Gliders flying in cloud
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli ... Like robin, your post
left me feeling a bit hot!
Surely outside controlled airspace, you have no more right to be in IMC than any other person legally allowed to do so? Why are you flying IFR in IMC? is it simply because you feel like it ? or is it an aid to your goal (getting from A-B). Perhaps the glider pilot is using it to aid his or her goal (distance record perhaps). If you're not happy get an IR and fly in class A. Apart from crossing under permission there be no gliders there!
SS
I find it a little unnerving that I could be flying the correct quadrantal level under IFR in IMC minding my own business and get hit by some gliding bod spiralling up in the cloud in a completely indiscriminate fashion simply because he feels like it
Surely outside controlled airspace, you have no more right to be in IMC than any other person legally allowed to do so? Why are you flying IFR in IMC? is it simply because you feel like it ? or is it an aid to your goal (getting from A-B). Perhaps the glider pilot is using it to aid his or her goal (distance record perhaps). If you're not happy get an IR and fly in class A. Apart from crossing under permission there be no gliders there!
SS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shortstripper
How do you suggest that BA continue their service into Newcastle then?
I am sure that the professionals will be able to confirm many other instances of commercial traffic being unable to make a whole journey in controlled airspace, let alone class A.
Gliding in clouds will continue to be legal, until a serious incident happens and the debris lands in full sight of her Majesty's Press. After that, I wouldn't be surprised to see a rapid change of the laws.
Then again, due to the low probability of two aircraft occupying the same piece of cloud at the same time, it could be a considerable time until this happens.
Perhaps the glider pilot is using it to aid his or her goal (distance record perhaps). If you're not happy get an IR and fly in class A. Apart from crossing under permission there be no gliders there!
I am sure that the professionals will be able to confirm many other instances of commercial traffic being unable to make a whole journey in controlled airspace, let alone class A.
Gliding in clouds will continue to be legal, until a serious incident happens and the debris lands in full sight of her Majesty's Press. After that, I wouldn't be surprised to see a rapid change of the laws.
Then again, due to the low probability of two aircraft occupying the same piece of cloud at the same time, it could be a considerable time until this happens.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Nimbus,
I haven't missed that point at all, but I hadn't noticed that transponders were being discussed until you mentioned the subject.
That's a different, even more contentious issue; I thought someone might mention it before this discussion was over.
I certainly DON'T think that gliders fly in cloud for more than a short while to gain height in a particular cloud. I'm not sure why you think I intimated that because it certainly wasn't my meaning. (Read that paragraph again - the word BEFORE is the clue).
We carry TCAS and it's an excellent safety aid, in all regimes of flight. We've heard the arguments about lack of sufficient electrical power in gliders for transponders before, which I do accept to some extent, but I think it could be overcome if there was a will (or mandate) to do so.
However, the main point of my contribution was about some glider pilots not even wanting to gain an R/T licence, and speak to ATC, let alone spend money on equipment!
Even in good VMC gliders can be notoriously difficult to see; in IMC it's a complete lottery if there is no co-ordination. I really can't understand the mentality of any pilot who pronounces: "I have a right to be here, I expect you to avoid me because the ANO says so, but don't expect ME to do anything to help YOU keep all of us safe!
That's what I meant when I referred to "the big picture".
I can give one example of how a conflict (or worse) might occur in Class G:
It's a hazy day, end of summer.
A GA aircraft is transitting towards London, VFR, in class G airspace to the east of Coventry at 2500 feet QNH and 145 kts. Coventry ATC is contacted because the track crosses the approach to runway 23, and a FIS is requested. The ATC response is a request for the aircraft to climb to 3,000ft QNH to give separation on a 737, inbound to runway 23. The Coventry conspicuity code of 0256 is selected as requested by ATC. The aircraft begins a climb and becomes marginal VMC shortly after level off, passing in and out of cloud. The crew advise ATC that they are changing to IFR and are climbing to the correct quadrantal of 3,500 ft. ATC identifies the aircraft via a position report off the DTY and upgrades the service to a RIS. All very well, separation is believed to have been achieved.
HOWEVER! In that same cloud, at FL 35 also, is a glider on a cross-country flight, not talking to anyone, not transponder equipped and not appearing on Coventry's radar........
