Mode 'S' mandatory for gliders.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Define society. What most people do. Deeply unoriginal.
I like to think society is largely governed by primitive instinct.
Get wealth and power, acquire BMW and four bedroom house, have ability to travel, all with purpose to attract mate and breed.
I have brain University career, Mondeo, three bedoomed house glider and am content to belive I think rather than act instinctively. BTW also happily single!
There is no evidenced base reason to extend Mode S to gliders, only the will of the above types to attempt to be super safe and dominate by way of their sheer number.
These guys will take the world to the grave via Gobal Warming and war for diminishing resources.
I like to think society is largely governed by primitive instinct.
Get wealth and power, acquire BMW and four bedroom house, have ability to travel, all with purpose to attract mate and breed.
I have brain University career, Mondeo, three bedoomed house glider and am content to belive I think rather than act instinctively. BTW also happily single!
There is no evidenced base reason to extend Mode S to gliders, only the will of the above types to attempt to be super safe and dominate by way of their sheer number.
These guys will take the world to the grave via Gobal Warming and war for diminishing resources.
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I see no reason why gliders (and older aircraft with little/nothing in the way of electrical systems) should, generally, need transponders. Especially when operating OCAS. However...
It's a whole different story when they start flying in cloud. If I'm flying along in IMC in receipt of a radar service I do NOT want something invisible to SSR anywhere near me. At the very least a charlie-capable transponder squawking a discrete "I'm a glider in cloud" code that can be switched on before they enter IMC would be a good idea, surely?
It's a whole different story when they start flying in cloud. If I'm flying along in IMC in receipt of a radar service I do NOT want something invisible to SSR anywhere near me. At the very least a charlie-capable transponder squawking a discrete "I'm a glider in cloud" code that can be switched on before they enter IMC would be a good idea, surely?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<attempt to be super safe>>
One can never, ever be "super safe". Having spent a life time as a professional air traffic controller (5-bedroomed house, Reliant Robin, Austin Allegro and other trappings of wealth... and also an avid aviation enthusiast) I have seen enough dangerous incidents for me not to change my attitude about control of airspace and the need for aircraft using that airspace to be properly equipped. Of course I appreciate the desire of people to enjoy their flying but SAFETY is of paramount importance to me, far and above Fred Bloggs enjoying his gliding.
Air traffic controllers are far better equipped than pilots to see exactly what goes on. During the competitions at Wycombe I experienced on more than one occasion reports from commercial pilots of gliders "at the same level", "we have a glider above us", etc. Unlike the old primary radar, modern radars do not see flimsy aeroplanes too well so it is only sensible to have those aeroplanes properly equipped so that they can be seen.
Personally, I wouldn't set foot in an aeroplane which was about to be flown anywhere near CAS unless I knew that it had a fully serviceable transponder and somebody with a modicum of commonsense driving it. I'm NOT anti-light aircraft or gliders but I AM pro-safety at all cost.
One can never, ever be "super safe". Having spent a life time as a professional air traffic controller (5-bedroomed house, Reliant Robin, Austin Allegro and other trappings of wealth... and also an avid aviation enthusiast) I have seen enough dangerous incidents for me not to change my attitude about control of airspace and the need for aircraft using that airspace to be properly equipped. Of course I appreciate the desire of people to enjoy their flying but SAFETY is of paramount importance to me, far and above Fred Bloggs enjoying his gliding.
Air traffic controllers are far better equipped than pilots to see exactly what goes on. During the competitions at Wycombe I experienced on more than one occasion reports from commercial pilots of gliders "at the same level", "we have a glider above us", etc. Unlike the old primary radar, modern radars do not see flimsy aeroplanes too well so it is only sensible to have those aeroplanes properly equipped so that they can be seen.
Personally, I wouldn't set foot in an aeroplane which was about to be flown anywhere near CAS unless I knew that it had a fully serviceable transponder and somebody with a modicum of commonsense driving it. I'm NOT anti-light aircraft or gliders but I AM pro-safety at all cost.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO this sort of thing is a much, much bigger threat to safety than a collection of gliders without transponders ever would be, partly because pilots displaying such a lack of awareness of where they are and what the specific hazards of a gliding site are are probably just as unaware about many other hazards.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Director
However you are more than content to provide a safety service with a system that :
So why doesn't the CAA insist that these modern radars are removed from service and revert to 'old radars' until such time as all airspace users are equipped with the new systems?
