Gliders flying in cloud
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure yuou understand the importance of retaining the GPS/Data Logger
These are essential these days to prove that a flight took place for competition or record purposes.
On the few days that a 500k, 750k or 1000k flight takes place in the UK or during a rated competition you need absolute evidence that the flight conformed with the regulations
To ask a glider pilot in such circumstances to give up the GPS/data logger combination would be like asking the Red Arrows to stop a flight to let a microlight pass through the display area
These are essential these days to prove that a flight took place for competition or record purposes.
On the few days that a 500k, 750k or 1000k flight takes place in the UK or during a rated competition you need absolute evidence that the flight conformed with the regulations
To ask a glider pilot in such circumstances to give up the GPS/data logger combination would be like asking the Red Arrows to stop a flight to let a microlight pass through the display area
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Top part of Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Robin, I'm sure there are many non glider pilots who do not fully understand competition gliding or badge claim flying requirements.
ShyTorque
For me it is a matter of priority and personal choice. While it obviously has benefits and can be seen to add a measure of extra safety, it is currently not a mandated requirement and there are technical difficulties for gliders:
For me currently:
1. The percentage of time a spend cloud flying (see earlier posts - less than 1/1000 of my flying time is spent in clouds)
2. Cost (they ain't cheap) unit costs x antenas x fitting x fuselage strengthening x panel.
3. Electrical load, power budget (my current electrical installation = 3 x seperate GPS and 2 x logger systems, Flight Director, PDA (Moving Map), T/S and AH means that currently I can only achieve about three and a half hours on 1 x 12V 7AH - which is why I have 2 fitted.
4. Change of C of G. I fly with an optimsed C of G and this would need to be rebalanced (by counter weight) with a new panel/additional battery (hassle factor more than anything).
5. I fly to MAUW (580Kg); that means loading exactly 106liters of water for competitions; I don't want to reduce this by adding another instrument and battery.
6. The fact that to fit one, I would have to totaly repanel my glider. (ever seen a competition glider panel?) Theres just no room to cut a spare 57mm diammeter hole in most modern glider panels! It ain't cheap to do either!
7. The level of risk (see previous posts). Out of interest, when exactly was the last GA/Glider collision in cloud, and how many have there been over the last say 25 years?
8. Fitting a transponder to a glass fibre glider is significantly easier than fitting one to a carbon fibre glider.
Currently it's my choice. Sure if the BGA,CAA or EASA state that it it is mandatory requirement - then I'll happily comply. They are likely to do this in 2008 anyway if EASA get their way, but there are currenty difficulties in developing the technology for gliders - which is likely to delay this requirement. If something like FLARM was introduced, I'd seriously consider it. I'm happy to admit that it has advantages.
This debate has been centered on Cloud Flying... it won't be long before somebody extends it into VFR flying!!
I don't know what is so difficult about monitoring 130.4; I have a scanning radio, which is set to scan up to 10 frequencies. When there is a Tx on one frequency that breaks the squelch, I get the message. It normally scans 129.975, 130.1, 130.4 and my local DAIS frequency; I've never knowingly not heard a transmission.
I'm also still happy to fly in a highly competitive competition gaggle with 50 or 60 gliders, flying with about a wingspan horizontal seperation and with less that 100' vertical seperation. The risk of collision in these circumstances is infinately higher than flying in clouds....or should we mandate against gaggles as well?
ShyTorque
For me it is a matter of priority and personal choice. While it obviously has benefits and can be seen to add a measure of extra safety, it is currently not a mandated requirement and there are technical difficulties for gliders:
For me currently:
1. The percentage of time a spend cloud flying (see earlier posts - less than 1/1000 of my flying time is spent in clouds)
2. Cost (they ain't cheap) unit costs x antenas x fitting x fuselage strengthening x panel.
3. Electrical load, power budget (my current electrical installation = 3 x seperate GPS and 2 x logger systems, Flight Director, PDA (Moving Map), T/S and AH means that currently I can only achieve about three and a half hours on 1 x 12V 7AH - which is why I have 2 fitted.
4. Change of C of G. I fly with an optimsed C of G and this would need to be rebalanced (by counter weight) with a new panel/additional battery (hassle factor more than anything).
5. I fly to MAUW (580Kg); that means loading exactly 106liters of water for competitions; I don't want to reduce this by adding another instrument and battery.
6. The fact that to fit one, I would have to totaly repanel my glider. (ever seen a competition glider panel?) Theres just no room to cut a spare 57mm diammeter hole in most modern glider panels! It ain't cheap to do either!
