Gliders flying in cloud
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was well aware that gliders fly in cloud - because ChrisN told me so many years ago. I discussed it (and many other related topics with him), and learned a lot from a highly experienced and concerned pilot.
Those who wish to impose restrictions on glider pilots are, in my view, missing the point. The risk of collision with gliders in cloud outside controlled airspace is very low - far lower than the risk of hitting another powered aircraft flying in the same IMC.
Commercial aircraft really shouldn't be there at all - they have all that dedicated controlled airspace that we need permission to enter. That risk should be zero.
What frightens me far more is watching power pilots blunder through gliding sites blissfully unaware of the chaos and distress they are causing. Surprisingly, I can't recall ever having read of a MOR or Airprox filed by a glider in those circumstances. Perhaps they are too forgiving of us power pilots?
Those who wish to impose restrictions on glider pilots are, in my view, missing the point. The risk of collision with gliders in cloud outside controlled airspace is very low - far lower than the risk of hitting another powered aircraft flying in the same IMC.
Commercial aircraft really shouldn't be there at all - they have all that dedicated controlled airspace that we need permission to enter. That risk should be zero.
What frightens me far more is watching power pilots blunder through gliding sites blissfully unaware of the chaos and distress they are causing. Surprisingly, I can't recall ever having read of a MOR or Airprox filed by a glider in those circumstances. Perhaps they are too forgiving of us power pilots?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque wrote: "With regard to choice of which agency to call on the radio, don't forget that GA pilots have to make that very same choice on every flight in Class G!"
I think this inadvertently misses the point. The non-glider pilots are looking for some kind of service from whoever they call, so have some idea who might give them that service. This helps them make the choice.
If I call an agency, I'm looking for no service from them - I'm merely giving them information (glider entering cloud, position and height) so that they can improve their service to other aircraft.
This arose from someone (maybe SkyTorque) suggesting that a glider pilot should make such a call, and my request for information on who I should call.
If I call e.g. Lakenheath, because they're close to me, but another IMC pilot is speaking to Essex, I gather that my call will be useless to him/her because it won't be passed on. Or vice versa.
I'd be happy to make one, possibly two calls to ATC before entering cloud, but my priority has to be 130.4 because, as ChrisN points out, the main risk is other gliders. If there's no single point of contact where I can alert other GA, it seems rather pointless for me to call at all.
One thing which does come out of this thread is that any GA pilot who wants to be sure that there is no glider traffic in cloud should listen to 130.4 for a few minutes. Gliders in cloud call frequently as their height changes, so nothing heard means (or should mean) no gliders.
If anyone can suggest an effective way to alert other GA traffic to my cloud flying I'd be delighted to use it.
I think this inadvertently misses the point. The non-glider pilots are looking for some kind of service from whoever they call, so have some idea who might give them that service. This helps them make the choice.
If I call an agency, I'm looking for no service from them - I'm merely giving them information (glider entering cloud, position and height) so that they can improve their service to other aircraft.
This arose from someone (maybe SkyTorque) suggesting that a glider pilot should make such a call, and my request for information on who I should call.
If I call e.g. Lakenheath, because they're close to me, but another IMC pilot is speaking to Essex, I gather that my call will be useless to him/her because it won't be passed on. Or vice versa.
I'd be happy to make one, possibly two calls to ATC before entering cloud, but my priority has to be 130.4 because, as ChrisN points out, the main risk is other gliders. If there's no single point of contact where I can alert other GA, it seems rather pointless for me to call at all.
One thing which does come out of this thread is that any GA pilot who wants to be sure that there is no glider traffic in cloud should listen to 130.4 for a few minutes. Gliders in cloud call frequently as their height changes, so nothing heard means (or should mean) no gliders.
If anyone can suggest an effective way to alert other GA traffic to my cloud flying I'd be delighted to use it.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
Keef,
"Those who wish to impose restrictions on glider pilots are, in my view, missing the point."
I've just re-read the entire thread from start to finish. Could you please point out where "restrictions" are mentioned? I couldn't find them.
