sounds silly, but surely the Rules of the Air are quite clear on this point - power gives way to gliders who give way to balloons?

[Sedbergh]

I did an RT course once. Trouble was about 95% of it was irrelevant to gliding.

Permission to start up/taxi/take off? Not in a glider
Route deviations/diversions? - happens every 30 seconds in a glider.
VRP's?
PAN/Maday calls - not a huge relevance
Class D airspace ? Don't want to fly in it anyway.
etc etc

And then I was supposed to sit in a box and talk my way through an entire power flight (and I'd never flown power in my life)

And isn't there some issue about having a PPL medical to qualify for the RT licence? Not sure if thats true,but I head a rumour.

So I bottled out and remain legally confined to the gliding channels only, despite having a full ICOM in the glider.

Things could be made easier! (but don't worry chaps, by the time EASA has finished with us, there won't be glider in the sky - and not much else either!).

[Kolibear]

Legally thats absolutely correct, but in practical terms, if I was in a glider faced with an oncoming B747, I wouldn't rely on it too much.

[robin]

Having sat for many hours in gliders, we do hear aircraft coming towards us quite clearly (not having a noisy fan motor in front). We can even hear dogs barking on the ground. And as we are unlikely to survive a collision, we have a vested interest in trying to avoid being around you guys

But when you have power pilots head down in the cockpit pressing the buttons on a GPSIII, ignoring the words 'Intense Gliding Activity' on their charts and ploughing overhead a field with 'Cables up to 3000' we don't have a lot of faith in power pilots even trying to take on board the fact we are legally entitled to fly.

As for Jaguar and Hawk pilots, by the time they see us, we are a dent in their wings. Yet they still route through areas we use intensively and blame us for near-misses

Sorry, but if an area is promolgated as being intensively used for gliding, then power pilots should adjust their use of such airspace accordingly. They may be the only ones present at the court of enquiry. but it doesn't make them right.

[powerless]

Have there ever been any trials of the Luneberg lense in a modern glider? It would be very interesting to see the results of any tests. As a low hours glider pilot I am VERY interested in anything that gives me an extra change against the heavy stuff.

It isn't only GA and low level military traffic we need to watch out for in class G, now we are getting 737 traffic that cannot read about wires to 3000 and intense gliding!

The issue over the all white glider has been looked into and the trial indicated dayglo panels don't help either so who is going to produce the £500 5oz transponder that runs on a pp3 battery for 12 hours!





Still trying to keep it up!

[Aussie Andy]

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?

Andy

[stillin1]

Lots of valid points guys.
I totally agree that powered guys flying near to glider sites have the primary responsibility to be somewhere else!
A lunerberg lens about 6 inches in size stands out on a fighter's and ATC's radar (if you are reasonably close to the radar head) just fine.
Airspace reserved just for gliders - where, how large and do you all promise to stay in it? = don't know, don't know and no in that order - so try to be constructive next time.
gliders vs airliners in free airspace - right, it is a problem that is here to stay - lunerberg lense = ATC may see you and vector the big boys around you. they just want to go in straight lines to save fuel instead of staying in the airways for the safety accrued.
Transponder vs wt and time issue. get a bigger and better battery and glide just a little worse, or just stay as you are - an accident looking for a place to happen.
Rules of the air. - can't apply it if I can't see you.

By the way I fly gliders, GA and pointy jets - no axe to grind, just would like to see us all playing for the same team. I want to get very very old. I ain't picking a fight or trying to wind anyone up

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yet they still route through areas we use intensively and blame us for near-misses

Yet you keep on gliding in military training areas... Bottom line is that we need to be talking to each other, and everybody needs to understanding each others requirements. Civil + military + gliders = about 20,000 flying machines in the UK, that's actually quite a lot of airspace each, and we don't really need to clash - but there are ways and means.

Nobody's blameless here, I've frequently seen gliders join at several GA airfields I know, make no calls, completely ignore published circuit procedure, and in several cases stop on the runway as well. This is not big, clever, or safe.

On the other hand there are plenty of published cases of fast jets routing low over published gliding or hang-gliding sites, resulting in genuine risk to life - that's just plain unprofessional.

Permission to start up/taxi/take off? Not in a glider

True, but not relevant to most powered airfields either.

Route deviations/diversions? - happens every 30 seconds in a glider.

And in most light aircraft - but if diverting to an unplanned airfield we jolly well talk to them.

PAN/Maday calls - not a huge relevance

At various times I've seen (and reported on RT) road accidents and another (non-radio) aircraft make an emergency landing underneath me - that's just as likely to happen to a glider as something powered. It's also nearly as likely that your pax might suffer some medical problem in a glider as a Cessna, requiring a Mayday - similarly for a structural failure - a glider is hardly less complex than a light aircraft and maintained to lower standards.

Class D airspace ? Don't want to fly in it anyway.

Let's see, you've run out of lift and your choices are to ask for permission to fly into class D to divert to a sensible airfield, or to try and land on the side of a mountain? Do you..