There's another glider, in the cloud, with a 737 approaching at 250 kts, in the descent from behind.......
It's potentially out there, waiting to happen, not just near Cov. If an IMC collision occurred, which pilot might be held to blame? Probably the powered aircraft pilot, if only the word of the ANO is considered.
On the other hand, most sensible folks wouldn't even consider crossing the road or loitering in it without looking, especially after dark whilst wearing dark clothing, even on a pedestrian crossing. What's the difference?
I haven't missed that point at all, but I hadn't noticed that transponders were being discussed until you mentioned the subject.
That's a different, even more contentious issue; I thought someone might mention it before this discussion was over.
I certainly DON'T think that gliders fly in cloud for more than a short while to gain height in a particular cloud. I'm not sure why you think I intimated that because it certainly wasn't my meaning. (Read that paragraph again - the word BEFORE is the clue).
We carry TCAS and it's an excellent safety aid, in all regimes of flight. We've heard the arguments about lack of sufficient electrical power in gliders for transponders before, which I do accept to some extent, but I think it could be overcome if there was a will (or mandate) to do so.
However, the main point of my contribution was about some glider pilots not even wanting to gain an R/T licence, and speak to ATC, let alone spend money on equipment!
Even in good VMC gliders can be notoriously difficult to see; in IMC it's a complete lottery if there is no co-ordination. I really can't understand the mentality of any pilot who pronounces: "I have a right to be here, I expect you to avoid me because the ANO says so, but don't expect ME to do anything to help YOU keep all of us safe!
That's what I meant when I referred to "the big picture".
I can give one example of how a conflict (or worse) might occur in Class G:
It's a hazy day, end of summer.
A GA aircraft is transitting towards London, VFR, in class G airspace to the east of Coventry at 2500 feet QNH and 145 kts. Coventry ATC is contacted because the track crosses the approach to runway 23, and a FIS is requested. The ATC response is a request for the aircraft to climb to 3,000ft QNH to give separation on a 737, inbound to runway 23. The Coventry conspicuity code of 0256 is selected as requested by ATC. The aircraft begins a climb and becomes marginal VMC shortly after level off, passing in and out of cloud. The crew advise ATC that they are changing to IFR and are climbing to the correct quadrantal of 3,500 ft. ATC identifies the aircraft via a position report off the DTY and upgrades the service to a RIS. All very well, separation is believed to have been achieved.
HOWEVER! In that same cloud, at FL 35 also, is a glider on a cross-country flight, not talking to anyone, not transponder equipped and not appearing on Coventry's radar........
There's another glider, in the cloud, with a 737 approaching at 250 kts, in the descent from behind.......
It's potentially out there, waiting to happen, not just near Cov. If an IMC collision occurred, which pilot might be held to blame? Probably the powered aircraft pilot, if only the word of the ANO is considered.
On the other hand, most sensible folks wouldn't even consider crossing the road or loitering in it without looking, especially after dark whilst wearing dark clothing, even on a pedestrian crossing. What's the difference?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Top part of Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just checked with my local ATC; most gliders actually do show up on primary radar, and the higher they climb, the better the return! Should show up on Coventry's then?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: cambridge
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread, but so far mostly about why, how, ATC, conflicts, and whether good or bad idea.
But I am intrigued by what this says about pilot training and qualifications. Power pilots are advised to treat cloud with the greatest respect, given 4 hrs of IF training, told about 180 degree turns and train on aircraft with at least an AI. We are advised to get an IMC asap and then only use it in an emergency. We are always reading about people who "lost it" in cloud.
So can someone explain how glider pilots manage with minimal training, minimal instrumentation and hardly ever seem to come to grief?
But I am intrigued by what this says about pilot training and qualifications. Power pilots are advised to treat cloud with the greatest respect, given 4 hrs of IF training, told about 180 degree turns and train on aircraft with at least an AI. We are advised to get an IMC asap and then only use it in an emergency. We are always reading about people who "lost it" in cloud.
So can someone explain how glider pilots manage with minimal training, minimal instrumentation and hardly ever seem to come to grief?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Top part of Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So can someone explain how glider pilots manage with minimal training, minimal instrumentation and hardly ever seem to come to grief?