[Edit: Keef, I've read your post again; you stated:
"Commercial aircraft really shouldn't be there at all - they have all that dedicated controlled airspace that we need permission to enter. That risk should be zero."
Sorry to say, that comment shows you do not understand the UK aviation regulations or how GA works. GA cannot use dedicated controlled airspace if it doesn't exist at the departure point and the destination, or in between. Would you like to have more regulated airspace that you would need permission to enter? I think not].
ProfChrisReed,
"If I call an agency, I'm looking for no service from them - I'm merely giving them information (glider entering cloud, position and height) so that they can improve their service to other aircraft."
Do you seriously NOT consider that using ATC to help avoid a mid air collision with YOUR aircraft an improvement in the service to yourself?
If not, and if this reflects the general view of UK glider pilots (I can't believe it does), it is probably a complete waste of time trying to put across any alternative viewpoint over what some of us consider a serious flight safety issue.
"If anyone can suggest an effective way to alert other GA traffic to my cloud flying I'd be delighted to use it."
Certainly. Buy a transponder with mode C. Then GA with TCAS can avoid you. We've been there before, no joy.
"Those who wish to impose restrictions on glider pilots are, in my view, missing the point."
I've just re-read the entire thread from start to finish. Could you please point out where "restrictions" are mentioned? I couldn't find them.
[Edit: Keef, I've read your post again; you stated:
"Commercial aircraft really shouldn't be there at all - they have all that dedicated controlled airspace that we need permission to enter. That risk should be zero."
Sorry to say, that comment shows you do not understand the UK aviation regulations or how GA works. GA cannot use dedicated controlled airspace if it doesn't exist at the departure point and the destination, or in between. Would you like to have more regulated airspace that you would need permission to enter? I think not].
ProfChrisReed,
"If I call an agency, I'm looking for no service from them - I'm merely giving them information (glider entering cloud, position and height) so that they can improve their service to other aircraft."
Do you seriously NOT consider that using ATC to help avoid a mid air collision with YOUR aircraft an improvement in the service to yourself?
If not, and if this reflects the general view of UK glider pilots (I can't believe it does), it is probably a complete waste of time trying to put across any alternative viewpoint over what some of us consider a serious flight safety issue.
"If anyone can suggest an effective way to alert other GA traffic to my cloud flying I'd be delighted to use it."
Certainly. Buy a transponder with mode C. Then GA with TCAS can avoid you. We've been there before, no joy.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 18th Sep 2005 at 23:13.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could you please point out where "restrictions" are mentioned? I couldn't find them.
"We will make sure that this petition is delivered to the Prime Minister and we will not remain silent on this issue until he takes positive action to close this legal loophole and bringing gliding under the control of the CAA, just like airlines are."
"some gliding bod spiralling up in the cloud in a completely indiscriminate fashion"
There are more. If my point is missed, forget it. This is only a debating forum, after all.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bedford
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keef - I don't see the logic of your collision risk analysis. GA is separated procedurally by quadrantal levels, there is absolutely no procedural separation from a cloud flying glider. I for one will start to listen out/ask nicely on 130.4, at least it's better than zero protection!
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Chilli - I don't see your point. I didn't provide any collision risk analysis - just stated that it's low. How many accidents have there been with gliders in cloud? Compare that with the primary causal factors for aircraft accidents.
Shy Torque -sorry, I don't follow your logic. Controlled airspace needs permission to enter (doesn't it?). Commercial aircraft are the primary beneficiaries of controlled airspace. They don't need to be in uncontrolled airspace in the busy areas for gliders and GA. So take them out of the analysis.
What exactly is it that I do not understand about the UK aviation regulations or how GA works? I think you have misread my posting.
Your PM mailbox is also full, so nobody can write to you off-list to attempt to defuse some of the issues that are best handled that way.
Shy Torque -sorry, I don't follow your logic. Controlled airspace needs permission to enter (doesn't it?). Commercial aircraft are the primary beneficiaries of controlled airspace. They don't need to be in uncontrolled airspace in the busy areas for gliders and GA. So take them out of the analysis.