(a) Talk to somebody, and divert to a friendly airfield in perfect safety.
(b) Land on the side of a mountain, hope to survive, then expect somebody to retrieve the bits of your glider from there. (Or even if it's intact, you'll probably have landed a mile from a road).
(c) Fly into controlled airspace without permission or nobody knowing you're there, possibly causing safety problems to other aircraft and in all likelihood attracting a CAA prosecution.



Plus, if you may divert to another airfield, don't you want to understand what the powered traffic is doing from their RT transmissions, for your own safety?

G

[Final 3 Greens]

Yet you keep on gliding in military training areas

G, with the very greatest of respect, the military does not own uncontrolled airspace, they are a joint user. Of course, if a glider penetrated a restricted miltary area, that would be a different matter.

I have every sympathy with the gliding community (of whom I am not one), when fast moving jets whistle through at 360 OR 420 knots, and then they are made to appear dangerous and culpable in the press for the resulting airprox.

In my opinion, this is the same syndrome that caused some posters on this board to blame the pilot of a Cessna, when he was hit by a fast moving jet, with the PF heads down and the commander unsighted. I find it hard to be so black and white.

The rules are clear, see and avoid and give way to gliders and balloons.

Maybe we should listen to the plea to make things easier and push for a simplified glider radio license, that takes into account their more limited communication requirements.

[MLS-12D]

the military does not own uncontrolled airspace, they are a joint user. Of course, if a glider penetrated a restricted miltary area, that would be a different matter.

I have every sympathy with the gliding community (of whom I am not one), when fast moving jets whistle through at 360 or 420 knots, and then they are made to appear dangerous and culpable in the press for the resulting airprox.

I agree 100%.

I've frequently seen gliders join at several GA airfields I know, make no calls, completely ignore published circuit procedure, and in several cases stop on the runway as well. This is not big, clever, or safe.

There are limited exceptions (e.g., airshows), but generally speaking a sailplane will not voluntarily land at a GA aerodrome; the pilot only lands there if he or she runs out of lift. In such circumstances, it may well be essentially impossible for the pilot to fly nice neat circuits. Further, the pilot will have no time to look up "published circuit procedure" or the relevant frequency, even assuming that he has room in the cockpit to store such documentation. Finally, chastising an unpowered aircraft for "stopping on the runway" is just plain silly (apologies to Genghis if he was referring to glider pilots abandoning their aircraft on an active runway while they went to telephone for a retrieve).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAN/Maday calls - not a huge relevance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At various times I've seen (and reported on RT) road accidents and another (non-radio) aircraft make an emergency landing underneath me - that's just as likely to happen to a glider as something powered.

A forced landing in a glider is very rarely an emergency, unless one is imprudent enough to fly over completely unsuitable terrain; and even then, the pilot would be better off keeping his head out of the cockpit and landing the aircraft as best he can, not wasting precious time communicating with people who are in no position to provide immediate assistance.

It's also nearly as likely that your pax might suffer some medical problem in a glider as a Cessna, requiring a Mayday.

In the first place, the great majority of sailplanes are single seaters. In the second place, if one has a passenger with a medical problem, the prudent thing would be to land, not to waste time gabbing on the radio.

similarly for a structural failure - a glider is hardly less complex than a light aircraft and maintained to lower standards.

Virtually all modern gliders are stressed for greater loads than are light airplanes; accordingly, they are less likely to suffer structural failures. I cannot say that sailplane structural failures are completely unknown, but such an unqualified statement would be 99.9% accurate.

In any case, in the unlikely event of a structural failure, the prudent pilot will bail out without delay, not stick around fiddling with the radio.

I am frankly baffled by the suggestion that gliders are not maintained to the same standards (perhaps this dichotomy is true in the UK, but it is certainly not a universal situation).

[Genghis the Engineer]

MLS, we are (I believe) talking about the UK here - where the airfield density is rather greater than in most parts of the world, and where gliders have been historically deregulated and legally speaking maintained by owners using non-certiifed parts (certainly not the case in most countries where they hold ICAO compliant CofA). Also our fields tend to be rather smaller than you are probably used to in Canada, and often rather less suitable for a forced landing - this means that gliders often do divert to GA or microlight fields, where most of the time they display superb airmanship and are given a friendly welcome.

The mainplane and other composite primary structure is stressed to higher values than light aircraft to compensate for the variability of composite materials. The flying controls are stressed to the same or slightly lower values.

As for glider joins, I'm afraid that in my own flying I see this 2 or 3 times a year - which is a lot. Charts are available with radio frequencies on them and it is perfectly possible (I've done it more times than I'd care to count when diverting for one reason or another) to call an airfield when very close, get circuit details and make a reasonable stab at informing the airfield / other traffic of your intentions, and most of the time fit in with prevailing circuit traffic. It's not hard, and since in the UK most airfields are surrounded by 2nm radius controlled airspace, that's at-least 60 seconds from entering the ATZ to setting up for a landing, quite enough to announce your intention - and a damned good idea at a busy airfield which might have half a dozen powered aircraft, some with students on board, in the circuit.

I'm not anti-glider, I've flown them, certified them, and been very happy to welcome a great many to various airfields I've flown from. I'm anti bad-airmanship, and I'm afraid that gliders are not immune from it - nor is any other branch of aviation, but this thread is about gliders.

G