I fly both power and glider; I'm an instructor on the latter.
I don't know that there is a definative answer but one thing, I have learned through experience, is how differently glider pilots are attuned to the attitude of the aircraft by feel, rather than instruments.
I can detect changes in speed as low as 5 kts by reference to the noise in the cockpit and attitude - not by looking at the ASI. My bum (through the seat) can feel a change in attitude and lift, before the instruments have time to respond. Consequently I can maintain a constant (ish) airspeed, without reference to the ASI; and that helps significantly in maintaining a constant attitude in cloud (or anywhere else)
Glider pilots learn to recognise the symptoms of the stall through feel and take the appropraite action - the stick goes forward. Flying in a tight thermal with fully flaps 45 degrees of bank, I am close to the stall: If I Sense, ease forward on the stick - carry on flying; no electrical stall warnings - just sense:
I don't need a T&S to tell me when I'm slipping or skiddiing when flying gliders - I have a yaw string.
With 15-20 meters of wing, I can tell (normally) on which side of the glider the strongest lift is, through my seat.
When flying cross country, even though I fly on QNH, I don't know the height of the ground, and hardley ever look at the altimeter when landing out in a field (its all done by eye)
(if fact the cross-country endorsement requires you to do field landings with the altimeter covered up/offset)
The basic controls of a glider and a power aircraft are the same: stick goes forward - cows get bigger.
Heads outs of the cockpit, a constant lookout; not looking at the instruments and flying intuatively all help.
But I think thats where the similarity ends; glider pilots are IMHO far more intune with the aircraft that power pilots, and maybee that has something to do with it?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Nimbus,
As your friendly ATCO said, MOST gliders show up on radar, but from experience they might NOT. In any event, these days the UK doesn't have full LARS coverage. For example, Coventry can't always provide a radar service and some military radar units stand down during holiday periods.
Even where radar coverage IS available, a primary contact could be anything from ground clutter to airways traffic. Some radar units don't have secondary radar, Coventry being one example.
If an aircraft painting only a primary contact on radar isn't in contact with ATC (or not transponding mode C) there is no way of them knowing its altitude, whether it is IMC or VMC below and certainly no certain way of knowing if the contact is a glider.
This is a flight safety issue equally affecting all of us. It would be better if we all worked together in such cases, not adopt an unhelpful "us and them" attitude. If an accident were to occur in these circumstances, legislation might well be used to prevent a recurrence........ GA already carries radios, transponders and often TCAS and speaks to ATC, so where do you think any legislation would be aimed?
Or do you have an alternative solution to the concept of a glider pilot simply making a radio call to ATC?
I note your comments about glider pilots being more in tune with their aircraft. Can you also sense a 737 coming along behind you at 250 kts in the same cloud?
As your friendly ATCO said, MOST gliders show up on radar, but from experience they might NOT. In any event, these days the UK doesn't have full LARS coverage. For example, Coventry can't always provide a radar service and some military radar units stand down during holiday periods.
Even where radar coverage IS available, a primary contact could be anything from ground clutter to airways traffic. Some radar units don't have secondary radar, Coventry being one example.
If an aircraft painting only a primary contact on radar isn't in contact with ATC (or not transponding mode C) there is no way of them knowing its altitude, whether it is IMC or VMC below and certainly no certain way of knowing if the contact is a glider.
This is a flight safety issue equally affecting all of us. It would be better if we all worked together in such cases, not adopt an unhelpful "us and them" attitude. If an accident were to occur in these circumstances, legislation might well be used to prevent a recurrence........ GA already carries radios, transponders and often TCAS and speaks to ATC, so where do you think any legislation would be aimed?
Or do you have an alternative solution to the concept of a glider pilot simply making a radio call to ATC?
I note your comments about glider pilots being more in tune with their aircraft. Can you also sense a 737 coming along behind you at 250 kts in the same cloud?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personnally I think that anyone who flies in IMC should be equipped with a Mode C or better transponder........Whether it be a glider, a Cub or 737......Preferably in receipt of a radar service.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I note your comments about glider pilots being more in tune with their aircraft. Can you also sense a 737 coming along behind you at 250 kts in the same cloud?