What exactly is it that I do not understand about the UK aviation regulations or how GA works? I think you have misread my posting.
Your PM mailbox is also full, so nobody can write to you off-list to attempt to defuse some of the issues that are best handled that way.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, the whole issue is being blown totally out of proportion.
Cloud flying in gliders was common in the 50's & early 60's because:-
A lot of the pilots were WWII RAF trained and could even do spin recovery on instruments. Alternatively the pilots could teach themselves cloud flying because of the aircraft factors below (See Peter Scott's book "Eye of the Wind" if you don't believe it)
The old wooden gliders had totally speed limiting airbrakes - they won't go past VNE even in a vertical dive
Even without the brakes the old wooden gliders took a long time to accelerate to VNE because of the built in drag.
The amount of wind noise generated is a very clear indication to the pilot that something nasty is developing.
The old wooden gliders needed a lot of height to do decent distances.
Their performance didn't alter that much if they collected a bit of ice in the process.
Wave wasn't widely known about, Scotland was far away and height diplomas had to be done in clouds.
With glass gliders these days very little of the above applies.
Airbrakes are only speed limiting to about 45 degrees dive angle
They accelerate very quickly and are very quiet at all speeds
Performance goes to worms with dead insects stuck to the wings, never mind ice.
So while technically gliders can fly in cloud, only an extremely small number of pilots these day choose to do so, and normally very infrequently.
"Don't panic, Captain Mainwaring"
Cloud flying in gliders was common in the 50's & early 60's because:-
A lot of the pilots were WWII RAF trained and could even do spin recovery on instruments. Alternatively the pilots could teach themselves cloud flying because of the aircraft factors below (See Peter Scott's book "Eye of the Wind" if you don't believe it)
The old wooden gliders had totally speed limiting airbrakes - they won't go past VNE even in a vertical dive
Even without the brakes the old wooden gliders took a long time to accelerate to VNE because of the built in drag.
The amount of wind noise generated is a very clear indication to the pilot that something nasty is developing.
The old wooden gliders needed a lot of height to do decent distances.
Their performance didn't alter that much if they collected a bit of ice in the process.
Wave wasn't widely known about, Scotland was far away and height diplomas had to be done in clouds.
With glass gliders these days very little of the above applies.
Airbrakes are only speed limiting to about 45 degrees dive angle
They accelerate very quickly and are very quiet at all speeds
Performance goes to worms with dead insects stuck to the wings, never mind ice.
So while technically gliders can fly in cloud, only an extremely small number of pilots these day choose to do so, and normally very infrequently.
"Don't panic, Captain Mainwaring"
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Top part of Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astir 8,
What you say is very true, and perhaps I or someone else should have pointed that out earlier. I have been saying all along that the incidence of cloud flying by gliders is very very small in real terms and therefore, the main thrust of the discussion appears to be centered in the extreme minority of cases when glider pilots do go in cloud.
Risk, as any safety engineer will tell you, can be quantified by probability (likelyhood of occurance) X severity of outcome. There are levels of acceptable risk and there are levels of unacceptable risk which require mitigation in order to drive those risks to an acceptable level and ideally As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). Is one in a million acceptable? is one in a thousand acceptable? Or one in ten million accepatable? It would frighten many of you to know some of the levels of accepatble risk applied to aircraft, systems and procedures in use by civil and military manufacturers and authorities.
It would be an interesting study, rather than just a difference of opinion, which would perhaps provide the best focus for discussion on the perceived level of risk associated with the likelihood of a catastrophic event (GA/Glider collision) whilst flying in IMC - but that ain't going to happen in the short term. Therefore, what we have is a difference of opinion of perceptible risk.
I could sit and do the sums - but I'd then end up having to justify those figures and it would all get really messy, suffice to say that if the risk was 'unacceptable' to the CAA, then they would have introduced procedural mitigation years ago. Therefore, and as the statistics would seem to bear out (ie number of incidences over time) the level of risk is acceptable to the controlling authorities. (by the way level of acceptable risk of a catastrophic event can be as low as 1 in 100,000 (1x10^-5).