7. The level of risk (see previous posts). Out of interest, when exactly was the last GA/Glider collision in cloud, and how many have there been over the last say 25 years?
8. Fitting a transponder to a glass fibre glider is significantly easier than fitting one to a carbon fibre glider.
Currently it's my choice. Sure if the BGA,CAA or EASA state that it it is mandatory requirement - then I'll happily comply. They are likely to do this in 2008 anyway if EASA get their way, but there are currenty difficulties in developing the technology for gliders - which is likely to delay this requirement. If something like FLARM was introduced, I'd seriously consider it. I'm happy to admit that it has advantages.
This debate has been centered on Cloud Flying... it won't be long before somebody extends it into VFR flying!!
I don't know what is so difficult about monitoring 130.4; I have a scanning radio, which is set to scan up to 10 frequencies. When there is a Tx on one frequency that breaks the squelch, I get the message. It normally scans 129.975, 130.1, 130.4 and my local DAIS frequency; I've never knowingly not heard a transmission.
I'm also still happy to fly in a highly competitive competition gaggle with 50 or 60 gliders, flying with about a wingspan horizontal seperation and with less that 100' vertical seperation. The risk of collision in these circumstances is infinately higher than flying in clouds....or should we mandate against gaggles as well?
Last edited by Nimbus265; 24th Sep 2005 at 07:15.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Top part of Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh I forgot to add. A quick straw poll at the weekend of a busy club with 100+ members showed that among those that fly cross-country regularly, only 4 pilots (all of which have a National rating) said that they cloud climb; and of the 4 the total cloud climbs taken this year is 7 - all bar one were in competitions. The actual incidence is very very low. It's not an every day occurance as may of us have stated in previous posts and we don't spend long in clouds anyway when we do cloud climb. That possibly accounts for why it's very unlikely you'll actually hear anyone cloud climbing on 130.4 on most days.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Nimbus,
Thanks for the reply, which confirms my view, reinforced by my recent experience, that it's statistically pointless for a GA pilot transitting in UK to listen on 130.4.
Perhaps you might care to listen out on the nearest LARS frequency the next few times you fly and see just how busy our Class G airspace is.
As a glider pilot, you don't want any more equipment, I do fully understand the technical difficulties this would present. As you say, EASA may well require that gliders, in common with other small aircraft, carry more electronics in the near future.
To argue against further legislation, with any hope of gaining an exemption, the gliding fraternity would need to present a very strong case with a viable alternative. To propose that GA neglects its established and proven procedures to call on the gliding frequency would be untenable.
GA has by definition to avoid YOU but if GA has no idea you are there, how can they?
Thanks for the reply, which confirms my view, reinforced by my recent experience, that it's statistically pointless for a GA pilot transitting in UK to listen on 130.4.
Perhaps you might care to listen out on the nearest LARS frequency the next few times you fly and see just how busy our Class G airspace is.
As a glider pilot, you don't want any more equipment, I do fully understand the technical difficulties this would present. As you say, EASA may well require that gliders, in common with other small aircraft, carry more electronics in the near future.
To argue against further legislation, with any hope of gaining an exemption, the gliding fraternity would need to present a very strong case with a viable alternative. To propose that GA neglects its established and proven procedures to call on the gliding frequency would be untenable.
GA has by definition to avoid YOU but if GA has no idea you are there, how can they?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Top part of Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque,
Thanks for your balanced viewpoint. It is nice to have a balanced debate without mudslinging
Here's the latest in terms of European Legislation http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/doc...an05update.pdf
Thanks for your balanced viewpoint. It is nice to have a balanced debate without mudslinging
Here's the latest in terms of European Legislation http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/doc...an05update.pdf
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe it or not, the material cost in a Mode C/S transponder is of the order of £200.
Like most avionics, they list at 10x the parts cost because most firms making this stuff are olde fashioned big firms where every useless middle manager has a deputy, because the stuff is often designed by "engineers" who would never get a job designing anything that has to compete commercially so the stuff packs up often so warranty costs are high, because new product introductions are rare so anyone with a brain gets bored and leaves, because the aviation community has always accepted junk products, because the avionics shop gets a nice markup, etc.
A small firm (say 10 employees) could easily cater for the whole European existing GA transponder market. But it's very hard for someone to get in because the way the GA market is structured few people can do own fitting, and an avionics shop will much rather make 30% of £2000 than 30% of £500 (plus fitting). Avionics shops just love a regular GNS430 fitting job
If Mode C/S had been MANDATED on everything that flies, the market for transponders would be some 10x bigger than it is today. It is trivial to design a unit which works perfectly well for TCAS, and well enough for short range (say 30 miles) secondary radar and which draws 1/10 of the present power requirement. Total parts cost under £150 (100-off batches) and a list price of £500 assuming a 25% dealer discount.