Glider pilots learn to recognise the symptoms of the stall through feel and take the appropraite action - the stick goes forward
And by the way, most Cessna singles don't have an electric stall warner anyway.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 16th Sep 2005 at 14:58.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew of one GA/glider accident over a gliding site, which sounds like WR's example, but not the other. Without more details it would take me ages going through old reports to find out for certain.
If Rustle and WR are both right, that makes 4 power/glider collisions in my 35 years of gliding (rather than 3 as I thought), including 1 glider tug/glider, the Rockwell/Cirrus I mentioned, and these two.
None in cloud.
I have no more wish to encounter something in cloud than anyone else, but it is the least likely source of collision, for power or gliders, based on density of flying things in types of air/where most things are/actual accident statistics etc.. I think I am more likely to have a collision in VMC than in cloud, because most gliders and GA is there, and we know that the eyeball is only partly effective. I have had far more close calls with other gliders at the heights we normally fly than with power in class G. So has every other glider pilot I have ever discussed it with.
If transponders and TCAS-type solutions were universally available and the power and package problems were solved, I personally would have one. As I have written before on similar threads, the glider (old, wood, no water ballast - a Ka6E if you want to know) I was flying until last July was already at maximum weight with its existing battery and instruments, and its panel was full. No way to get a transponder in.
My new one has a hole in the panel ready for a transponder, I await the CAA-inspired LAST with eager anticipation, and I am working on the battery storage problem.
It will do nothing to help significantly until there is a TCAS-type solution in every GA aeroplane. Once every glider is squawking, ATC will switch them off when they see over 1000 gliders in southern England, sometimes as many as 40 in one thermal. Transponders are mandatory in Holland, and it is mandatory to switch them off under the Amsterdam TMA because they clutter the ATC screens too much. With Mode S, ATC will selectively "switch off" their reception rather than making the gliders switch them off, but the effect for ATC will be the same. Only TCAS will pick them up and take away one source of conflict.
If anyone seriously thinks ATC could today cope with 1000 gliders all telling their positions, constantly changing heights and directions, and sorting out potential conflicts either with the other gliders or with passing GA in class G, please try to get at least 10 ATCO's onto this thread by random selection (i.e. not pre-biassed one way or the other) of whom at least 8 agree that they could handle it.
Last time I called Essex Radar, to warn them that they were working a powered aircraft round Stansted zone in class G who was telling them he could see no gliders, straight over Ridgewell gliding site, towards me over Haverhill, they would not talk to me when I tried to tell them I was manoeuvring in his 12 o'clock -- too busy. That was just one glider trying to communicate. You really think they could cope with say 50-100 in East Anglia, several hundred from Lasham/Booker/Dunstable etc., several hundred more from other clubs?
Chris N.
========================
If Rustle and WR are both right, that makes 4 power/glider collisions in my 35 years of gliding (rather than 3 as I thought), including 1 glider tug/glider, the Rockwell/Cirrus I mentioned, and these two.
None in cloud.
I have no more wish to encounter something in cloud than anyone else, but it is the least likely source of collision, for power or gliders, based on density of flying things in types of air/where most things are/actual accident statistics etc.. I think I am more likely to have a collision in VMC than in cloud, because most gliders and GA is there, and we know that the eyeball is only partly effective. I have had far more close calls with other gliders at the heights we normally fly than with power in class G. So has every other glider pilot I have ever discussed it with.
If transponders and TCAS-type solutions were universally available and the power and package problems were solved, I personally would have one. As I have written before on similar threads, the glider (old, wood, no water ballast - a Ka6E if you want to know) I was flying until last July was already at maximum weight with its existing battery and instruments, and its panel was full. No way to get a transponder in.
My new one has a hole in the panel ready for a transponder, I await the CAA-inspired LAST with eager anticipation, and I am working on the battery storage problem.
It will do nothing to help significantly until there is a TCAS-type solution in every GA aeroplane. Once every glider is squawking, ATC will switch them off when they see over 1000 gliders in southern England, sometimes as many as 40 in one thermal. Transponders are mandatory in Holland, and it is mandatory to switch them off under the Amsterdam TMA because they clutter the ATC screens too much. With Mode S, ATC will selectively "switch off" their reception rather than making the gliders switch them off, but the effect for ATC will be the same. Only TCAS will pick them up and take away one source of conflict.