It would therefore appear that this thread centers around that fact that the perception of risk is different for power pilots and glider pilots:
My perception is that there is greater risk of colliding with another glider in cloud than that a powered aircraft, and the overall risk is incredible (so small as not to be an issue). By that it MY perception, It is based on the fact over the last 600 flights I have only taken 9 cloud climbs: I spend probably less that 5 minutes in cloud (climbing at say 400ft/minutes); My current (2005) average flight length is around 55 minutes, in which I have logged 79 flights this year to date.
So over the past 600 flights. 0.015% of those flights had a cloud climb and on those flights I spent less that 0.09% in cloud (and used the radio every time). Rounding up, then one in a thousand times I fly I come into the Cloud Flying risk zone. (thats a hell of a lot smaller than the risk of being hit by/collision by GA in VFR, of which the risk zone is 999:1000!!!!
Don't forget thats just the risk zone..... then you add the likelihood of collision, and I'd bet my bottom dollar that the figures are better than 1:10^-9, which is more than acceptable TO ME!
What you say is very true, and perhaps I or someone else should have pointed that out earlier. I have been saying all along that the incidence of cloud flying by gliders is very very small in real terms and therefore, the main thrust of the discussion appears to be centered in the extreme minority of cases when glider pilots do go in cloud.
Risk, as any safety engineer will tell you, can be quantified by probability (likelyhood of occurance) X severity of outcome. There are levels of acceptable risk and there are levels of unacceptable risk which require mitigation in order to drive those risks to an acceptable level and ideally As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). Is one in a million acceptable? is one in a thousand acceptable? Or one in ten million accepatable? It would frighten many of you to know some of the levels of accepatble risk applied to aircraft, systems and procedures in use by civil and military manufacturers and authorities.
It would be an interesting study, rather than just a difference of opinion, which would perhaps provide the best focus for discussion on the perceived level of risk associated with the likelihood of a catastrophic event (GA/Glider collision) whilst flying in IMC - but that ain't going to happen in the short term. Therefore, what we have is a difference of opinion of perceptible risk.
I could sit and do the sums - but I'd then end up having to justify those figures and it would all get really messy, suffice to say that if the risk was 'unacceptable' to the CAA, then they would have introduced procedural mitigation years ago. Therefore, and as the statistics would seem to bear out (ie number of incidences over time) the level of risk is acceptable to the controlling authorities. (by the way level of acceptable risk of a catastrophic event can be as low as 1 in 100,000 (1x10^-5).
It would therefore appear that this thread centers around that fact that the perception of risk is different for power pilots and glider pilots:
My perception is that there is greater risk of colliding with another glider in cloud than that a powered aircraft, and the overall risk is incredible (so small as not to be an issue). By that it MY perception, It is based on the fact over the last 600 flights I have only taken 9 cloud climbs: I spend probably less that 5 minutes in cloud (climbing at say 400ft/minutes); My current (2005) average flight length is around 55 minutes, in which I have logged 79 flights this year to date.
So over the past 600 flights. 0.015% of those flights had a cloud climb and on those flights I spent less that 0.09% in cloud (and used the radio every time). Rounding up, then one in a thousand times I fly I come into the Cloud Flying risk zone. (thats a hell of a lot smaller than the risk of being hit by/collision by GA in VFR, of which the risk zone is 999:1000!!!!
Don't forget thats just the risk zone..... then you add the likelihood of collision, and I'd bet my bottom dollar that the figures are better than 1:10^-9, which is more than acceptable TO ME!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a naive but genuine question for non-glider pilots who fly IMC in class G:
Can you be sure that you are aware of other pilots doing the same? In other words, if another pilot is also flying IMC but speaking to a different ATC service, would you receive that information?
And as a supplementary, do all non-glider pilots flying IMC in class G inform ATC of their activities, or are there some who merely monitor one or more frequencies without transmitting?
Can you be sure that you are aware of other pilots doing the same? In other words, if another pilot is also flying IMC but speaking to a different ATC service, would you receive that information?