I wouldn't set foot in an aeroplane which was about to be flown anywhere near CAS unless I knew that it had a fully serviceable transponder and somebody with a modicum of commonsense driving it.
Unlike the old primary radar, modern radars do not see flimsy aeroplanes too well
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlike the old primary radar, modern radars do not see flimsy aeroplanes too well
We still have primary radar, its just more computer processed than it used to be. Any return that isn't moving above a specified speed gets filtered out by the computer before being put on the screen, ie weather, static returns from buildings etc...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of thoughts...
The willingness for safety "at any cost" - this simply isn't realistic. Everybody, whether that be a GA pilot or an airline business, makes a tradeoff between relative risk and the associated cost. Airline manufacturers could make aircraft safer by, for example, improving crash survivability (such as on board water sprays). They don't because this increases the weight of the aircraft, decreases the available load and increases the cost. IF we REALLY supported the principle that CAT must at all costs be made as safe as possible then a starting point would be to be ban ALL GA and military traffic (thereby decreasing the probability of collision) and insisting on considerable investment in ATC facilties (and passing the charge on to the airlines who'd build it into the price of a ticket).
Improving safety through additional controlled airspace - The latest set of airprox data (jan-Jun 2007 - http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/ukabbk18.pdf) states that:
"Airprox where controllers did not seperate CAT aircraft or exercised poor judgement.... featured 11 times, an increase of 37% over the same period in 2006". Overall, GA airproxes remain pretty much unchanged year on year, whilst controlled airspace ones have increased. Would this not suggest that the area that needs to be improved is INSIDE controlled airspace, not outside ?
The willingness for safety "at any cost" - this simply isn't realistic. Everybody, whether that be a GA pilot or an airline business, makes a tradeoff between relative risk and the associated cost. Airline manufacturers could make aircraft safer by, for example, improving crash survivability (such as on board water sprays). They don't because this increases the weight of the aircraft, decreases the available load and increases the cost. IF we REALLY supported the principle that CAT must at all costs be made as safe as possible then a starting point would be to be ban ALL GA and military traffic (thereby decreasing the probability of collision) and insisting on considerable investment in ATC facilties (and passing the charge on to the airlines who'd build it into the price of a ticket).
Improving safety through additional controlled airspace - The latest set of airprox data (jan-Jun 2007 - http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/ukabbk18.pdf) states that:
"Airprox where controllers did not seperate CAT aircraft or exercised poor judgement.... featured 11 times, an increase of 37% over the same period in 2006". Overall, GA airproxes remain pretty much unchanged year on year, whilst controlled airspace ones have increased. Would this not suggest that the area that needs to be improved is INSIDE controlled airspace, not outside ?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADSB is the answer
From the guys at the Belgrano, ADSB isn't the clever solution that many believe. Although who trusts the Belgrano.....
We were told that ADSB would be a future option, but would depend on 'an approved GPS', so that rules out Garmin196 etc/Skymap IIIc etc, so will mean even more expense - a Mode S + an approved GPS
UK airspace, living in the past ?
Radarspod
sadly this is what is definitely not happening
RNP 5 nav and controllers giving vector belongs to WW2 era. If we were even in the 1990's we would be on PRNAV and hardly talking to ATC at all. The way things are done inside CAS is well past its sell by date.
e.g.
To require an airway 22nm wide for aircraft to operate autonomously is ridiculous in modern times (N862/4)
or
Having the BNN holding pattern over the Heathrow out bounds is insane, and the current TC North plan does nothing to relieve this bizarre bottleneck in the sky
So why not sort the problems of big aeroplanes against big aeroplanes inside controlled airspace first, that is where the real problems are.
Does recreational flying fit in to your vision of the future?
The airspace of the UK is developing for the future, not to meet the needs of the past
sadly this is what is definitely not happening
RNP 5 nav and controllers giving vector belongs to WW2 era. If we were even in the 1990's we would be on PRNAV and hardly talking to ATC at all. The way things are done inside CAS is well past its sell by date.
e.g.