If anyone seriously thinks ATC could today cope with 1000 gliders all telling their positions, constantly changing heights and directions, and sorting out potential conflicts either with the other gliders or with passing GA in class G, please try to get at least 10 ATCO's onto this thread by random selection (i.e. not pre-biassed one way or the other) of whom at least 8 agree that they could handle it.
Last time I called Essex Radar, to warn them that they were working a powered aircraft round Stansted zone in class G who was telling them he could see no gliders, straight over Ridgewell gliding site, towards me over Haverhill, they would not talk to me when I tried to tell them I was manoeuvring in his 12 o'clock -- too busy. That was just one glider trying to communicate. You really think they could cope with say 50-100 in East Anglia, several hundred from Lasham/Booker/Dunstable etc., several hundred more from other clubs?
Chris N.
========================
Guest
Posts: n/a
ChrisN
This is not an indicator of the risk severity.
That is calculated by Probability x Impact (no pun intended.)
So, if the prob is 0.01 (ie 1/100th of a percent) x 100 (on a scale of 100), the severity will be 1, i.e very low indeed.
However, all we have proven is the limitation of of quantitative analysis, since qualitative risk analysis (as demonstrated by ShyTorque) illustrates the potential risk scenarios and how they can occur.
It then becomes a matter of taking a view.
Presently, it is legal to cloud climb in gliders, which suggests that the lawmakers take a view that the severity is very low.
But, and it is a big but IMHO, the laws were drafted years ago in an era where there was less traffic movements and some might argue that this should be considered.
As we tend to plan to fight the last war, we end up with a status quo and this is usually broken by an incident that compells us to take notice.
One argument is that cloud climbing is justifiable, whereas a contrary point of view would be that stopping cloud climbing would break a link in a particular accident chain.
However, glider pilots are entitled to climb in clouds and the4 rest of us must hope that they do so with skill and discretion.
None in cloud.
That is calculated by Probability x Impact (no pun intended.)
So, if the prob is 0.01 (ie 1/100th of a percent) x 100 (on a scale of 100), the severity will be 1, i.e very low indeed.
However, all we have proven is the limitation of of quantitative analysis, since qualitative risk analysis (as demonstrated by ShyTorque) illustrates the potential risk scenarios and how they can occur.
It then becomes a matter of taking a view.
Presently, it is legal to cloud climb in gliders, which suggests that the lawmakers take a view that the severity is very low.
But, and it is a big but IMHO, the laws were drafted years ago in an era where there was less traffic movements and some might argue that this should be considered.
As we tend to plan to fight the last war, we end up with a status quo and this is usually broken by an incident that compells us to take notice.
One argument is that cloud climbing is justifiable, whereas a contrary point of view would be that stopping cloud climbing would break a link in a particular accident chain.
However, glider pilots are entitled to climb in clouds and the4 rest of us must hope that they do so with skill and discretion.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Top part of Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you suggesting that power pilots don't? An electric stall warner goes off 5-10 knots BEFORE the stall break, therefore one learns to recongise buffet, sloppy controls etc .... if you didn't, I'd ask for a partial refund from your instructor And by the way, most Cessna singles don't have an electric stall warner anyway.
What I was driving at is that IMHO glider pilots are more sensitive to changes in small attitudes through feel than power pilots, and this may be because on average glider pilots are exposed to greater ranges of the aircrafts flight envelope - and this may in some part answer Windy1's last question.
A glider is just a different type of flying machine, but it needs a different set of skills to fly it. The generalised style of flying is also very different. When I fly GA I generally taxi, take off, transit to somewhere on a pre-determined course at a fixed speed and land again, with minimal risk of a PFL. Generally I don't deviate too much from planned course and if I can avoid it, don't go anywhere near the stall, VNE or make 60 degree banked turns - I don't lke pulling much G either. (Perhaps I'm a boring power pilot!!)