And as a supplementary, do all non-glider pilots flying IMC in class G inform ATC of their activities, or are there some who merely monitor one or more frequencies without transmitting?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
ProfChrisReed asked:
"This is a naive but genuine question for non-glider pilots who fly IMC in class G:
Can you be sure that you are aware of other pilots doing the same? In other words, if another pilot is also flying IMC but speaking to a different ATC service, would you receive that information?
And as a supplementary, do all non-glider pilots flying IMC in class G inform ATC of their activities, or are there some who merely monitor one or more frequencies without transmitting?"
My responses, in order:
1.) Not necessarily BUT if he is operating IFR he should carry the legally mandated minimum equipment, which includes a transponder. If he requests a radar service from ATC he will be required to squawk a code for identification. We carry TCAS to help identify other aircraft, whether on the same frequency or not but transponding. Despite costing more than some gliders (!) it is by no means infallible. Aircraft not transponding don't appear on TCAS. The LARS system is there and pilots are strongly encouraged to use it but there are some gaps in coverage.
2.) Impossible to answer. Airmanship / survival instinct makes me obtain an appropriate ATC service where available, preferably a RIS.
"This is a naive but genuine question for non-glider pilots who fly IMC in class G:
Can you be sure that you are aware of other pilots doing the same? In other words, if another pilot is also flying IMC but speaking to a different ATC service, would you receive that information?
And as a supplementary, do all non-glider pilots flying IMC in class G inform ATC of their activities, or are there some who merely monitor one or more frequencies without transmitting?"
My responses, in order:
1.) Not necessarily BUT if he is operating IFR he should carry the legally mandated minimum equipment, which includes a transponder. If he requests a radar service from ATC he will be required to squawk a code for identification. We carry TCAS to help identify other aircraft, whether on the same frequency or not but transponding. Despite costing more than some gliders (!) it is by no means infallible. Aircraft not transponding don't appear on TCAS. The LARS system is there and pilots are strongly encouraged to use it but there are some gaps in coverage.
2.) Impossible to answer. Airmanship / survival instinct makes me obtain an appropriate ATC service where available, preferably a RIS.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We carry TCAS to help identify other aircraft, whether on the same frequency or not but transponding. Despite costing more than some gliders (!) it is by no means infallible. Aircraft not transponding don't appear on TCAS.
I would doubt the majority of IFR capable GA aircraft have TCAS. Of the people I know who regularly fly IFR/IMC in G airspace only one has TCAS in his current aircraft AFAIK...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rustle
I agree with you. My post was merely to illustrate what one of Her Majesı's Press' finest could do with the content of Chris Ns post and frankly, Mr Reptile and his colleagues could do it rather more efectively than me.
In this modern world of spin and perception, it is easy to make a story and a campaign out of very little and the fun police are all around us.
I think that collaborating is the way forward, since the airspace that we share is valuable to all of us, so lets
Wrong actually, but I can understand why you would draw this inference from my post.
Flap 5
I have just read your post, have been travelling for a few days, so not ignored.
Final 3 Greens someone could write a much more scary story about commercial traffic encountering fast-jet [military] traffic, other commercial traffic or GA in uncontrolled airspace in the north-east if they wanted to...
In this modern world of spin and perception, it is easy to make a story and a campaign out of very little and the fun police are all around us.
I think that collaborating is the way forward, since the airspace that we share is valuable to all of us, so lets
assume rightly or wrongly that your post reflects what you think should happen?
Flap 5
I have just read your post, have been travelling for a few days, so not ignored.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Top part of Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, there is no requirement for aircraft below 5700kg MTOM to be fitted with TCAS: Surely at this weight that excludes most private light GA?http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/DAP_TA_C...n_ACASII_2.pdf
Exactly what percentage of GA aircraft are fitted with TCAS?, or is the use of the royal 'we' a little too regal? If TCAS costs soooo much, it would be cheaper to fit another transceiver on a fixed frequency of 130.4, and then you could permanently listen out 
We carry TCAS to help identify other aircraft, whether on the same frequency or not but transponding. Despite costing more than some gliders (!) it is by no means infallible. Aircraft not transponding don't appear on TCAS.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am somewhat surprised that for the majority of posters here the term GA equates to light private aircraft. Do not assume GA is all single Cessnas/Pipers. The definition covers anything from a C150 to a 747 that is not Commercial Air Transport. I think many of us who fly GA just expect a level playing filed so that we all hope the skills for a certain type of flight are equally taught and tested. I cannot see the reasoning behind a glider pilot flying IMC without IMC or IR quite legally whereas the powered a/c pilot cannot. Not suggesting more regulation just would like to know the reasoning.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot see the reasoning behind a glider pilot flying IMC without IMC or IR quite legally whereas the powered a/c pilot cannot. Not suggesting more regulation just would like to know the reasoning.