To require an airway 22nm wide for aircraft to operate autonomously is ridiculous in modern times (N862/4)
or
Having the BNN holding pattern over the Heathrow out bounds is insane, and the current TC North plan does nothing to relieve this bizarre bottleneck in the sky
So why not sort the problems of big aeroplanes against big aeroplanes inside controlled airspace first, that is where the real problems are.
Does recreational flying fit in to your vision of the future?
attempt to be super sensible
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
This clearly shows that look out works and even airline pilots can actually see gliders on the very rare occasion that they use the windows for their intended purpose. There is a common misunderstanding amongst pilots that anything they see on or slightly above the horizon is above them, when the trafic is actually below them. NW of Henley you should expect that gliders will be above the inbounds as the base of CAS (5,500') allows this as there is lateral separation and not all airline pilots have got the hang of CDAs.
But if you are
you will have known that and reassured them.
If you want to be pro-safety at all cost... get NATS to give you radar that does see all the traffic and not just some of it. Don't think you can just pass the cost on to someone else's budget, or are NATS going to pay for all the transponders?
Air traffic controllers are far better equipped than pilots to see exactly what goes on. During the competitions at Wycombe I experienced on more than one occasion reports from commercial pilots of gliders "at the same level", "we have a glider above us", etc. Unlike the old primary radar, modern radars do not see flimsy aeroplanes too well so it is only sensible to have those aeroplanes properly equipped so that they can be seen.
But if you are
far better equipped than pilots to see exactly what goes on
If you want to be pro-safety at all cost... get NATS to give you radar that does see all the traffic and not just some of it. Don't think you can just pass the cost on to someone else's budget, or are NATS going to pay for all the transponders?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoting Heathrow Director: "Unlike the old primary radar, modern radars do not see flimsy aeroplanes too well so it is only sensible to have those aeroplanes properly equipped so that they can be seen."
So, what you're saying is that the new equipment is less able to do the job and so the "solution" is to force the flimsy aeroplanes to be kitted out with expensive equipment to overcome the shortfalls of the new radar ? H'mmm, sounds a bit like treating the symptom (GA trafic doesn't always appear on the radar) instead of the cause (inadequate radar).
So, what you're saying is that the new equipment is less able to do the job and so the "solution" is to force the flimsy aeroplanes to be kitted out with expensive equipment to overcome the shortfalls of the new radar ? H'mmm, sounds a bit like treating the symptom (GA trafic doesn't always appear on the radar) instead of the cause (inadequate radar).
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmslow and North Yorks
Age: 53
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the problem with the newer radars is that they don't "see" gliders made from newer composite materials. ATC has already been equipped with radar that does see ALL traffic, it's called SSR, unfortunately (for you glider types) it requires ALL traffic to have a Transponder.
I can't understand your problem with fitting the kit. Surely it enhances flight safety for everyone, not just your commercial pilots (who apparently don't look out of the window
) What possible objection can you have to be being visible on radar and visible on TCAS?? Is it just the cost??
I spend a lot of time transiting and operating outside CAS, lookout is very important, unfortunately gliders are not the easiest thing to spot even at a TAS of 250kts...so for guys going considerably faster the problem is even greater. The danger of mid-air collision is considerably reduced by the use of TCAS / Mode S / SSR and a radar service.
It would be interesting to hear the views of any military guys operating the fast metal over the highlands outside CAS.
I can't understand your problem with fitting the kit. Surely it enhances flight safety for everyone, not just your commercial pilots (who apparently don't look out of the window
) What possible objection can you have to be being visible on radar and visible on TCAS?? Is it just the cost??I spend a lot of time transiting and operating outside CAS, lookout is very important, unfortunately gliders are not the easiest thing to spot even at a TAS of 250kts...so for guys going considerably faster the problem is even greater. The danger of mid-air collision is considerably reduced by the use of TCAS / Mode S / SSR and a radar service.
It would be interesting to hear the views of any military guys operating the fast metal over the highlands outside CAS.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chesterfield
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Comjam
What possible objection can you have to be being visible on radar and visible on TCAS?? Is it just the cost??
OK, many of the guys flying well above FL 100 are likely to be of the ilk that will fit a transponder for all the sensible reason that you espouse but the lower down you come the more likely you are to find those who wouldn't (given the choice) and FL 100 is the sort of level where you learn your wave flying. Lower than that then cross country flights become potentially hazardous because of the areas of sink you have to cross. If you can't make it to the next area of lift you are likely out of the sky and in a field.