Totally different when I'm flying gliders; I'm happy to spend an hour or 2 flying cross-country, or staying locally and never being outside of gliding range of the airfield. To spend 2 hours locally and never go anywhere far, means that you use the time flying gliders very differently to that of a powered aircraft; by their design and the way that they are flown, glider pilots are therefore exposed to a greater percentage of the flight envelope and become more atuned to the aircraft sensitivities:
Thermalling to stay up (at various bank angles and G loadings)/ various techniques to increase the rate of climb (near to or beyond the stall!) practicing inter-thermal flying, aerobatics etc are all 'the norm' and just to use the time up I'll throw in a normal stall, hammer head stall, mushing stall, high G stall - then find some lift, climb away, go and do some spinning then finish the flight with a sideslipped landing into the undershoot for good measure... and why not? - its just different.
It's also worth mentioning that the ETPS course have for the past few years included a week of gliding in the course, to enable the ETPS students to understand how different a glider is when compared to a normal aircraft, how much more of the flight envelope a glider uses, and how a different set of skills are needed to fly one.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I often wonder with these sort of "dangerous gliders" threads, just what some on here would really like? It almost seems a case of "If we can't do it, why should they?" .... "best try to make enough noise to bring them into line eh?"
Or am I just being too cynical?
SS
Or am I just being too cynical?
SS
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Rustle and WR are both right, that makes 4 power/glider collisions in my 35 years of gliding (rather than 3 as I thought), including 1 glider tug/glider, the Rockwell/Cirrus I mentioned, and these two.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shortstripper
With the very greatest of respect, I think that this is one of the most asinine comments I have read for some time.
What we have on this thread is, IMHO, a constructive discussion between some glider pilots (some or all of whom also fly power) and two commercial pilots who are expressing their reasonable concerns about the practice of cloud climbing.
Let's repeat it, THEY CAN LEGALLY CLOUD CLIMB, no one is saying that they shouldn't. Personally, I have never fancied flying in IMC and do not envy glider pilots their privilege.
Like flying a light single at night, cloud climbing causes a potential risk and pilots like ShyTorque, whose opinions I respect, are sharing the reasons why they are concerned.
ShyTorque says "This is a flight safety issue equally affecting all of us. It would be better if we all worked together in such cases, not adopt an unhelpful "us and them" attitude"
What could be more reasonable and less like your assertion?
With regard to the perception of risk, I also used to own three pistols and shoot in competitions, until my mindset was altered by Hungerford and I withdrew from the sport. After Dunblane, the government altered the law and a formerly respectable sport suffered from the severe restriction of gun ownership.
Yet the risk of being killed by a licensed gun was still statistically very low. Very often it is the perception of government and/or society that drives the qualitative analysis of risk and leads to conclusions that some feel are fair and others feel are unfair.
If a cloud climbing glider collided with a 737, per one of ShyTorque's scenarios, then I bet the law would change overnight, hopefully that thesis willnever be tested.
For your information, I am an ex glider pilot, as well as a PPL.
Nimbus
I do understand what you are saying and glider pilots are definitely better at using the footrests, err whoops, I mean rudder pedals
I often wonder with these sort of "dangerous gliders" threads, just what some on here would really like? It almost seems a case of "If we can't do it, why should they?" .... "best try to make enough noise to bring them into line eh?"
What we have on this thread is, IMHO, a constructive discussion between some glider pilots (some or all of whom also fly power) and two commercial pilots who are expressing their reasonable concerns about the practice of cloud climbing.
Let's repeat it, THEY CAN LEGALLY CLOUD CLIMB, no one is saying that they shouldn't. Personally, I have never fancied flying in IMC and do not envy glider pilots their privilege.
Like flying a light single at night, cloud climbing causes a potential risk and pilots like ShyTorque, whose opinions I respect, are sharing the reasons why they are concerned.
ShyTorque says "This is a flight safety issue equally affecting all of us. It would be better if we all worked together in such cases, not adopt an unhelpful "us and them" attitude"
What could be more reasonable and less like your assertion?
With regard to the perception of risk, I also used to own three pistols and shoot in competitions, until my mindset was altered by Hungerford and I withdrew from the sport. After Dunblane, the government altered the law and a formerly respectable sport suffered from the severe restriction of gun ownership.
Yet the risk of being killed by a licensed gun was still statistically very low. Very often it is the perception of government and/or society that drives the qualitative analysis of risk and leads to conclusions that some feel are fair and others feel are unfair.