Incidently, Cu nims had a slight problem back then, in that the lift often outpaced the gliders ability to dive, so the odd pilot quite literally got sucked up to his death!
SS
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Top part of Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still no licence required to fly a glider in the UK, unlike in the USA.
I hold a UK Glider Pilots License and a US Glider Pilots License: The latter was issued on the basis of my UK pilots license; I became eligable for this following by Bronze + Cross-Country Endorsement. So in reality there is a direct correlation between the two. Oh and by the way, I fly regularly in the US (monthly), where the US glider pilots license means that you have effectivly gone solo, and passed an exam and not a lot else!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's true that no licence is required to fly a glider, but the consequence of that is that glider pilots are regulated by the clubs from which they fly. In some ways this is more stringent than the regulation imposed on PPLs.
For example:
1. At my club I am not allowed to fly if I am not current. This means (with a Basic Instructor rating) I must have flown within the previous 5 weeks. If not, I must take a flight with an instructor before I am allowed to fly as PIC.
2. If I visit another club with my own aircraft, I will almost never be permitted to fly from that airfield without a flight with an instructor. This (a) informs me about any local issues such as airspace, landmarks, local deals about flying in a MATZ, areas of heavy traffic etc, and (b) enables the club I'm visiting to check out my skills. If they don't like the way I'm flying they won't allow me to launch in my own aircraft, no matter what experience or ratings I have.
I did hear that a Champion of some kind once turned up at an interesting site (v. hilly) with a film crew. He was upset about being required to take a check flight, which indicated that he had no idea how to winch launch and had never flown at a similarly difficult site. So pilot and film crew left hurriedly.
For example:
1. At my club I am not allowed to fly if I am not current. This means (with a Basic Instructor rating) I must have flown within the previous 5 weeks. If not, I must take a flight with an instructor before I am allowed to fly as PIC.
2. If I visit another club with my own aircraft, I will almost never be permitted to fly from that airfield without a flight with an instructor. This (a) informs me about any local issues such as airspace, landmarks, local deals about flying in a MATZ, areas of heavy traffic etc, and (b) enables the club I'm visiting to check out my skills. If they don't like the way I'm flying they won't allow me to launch in my own aircraft, no matter what experience or ratings I have.
I did hear that a Champion of some kind once turned up at an interesting site (v. hilly) with a film crew. He was upset about being required to take a check flight, which indicated that he had no idea how to winch launch and had never flown at a similarly difficult site. So pilot and film crew left hurriedly.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
Rustle.
"Who is "we" in this context?
I would doubt the majority of IFR capable GA aircraft have TCAS. Of the people I know who regularly fly IFR/IMC in G airspace only one has TCAS in his current aircraft AFAIK..."
"We" means the company I fly for. An increasing number of operators are fitting TCAS to their aircraft, especially helicopters. Why do you ask?
Nimbus,
"Exactly what percentage of GA aircraft are fitted with TCAS?, or is the use of the royal 'we' a little too regal?"
Nothing regal about me, I'm just a working class pilot trying to minimise risk to myself and my pax. My employer's aircraft have TCAS.
"If TCAS costs soooo much, it would be cheaper to fit another transceiver on a fixed frequency of 130.4, and then you could permanently listen out"
If only I had three ears.......but two radios on the go is already enough for anyone.
"Who is "we" in this context?