The lower performance gliders are the ones more likely to have tight budgets and they are the ones that won't succeed at the upwind jump in 10kts sink.
Believe us when we say that a 9-10,000ft ceiling on wave flying is a disaster for gliding.
But it doesn't stop there. TMZs. I fly in the Peak district where we are boxed in by airways overhead, East Midlands to the South, Manchester to the West, Leeds/Bradford to the North and soon Finningley to the East. (What pc committee of little drips decided to call it Robin Hood? Yuk. End rant). .
If TMZs were wrapped around all that lot our airfield would be in them! So then its transponders in everything -right down to the £500.00 Ka8 that we use for early solos. Which incidentally is quite capable of floating above FL100.
The mainstay of gliding clubs is those members who are quite happy flying local without ambitions to be heroes but who nurture the new bloods and and keep the infrastructure going. If they give up because its all too complicated or expensive the the whole movement is threatened. UK gliding, by he way, produces world champions and a steady stream of ATPLs and many of the wave flights in Scotland are held in awe by more than just we Brits.
A bit like school playing fields, municipal parks, musical education and excellence in anything you care to name we ARE of benefit to society but trying to be heard is an uphill struggle.
So, no - its not just the cost. It the threat of extinction as well.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmslow and North Yorks
Age: 53
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see all of the points you make Pete but:
I take it by that you mean CAT operators flying outside CAS on direct tracks because it's more economical and more "green"? That is something that is unavoidably going to increase and with it the "hand-over" of airspace to growing airfields, (RHIDS 
) for one and busier en-route sectors, the "part-time" airway between NCL and ABZ as an example, deemed necessary to protect transiting aircraft from Military operations over Northumberland.
Regardless of what you feel your sport does for society, the fact is that the sky is getting busier, there will be a need for more controlled airspace and therefore the appropriate equipment will be necessary for flight safety.
Nobody minds you flying your aircraft, known gliding areas are easy enough to avoid, but long cross country transits in gliders at any level just doesn't seem sensible if you're invisible to the technology that keeps us safe.
What effect do you think a mid-air between a non-squwaking glider and a commercial aircraft is going to have on your sport? A lot more damaging than having to fit Mode S i'd imagine.
Especially when the 'aggressor' is perceived as little more than unabashed commercialism
) for one and busier en-route sectors, the "part-time" airway between NCL and ABZ as an example, deemed necessary to protect transiting aircraft from Military operations over Northumberland.Regardless of what you feel your sport does for society, the fact is that the sky is getting busier, there will be a need for more controlled airspace and therefore the appropriate equipment will be necessary for flight safety.
Nobody minds you flying your aircraft, known gliding areas are easy enough to avoid, but long cross country transits in gliders at any level just doesn't seem sensible if you're invisible to the technology that keeps us safe.
What effect do you think a mid-air between a non-squwaking glider and a commercial aircraft is going to have on your sport? A lot more damaging than having to fit Mode S i'd imagine.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chesterfield
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Comjam
What effect do you think a mid-air between a non-squwaking glider and a commercial aircraft is going to have on your sport? A lot more damaging than having to fit Mode S i'd imagine.
The CAA's round 2 consultation is in effect the negotiation to formulate new rules to avoid such a grim event and any negotiation is facilitated by understanding all aspects of each others problems. Hence the rather emotional level of my last post.
which brings me back to
Originally Posted by Me
In what way do all you IFR flyers think CAT and the use of airspace could be reorganised to preserve the open FIR for VFR sporting aviation?
Not just above FL100 but everywhere.
Renaming RHIDS would be a start - we'd be inclined to take them seriously then!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Comjam: "What effect do you think a mid-air between a non-squwaking glider and a commercial aircraft is going to have on your sport? A lot more damaging than having to fit Mode S i'd imagine".
Let's try the situation from a different perspective:
"What effect do you think a mid-air with a commercial aircraft flying in uncontrolled airspace, where it is well known that not all traffic cannot be seen, is going to have on commercial operations?"
Some of the challenges that light aviation (not just glidng) is facing with the feasibility of Mode-S include:
(1) There often isn't the space to install a transponder in glider or microlight (panel space on some gliders is very limited). Where will a parascender fit their kit?
(2) Mode-S requires power. Not all gliders have batteries, let alone ones that'll operate continously for twelve hours or more.