If a cloud climbing glider collided with a 737, per one of ShyTorque's scenarios, then I bet the law would change overnight, hopefully that thesis willnever be tested.
For your information, I am an ex glider pilot, as well as a PPL.
Nimbus
I do understand what you are saying and glider pilots are definitely better at using the footrests, err whoops, I mean rudder pedals
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 16th Sep 2005 at 17:56.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle, thanks for the link, which I have now saved. I now realise that my memory is primarily of collisions fatal to the glider pilot(s), which I believe power/glider collisions usually are. The one you pointed out was fatal for the power pilot and for some reason had not lodged in my RAM.
It was another case of power-flying-into-the-back-of-the- glider, both flying straight, in VMC.
None of my comments should be taken as dismissing dangers, nor of suggesting that power pilots are more likely to fly into the back of things than glider pilots. We all suffer from the fallibility of the eye, attention spans, etc.. I have written before, and still firmly believe, that only technology is going to make much difference, i.e. the poorman's TCAS - at least a proximity alert, preferably one indicating distance and direction of a threat within roughly the same height band. And it needs everyone to have the sender and the receiver to be fully effective, though the chances of avoiding collision will be improved with increasing levels of take-up. I am far from convinced that transponders are the entire answer, but if most people had them at least the heavy metal could avoid gliders and other GA (much of the non-glider GA also lacks any or all of radios, transponders, and paints on primary radar).
None of these will help the 40th glider avoid the other 39 in a thermal - only the eyeball, and airmanship using existing guidance for good thermalling practice can do that, I believe. Just as something similar will be the only way power in close formation, air-air photography etc., will avoid collisions in that sphere.
Meanwhile, the greatest danger to me of a collision is with another glider, in VMC, based on accident figures, incidents I and others have experienced, and my own analysis and judgement of the various scenarios and the relative lengths of time I am exposed to them.
Chris N.
==================
It was another case of power-flying-into-the-back-of-the- glider, both flying straight, in VMC.
None of my comments should be taken as dismissing dangers, nor of suggesting that power pilots are more likely to fly into the back of things than glider pilots. We all suffer from the fallibility of the eye, attention spans, etc.. I have written before, and still firmly believe, that only technology is going to make much difference, i.e. the poorman's TCAS - at least a proximity alert, preferably one indicating distance and direction of a threat within roughly the same height band. And it needs everyone to have the sender and the receiver to be fully effective, though the chances of avoiding collision will be improved with increasing levels of take-up. I am far from convinced that transponders are the entire answer, but if most people had them at least the heavy metal could avoid gliders and other GA (much of the non-glider GA also lacks any or all of radios, transponders, and paints on primary radar).
None of these will help the 40th glider avoid the other 39 in a thermal - only the eyeball, and airmanship using existing guidance for good thermalling practice can do that, I believe. Just as something similar will be the only way power in close formation, air-air photography etc., will avoid collisions in that sphere.
Meanwhile, the greatest danger to me of a collision is with another glider, in VMC, based on accident figures, incidents I and others have experienced, and my own analysis and judgement of the various scenarios and the relative lengths of time I am exposed to them.
Chris N.
==================
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was walking the dogs on Devil's Dyke (nr Shoreham for the uninitiated) last Sunday and I thought I saw one of the paragliders climb up into the low cloud above the ridge.
Are these allowed to cloud fly? I didn't see him come back down through the cloud but I must admit I wasn't really paying attention as I was being followed by a rather belligerent looking sheep at the time.
Are these allowed to cloud fly? I didn't see him come back down through the cloud but I must admit I wasn't really paying attention as I was being followed by a rather belligerent looking sheep at the time.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a conversation I had with a LARS unit a couple of years ago:
"Traffic 1 O'clock, 3 miles,opposite direction, a Bonanza at FL45 under my control, multiple targets 12 O'clock, 4 miles, no height information, could be gliders or ground clutter"
I was IFR in IMC with a RIS (obviously), and not near a gliding site. My rational was "ok, the Bonanza is under his control, so I will maintain altitude and heading and all will be ok. Could be gliders ahead, but I'm not near a gliding site on the chart, so it is probably spurious echos. Besides I am in IMC and likely that if it is gliders, they will be below the cloud base with is a good 1000' below"
It WAS gliders, as I passed over the "echos" the cloud was breaking and I could see them below me. Possibly had I known at the time that gliders could legally enter IMC then I may have thought a bit harder about the concequences. I didn't know that gliders could enter IMC, but a reasonable assumption, and it is clear that I am not the only one who didn't know ("clear of cloud and in sight of the ground" I seem to remember from air law).