I would doubt the majority of IFR capable GA aircraft have TCAS. Of the people I know who regularly fly IFR/IMC in G airspace only one has TCAS in his current aircraft AFAIK..."
"We" means the company I fly for. An increasing number of operators are fitting TCAS to their aircraft, especially helicopters. Why do you ask?
Nimbus,
"Exactly what percentage of GA aircraft are fitted with TCAS?, or is the use of the royal 'we' a little too regal?"
Nothing regal about me, I'm just a working class pilot trying to minimise risk to myself and my pax. My employer's aircraft have TCAS.
"If TCAS costs soooo much, it would be cheaper to fit another transceiver on a fixed frequency of 130.4, and then you could permanently listen out"
If only I had three ears.......but two radios on the go is already enough for anyone.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 19th Sep 2005 at 20:12.
The Analog Kid
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brecon Beacons National Park
Age: 57
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paragliders in cloud
Phororhacos:
A subject that is repeatedly and vigorously debated on free flight forums on a regular basis but generally purely theoretically.
The first reaction of the vast majority of paraglider pilots when in danger of going into cloud is:
1. Big Ears (yes, seriously
) This involves pulling in the outer A lines of the glider to collapse the tips and reduce the width of the aerofoil and will give around a 200 ft/min relative descent rate.
2. Spiral dive. When fully locked in this can give around 1200 ft/min relative descent rate - about twice as strong as your average UK thermal on a good day is going up.
3. B-Line stall - pulls down the main load-carrying lines, breaking the back of the canopy and also giving about 1200 ft / min relative descent.
Moving specifically to competitions, any paraglider pilot seen going into cloud and not already actively attempting (by one of the above methods) to avoid doing so is liable to be disqualified. It is also frowned upon in general cross-country flying, including in the national cross-country league, where pilots GPS tracklogs are also submitted and analysed for any other infringements.
If it was low cloud, he would have used one of the above descent methods for certain. Low cloud has a habit of getting lower and increasing its rockiness quotient. The Dyke is also generally rather too busy to be comfortable with being in cloud for longer than about five seconds, if that!
To summarise, whilst the inherent pitch and roll stability of a paraglider means that it is possible to quite easily fly in cloud with nothing more than a compass and a variometer, or nothing in fact, it's wet, against the rules of even our less formal competitions, still disorientating and frankly, usually bloody scary.
The only place I'll do it personally is in the Alps around Annecy, where you've gotta be completely nuts to go piling through a cloud at say 8 - 12,000 ft ASL in your Cessna because there are paragliders and hanggliders everywhere (but having spent 10-15 mins thermalling up there you know yourself there are none near you).
Cheers,
Rich.
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?
Are these allowed to cloud fly?
The first reaction of the vast majority of paraglider pilots when in danger of going into cloud is:
1. Big Ears (yes, seriously
) This involves pulling in the outer A lines of the glider to collapse the tips and reduce the width of the aerofoil and will give around a 200 ft/min relative descent rate.2. Spiral dive. When fully locked in this can give around 1200 ft/min relative descent rate - about twice as strong as your average UK thermal on a good day is going up.
3. B-Line stall - pulls down the main load-carrying lines, breaking the back of the canopy and also giving about 1200 ft / min relative descent.
Moving specifically to competitions, any paraglider pilot seen going into cloud and not already actively attempting (by one of the above methods) to avoid doing so is liable to be disqualified. It is also frowned upon in general cross-country flying, including in the national cross-country league, where pilots GPS tracklogs are also submitted and analysed for any other infringements.
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.
To summarise, whilst the inherent pitch and roll stability of a paraglider means that it is possible to quite easily fly in cloud with nothing more than a compass and a variometer, or nothing in fact, it's wet, against the rules of even our less formal competitions, still disorientating and frankly, usually bloody scary.
The only place I'll do it personally is in the Alps around Annecy, where you've gotta be completely nuts to go piling through a cloud at say 8 - 12,000 ft ASL in your Cessna because there are paragliders and hanggliders everywhere (but having spent 10-15 mins thermalling up there you know yourself there are none near you).
Cheers,
Rich.