But until transponders are mandatory, the market won't exist. Nobody will have a go because everybody knows that any existing transponder maker can produce a low power unit if they choose to (it's very easy to do) and since they have the dealer channel all set up they will clean up. But as I say the existing players won't do anything until the market is there, and then they will milk it for all it's worth.
Something might happen around 2009, when there should be a lot of demand for Mode S. But most of that will be powered stuff where the existing GTX330-type products will get fitted.
A very bold small company could get in now but they would be fools to show their cards 4 years before the market materialises, and almost nobody in "normal VFR GA" will fit a transponder to make themselves visible to others (yes I really do believe this!)
Like most avionics, they list at 10x the parts cost because most firms making this stuff are olde fashioned big firms where every useless middle manager has a deputy, because the stuff is often designed by "engineers" who would never get a job designing anything that has to compete commercially so the stuff packs up often so warranty costs are high, because new product introductions are rare so anyone with a brain gets bored and leaves, because the aviation community has always accepted junk products, because the avionics shop gets a nice markup, etc.
A small firm (say 10 employees) could easily cater for the whole European existing GA transponder market. But it's very hard for someone to get in because the way the GA market is structured few people can do own fitting, and an avionics shop will much rather make 30% of £2000 than 30% of £500 (plus fitting). Avionics shops just love a regular GNS430 fitting job
If Mode C/S had been MANDATED on everything that flies, the market for transponders would be some 10x bigger than it is today. It is trivial to design a unit which works perfectly well for TCAS, and well enough for short range (say 30 miles) secondary radar and which draws 1/10 of the present power requirement. Total parts cost under £150 (100-off batches) and a list price of £500 assuming a 25% dealer discount.
But until transponders are mandatory, the market won't exist. Nobody will have a go because everybody knows that any existing transponder maker can produce a low power unit if they choose to (it's very easy to do) and since they have the dealer channel all set up they will clean up. But as I say the existing players won't do anything until the market is there, and then they will milk it for all it's worth.
Something might happen around 2009, when there should be a lot of demand for Mode S. But most of that will be powered stuff where the existing GTX330-type products will get fitted.
A very bold small company could get in now but they would be fools to show their cards 4 years before the market materialises, and almost nobody in "normal VFR GA" will fit a transponder to make themselves visible to others (yes I really do believe this!)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinating discussion. Permit this old boy - who first went solo in a glider in the early/mid sixties and got his gold height in Cb – a few words. Unfortunately, finances now limit me to a month or so a year gliding in Australia each year. No cloud flying in gliders there.
I read this subject as much about VFR as about cloud flying and an attempt by the ATC fraternity to control all airspace. Transponders on everything? Perish the day!
The airspace rules have been changing and evolving over the years. My guess is that few have kept up with the all the changes and, if asked, would struggle to give a clear concise explanation of classes of airspace and the VFR/SVFR/IFR stuff. The attempts at some new simplified Euro 3 classes of airspace may simplify matters but this old carbon based brain struggles to keep up with the requirements in different countries.
I rather suspect the ‘let out clause’ allowing gliders to enter cloud is as much to avoid the issues of cloud separation. When wave flying you will invariably be closer than published minima for vertical and horizontal cloud separation.
Cloudbase 3000ft does sometimes happen in UK. Soaring pilots will regularly climb to cloudbase. How can they maintain VMC minima?
At the risk of being found guilty of topic creep, are B21 and B226 still open to gliders crossing with ATC clearance.
Rgds
lars
I read this subject as much about VFR as about cloud flying and an attempt by the ATC fraternity to control all airspace. Transponders on everything? Perish the day!
The airspace rules have been changing and evolving over the years. My guess is that few have kept up with the all the changes and, if asked, would struggle to give a clear concise explanation of classes of airspace and the VFR/SVFR/IFR stuff. The attempts at some new simplified Euro 3 classes of airspace may simplify matters but this old carbon based brain struggles to keep up with the requirements in different countries.
I rather suspect the ‘let out clause’ allowing gliders to enter cloud is as much to avoid the issues of cloud separation. When wave flying you will invariably be closer than published minima for vertical and horizontal cloud separation.
Cloudbase 3000ft does sometimes happen in UK. Soaring pilots will regularly climb to cloudbase. How can they maintain VMC minima?
At the risk of being found guilty of topic creep, are B21 and B226 still open to gliders crossing with ATC clearance.
Rgds
lars