I have no problem with gliders being allowed in IMC, from a qualification point of view (they can do what they like as far as I am concerned - though I don't think a glider pilot is any better at surviving the "Leans" than a powered pilot seeing as its a physiological thing you can't be "trained" out of), though I really don't want to run into anything at 120 Kts especially as I don't wear a parachute!
I appreciate the problem with 1000 gliders sqwarking, though couldn't they use one code, then ATC could have told me "Gliders 12 O'clock 4 miles, no height information" and I would have definitely altered course......
Cheers
"Traffic 1 O'clock, 3 miles,opposite direction, a Bonanza at FL45 under my control, multiple targets 12 O'clock, 4 miles, no height information, could be gliders or ground clutter"
I was IFR in IMC with a RIS (obviously), and not near a gliding site. My rational was "ok, the Bonanza is under his control, so I will maintain altitude and heading and all will be ok. Could be gliders ahead, but I'm not near a gliding site on the chart, so it is probably spurious echos. Besides I am in IMC and likely that if it is gliders, they will be below the cloud base with is a good 1000' below"
It WAS gliders, as I passed over the "echos" the cloud was breaking and I could see them below me. Possibly had I known at the time that gliders could legally enter IMC then I may have thought a bit harder about the concequences. I didn't know that gliders could enter IMC, but a reasonable assumption, and it is clear that I am not the only one who didn't know ("clear of cloud and in sight of the ground" I seem to remember from air law).
I have no problem with gliders being allowed in IMC, from a qualification point of view (they can do what they like as far as I am concerned - though I don't think a glider pilot is any better at surviving the "Leans" than a powered pilot seeing as its a physiological thing you can't be "trained" out of), though I really don't want to run into anything at 120 Kts especially as I don't wear a parachute!
I appreciate the problem with 1000 gliders sqwarking, though couldn't they use one code, then ATC could have told me "Gliders 12 O'clock 4 miles, no height information" and I would have definitely altered course......
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bedford
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin, Shortstripper - absolutely no intention to offend, it was simply news to me (and I'm sure it would be to a lot of power folks) that whilst flying along in IMC I might meet a glider. I am not saying I have any more 'right' to be there than your goodselves, just a bit shocked that having just spent thousands of pounds, sat an exam and flight test and then following the procedures to the best of my ability, I could still encounter an aircraft that would not be flying a quadrantal level or even talking to anyone Doesn't make any sense to me and I was just suggesting a simple way of helping the situation.
An enlightening thread - I'm in agreement with englishal, ST etc. I do appreciate your problems re: kit, number of aircraft etc. but feel we must work together for the safety of all concerned. So how can we crack it? To avoid a myriad of transmissions could the gliding club simply inform ATC re: activity and likely cloud climbs? This info could then be relayed via the FIS/RIS etc.
As an aside, last year my climbing buddy and I had finished a session in the High Sierras with a number of days to spare. 'Let's try gliding' says I, so Ron and I went to Truckee Soaring and had a thoroughly good time, quite an art I thought, finishing with a hammerhead for good measure
Doesn't make any sense to me and I was just suggesting a simple way of helping the situation.An enlightening thread - I'm in agreement with englishal, ST etc. I do appreciate your problems re: kit, number of aircraft etc. but feel we must work together for the safety of all concerned. So how can we crack it? To avoid a myriad of transmissions could the gliding club simply inform ATC re: activity and likely cloud climbs? This info could then be relayed via the FIS/RIS etc.
As an aside, last year my climbing buddy and I had finished a session in the High Sierras with a number of days to spare. 'Let's try gliding' says I, so Ron and I went to Truckee Soaring and had a thoroughly good time, quite an art I thought, finishing with a hammerhead for good measure