Improve Light A/C Separation
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji Abound wrote:
This is potentially a very good suggestion. Unlike the fitting of transponders to gliders (which carries large costs - financial and operational - as explained above, with little benefit in return), this could meet my criteria, and I suspect those of others.
Questions:
1. Where can we find out more about the operating constraints (for example, I couldn't mount the thing horizontal, it would have to be at a 30 degree angle - does that still work?), installation issues and costs? any links to known good units?
2. Would I see any benefit VMC only? I don't currently fly in cloud or in controlled airspace. I can see a benefit of reducing collision risk in cloud which makes the cost worthwhile - would it really be much help in VMC? Anecdotes from those who use PCAS in VMC would be helpful, especially if any fly gliders.
Presumably you'd also urge PCAS on non-gliders who fly IMC without transponders - from another thread, that appears to include not only powered a/c but potentially balloons!
If PCAS really is a useful way of collision risk reduction for gliders in IMC, then the route to getting it mandated is via the BGA. Laws & Rules for Glider Pilots could be amended - these aren't legally binding, but if you are known to be flying outside them then your gliding club will take action (this is definitely the most effective enforcement mechanism). To convince them, reasoned argument of the sort which Fuji Abound has put forward, but more technically detailed, will be needed, as their expertise is very high.
You can of course do one very simple thing. Buy a PCAS. It weighs about as much as a matchbox. It runs for around 8 hours on two AA batteries. It will stay put with simple attachment through at least 6G of aeros (that is the most I have tried at any rate) and best of all it will cost you a couple of hundred quid and you don’t need to fit a transponder. At least you are talking my language - its not perfect but you will have a good chance of getting out of my way even if I have no idea you are there.
Questions:
1. Where can we find out more about the operating constraints (for example, I couldn't mount the thing horizontal, it would have to be at a 30 degree angle - does that still work?), installation issues and costs? any links to known good units?
2. Would I see any benefit VMC only? I don't currently fly in cloud or in controlled airspace. I can see a benefit of reducing collision risk in cloud which makes the cost worthwhile - would it really be much help in VMC? Anecdotes from those who use PCAS in VMC would be helpful, especially if any fly gliders.
Presumably you'd also urge PCAS on non-gliders who fly IMC without transponders - from another thread, that appears to include not only powered a/c but potentially balloons!
If PCAS really is a useful way of collision risk reduction for gliders in IMC, then the route to getting it mandated is via the BGA. Laws & Rules for Glider Pilots could be amended - these aren't legally binding, but if you are known to be flying outside them then your gliding club will take action (this is definitely the most effective enforcement mechanism). To convince them, reasoned argument of the sort which Fuji Abound has put forward, but more technically detailed, will be needed, as their expertise is very high.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The magazine write ups and "road tests" I have seen on PCAS units appear to indicate that they are incredibly unreliable giving a multitude of spurious alerts ( usually from ones own transponder) . This would be a big issue for me for a system which would otherwise appear to be a cheap and cost effective solution to the problem, despite lack of accurate altitude or azimuth information
Just to go back to the point again about the fixation all the way through this thread about collisions in IMC, I repeat this is statistically by far the safest place to be if you want to avoid a GA collision outside CAS. There is in short, usually no bugger there. It is the low level VMC environment where the risk lies.
Just to go back to the point again about the fixation all the way through this thread about collisions in IMC, I repeat this is statistically by far the safest place to be if you want to avoid a GA collision outside CAS. There is in short, usually no bugger there. It is the low level VMC environment where the risk lies.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In short the individual cost is insignificant compared with the results of a collision.
True the cost of a collision with a commercial airliner is measured in mega-bucks. But even the best kit hasn't stopped commercial jets hitting each other or the ground.
The Mode S consultation has continally foundered on the cost-benefit analysis question and the line from the CAA is 'isn't your life worth £1500?
This has been used to support the carriage of ELTs (not PLBs though) as well as Mode S. It is a classic politician's trick and should never be used by forumites.....
The reality is that for some transponder-equipage can be around £5k upwards although usually it is about £3k, when fitting is easy. Add to that the cost of a useful TCAS, not the cheap ones, and we are talking a lot of bucks. For a lot of the Permit, BGA and BMAA fleet that equates to 40-75% of the cost of the aircraft itself. How often do you buy a piece of kit so relatively expensive - except perhaps an engine once every 10 years or so?