(3) Mode-S doen't provide autonomous interoperability as it requires either TCAS to be also fitted or to be in contact with ATC (and not all gliders have radios). Trials have taken place in Europe with gliders using FLARM, which is a GPS-based collision avoidance system which gives you warning of all potential collision risks with other suitably equipped aircraft and overcomes the need for a controller to be monitoring traffic.
(4) No research seems to have been done to show what degradation in performance having an external antenna fitted has. If you have a nice big engine dragging you through the sky then this isn't a problem. Take a look at how finely polished glider wings are and you'll see that a 'small' decrease in performance actually makes a big difference.
(5) Does anybody have proof that having a transmitter constantly broadcasting within a few feet of you doesn't have any effect on your body ? The effect of long term exposure to magnetic/radio transmissions still isn't fully understood. And before anybody says "oh but we all use mobiles and they're ok", I'd suggest doing some proper research1
(6) Cost is an issue - A vintage glider is probably worth about £1000. A Mode-S transponder, once a low consumption version is available, is likely to cost several thousand pounds. That's aside from the annual tests, maintenance, calibration, approval, etc. Cost is an issue that could actually be overcome by charging commercial users a small premium for the ability to use Open airspace. This premium could then be used to pay for the development, hardware and installation in every GA aircraft, glider, microlight and parascender.
Let's try the situation from a different perspective:
"What effect do you think a mid-air with a commercial aircraft flying in uncontrolled airspace, where it is well known that not all traffic cannot be seen, is going to have on commercial operations?"
Some of the challenges that light aviation (not just glidng) is facing with the feasibility of Mode-S include:
(1) There often isn't the space to install a transponder in glider or microlight (panel space on some gliders is very limited). Where will a parascender fit their kit?
(2) Mode-S requires power. Not all gliders have batteries, let alone ones that'll operate continously for twelve hours or more.
(3) Mode-S doen't provide autonomous interoperability as it requires either TCAS to be also fitted or to be in contact with ATC (and not all gliders have radios). Trials have taken place in Europe with gliders using FLARM, which is a GPS-based collision avoidance system which gives you warning of all potential collision risks with other suitably equipped aircraft and overcomes the need for a controller to be monitoring traffic.
(4) No research seems to have been done to show what degradation in performance having an external antenna fitted has. If you have a nice big engine dragging you through the sky then this isn't a problem. Take a look at how finely polished glider wings are and you'll see that a 'small' decrease in performance actually makes a big difference.
(5) Does anybody have proof that having a transmitter constantly broadcasting within a few feet of you doesn't have any effect on your body ? The effect of long term exposure to magnetic/radio transmissions still isn't fully understood. And before anybody says "oh but we all use mobiles and they're ok", I'd suggest doing some proper research1
(6) Cost is an issue - A vintage glider is probably worth about £1000. A Mode-S transponder, once a low consumption version is available, is likely to cost several thousand pounds. That's aside from the annual tests, maintenance, calibration, approval, etc. Cost is an issue that could actually be overcome by charging commercial users a small premium for the ability to use Open airspace. This premium could then be used to pay for the development, hardware and installation in every GA aircraft, glider, microlight and parascender.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's try the situation from a different perspective:
"What effect do you think a mid-air with a commercial aircraft flying in uncontrolled airspace, where it is well known that not all traffic cannot be seen, is going to have on commercial operations?"
"What effect do you think a mid-air with a commercial aircraft flying in uncontrolled airspace, where it is well known that not all traffic cannot be seen, is going to have on commercial operations?"
That leads to many nasty problems especially for glider pilots as the airspace available to them gets reduced every single year.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmslow and North Yorks
Age: 53
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Denti: Spot on.
gpn01: if all traffic was required was to have a Mode 3 or a Mode S transponder then they WOULD be visible thereby increasing visibility and enhancing Flight Safety....isn't that what we'd ALL like....an increase in flight safety?
Only one of the aircraft involved needs to have TCAS fitted, it's clever enough to give Traffic Advisories and Resolution Alerts against all Mode 3 squwakers be they mode S equipped or not. The controller isn't even necessary in that.
Straws....clutching at............?
Not all "commerial" aircraft are passenger carrying air transport operations. In my job (on both types that I fly) we have GOT to operate outside CAS at all levels in order to get the task done. We are a civilian company with an AOC and therefore technically a "commercial" operation.
Sorry glider guys, there are no arguments that will stand up against the Flight Safety issue. The only other option will be to increase the amount of CAS around airfields, lower the base level of en-route sectors and make it illegal for you to operate above a certain level.....without a Transponder i'd suggest 2000 feet would be a good altitude cap.
gpn01: if all traffic was required was to have a Mode 3 or a Mode S transponder then they WOULD be visible thereby increasing visibility and enhancing Flight Safety....isn't that what we'd ALL like....an increase in flight safety?
(3) Mode-S doen't provide autonomous interoperability as it requires either TCAS to be also fitted or to be in contact with ATC (and not all gliders have radios). Trials have taken place in Europe with gliders using FLARM, which is a GPS-based collision avoidance system which gives you warning of all potential collision risks with other suitably equipped aircraft and overcomes the need for a controller to be monitoring traffic.
(5) Does anybody have proof that having a transmitter constantly broadcasting within a few feet of you doesn't have any effect on your body ? The effect of long term exposure to magnetic/radio transmissions still isn't fully understood. And before anybody says "oh but we all use mobiles and they're ok", I'd suggest doing some proper research1
Let's try the situation from a different perspective:
"What effect do you think a mid-air with a commercial aircraft flying in uncontrolled airspace, where it is well known that not all traffic cannot be seen, is going to have on commercial operations?"
"What effect do you think a mid-air with a commercial aircraft flying in uncontrolled airspace, where it is well known that not all traffic cannot be seen, is going to have on commercial operations?"
Sorry glider guys, there are no arguments that will stand up against the Flight Safety issue. The only other option will be to increase the amount of CAS around airfields, lower the base level of en-route sectors and make it illegal for you to operate above a certain level.....without a Transponder i'd suggest 2000 feet would be a good altitude cap.
Not all "commerial" aircraft are passenger carrying air transport operations.
If 757's etc stopped taking needless short-cuts outside CAS, with the compliance of ATC, this would be far less of an issue.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If all gliding folks were like the patronising obnoxious condescending bluntie woman behind the desk at Lasham, I'd support anything to ground gliders immediately in all airspace.
Fortunately all the other folks I met on the site (apart from the club bore) were aviation minded and supportive of a 'mere fixed wing' pilot being there.
I am glad I am professionlly involved with proper professionals such as those on the BGA committee and the clubs who we have negotiated access procedures to Controlled Airspace for, rather than old witches who think they know more about aviation than qualified pilots do.
Having obtained a briefing from a pleasant and accomodating lady at Lasham for a fixed wing landing, and complying with the briefing and RT advice from the tug pilot as we arrived, we were a bit dismayed to have a diatribe from some menopausal mare the next day when simply trying to track down the CFI to say thank you for allowing us to share the airspace and the airfield.
It seems the very helpful lady who gave us a briefing was ''only new here and she will soon learn'' to quote the witch. Preventing our local pilot who had obtained permission for our landing earlier in the week from the CFI from decking the ground nazi was a major effort. Perhaps we shouldn't have
In a time where GA (including gliding) are under threat from all sides, narrow minded selfish pompous gits are a blight on us all. Time they were kicked out of the industry.
Fortunately all the other folks I met on the site (apart from the club bore) were aviation minded and supportive of a 'mere fixed wing' pilot being there.
I am glad I am professionlly involved with proper professionals such as those on the BGA committee and the clubs who we have negotiated access procedures to Controlled Airspace for, rather than old witches who think they know more about aviation than qualified pilots do.
Having obtained a briefing from a pleasant and accomodating lady at Lasham for a fixed wing landing, and complying with the briefing and RT advice from the tug pilot as we arrived, we were a bit dismayed to have a diatribe from some menopausal mare the next day when simply trying to track down the CFI to say thank you for allowing us to share the airspace and the airfield.
It seems the very helpful lady who gave us a briefing was ''only new here and she will soon learn'' to quote the witch. Preventing our local pilot who had obtained permission for our landing earlier in the week from the CFI from decking the ground nazi was a major effort. Perhaps we shouldn't have
In a time where GA (including gliding) are under threat from all sides, narrow minded selfish pompous gits are a blight on us all. Time they were kicked out of the industry.