Added to that we are looking at a piece of kit that benefits other people, not necessarily the operator. Effectively, you may be asking for me to lash out cash that I can ill afford, on something that does me little or no good, so that some of you can tear through Class G with your eyes wide shut, relying on the voices in your head....
If I'm not going to fit a transponder, like large numbers of my colleagues, what possible use is TCAS/PCAS to me or anyone else, come to that?
There is probably a much higher degree of understanding of CAT operation among the general gliding fraternity than the reverse - a significant proportion of glider pilots are current or ex ATPLs, and we do talk to them.
If I believed cheap PCAS systems worked, (and they don't tell the other aircraft of your presence without transponder carriage, now mandated to be Mode S requiring much more than a couple of dry batteries) then I might consider one. The user reports I have seen are very equivocal.
We have been told that we are a danger to positioning aircraft flying VFR through a cloud that we might be in - which part of VISUAL don't I understand?
When we sometimes use cloud flying, it is normally to climb in isolated towering cumulus where the spacing between gives a high probability of not reaching the next one from cloudbase. Under these circumstances, why in the open FIR fly directly throough an isolated cloud if a minor route adjustment would avoid that?
There appears to be an attitude among some CAT drivers that they have a much greater right to open airspace than glider pilots, and this precludes the sort of reasoned discussion that might be useful; thank you FujiAbound for more reasonable contributions to the discussion. I apologise for being somewhat tongue in cheek provocative, but it seemed he best way of highlighting the lack of logic occasionally put form the CAT point of view.
If I believed cheap PCAS systems worked, (and they don't tell the other aircraft of your presence without transponder carriage, now mandated to be Mode S requiring much more than a couple of dry batteries) then I might consider one. The user reports I have seen are very equivocal.
We have been told that we are a danger to positioning aircraft flying VFR through a cloud that we might be in - which part of VISUAL don't I understand?
When we sometimes use cloud flying, it is normally to climb in isolated towering cumulus where the spacing between gives a high probability of not reaching the next one from cloudbase. Under these circumstances, why in the open FIR fly directly throough an isolated cloud if a minor route adjustment would avoid that?
There appears to be an attitude among some CAT drivers that they have a much greater right to open airspace than glider pilots, and this precludes the sort of reasoned discussion that might be useful; thank you FujiAbound for more reasonable contributions to the discussion. I apologise for being somewhat tongue in cheek provocative, but it seemed he best way of highlighting the lack of logic occasionally put form the CAT point of view.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>Added to that we are looking at a piece of kit that benefits other people, not necessarily the operator. Effectively, you may be asking for me to lash out cash that I can ill afford, on something that does me little or no good, so that some of you can tear through Class G with your eyes wide shut, relying on the voices in your head....<
Flying in good VMC in class G it would be better to have all aircraft equipt with transponders but we all know that everyone is flying around in that airspace in every type of flying machine available and hence do use MK1 eyeballs and maximum caution.
The other danger is where only one set of MK1 eyeballs are available ie where an aircraft is transitioning from IFR IMC flight to VFR VMC flight and that transition layer.
My total disagreement in this thread is where we cannot see each other ie in cloud where someone flying without the maximum level of available technology so we can know about each other is putting my life and my passenegers life at risk and no one has a right to do that.
Fitter2
There are rules for VFR VMC flying which are to remain clear of cloud horizontally and vertically with published distances to have between you and cloud.
Unless the aircraft and the pilot are equipt and licenced to be in cloud they should not be there.
I was amazed that the CAA say " Okay your a glider so these rules do not apply" that is the double standards.
Maybe its the CAA who should be sued when a 737 is brought down as you cannot blame a glider pilot for flying within the rulles the CAA stipulate but those rules are a mockery.
And yes for your information I am afraid its not only me who flies fast machinery outside of controlled airspace but Easyjet and RyanAir in their 737s and A320s so you are just as likely to hit them as me while playing in your clouds unannounced and unseen.
We do try and avoid large lumps of cumulous or towering cumulous as it gives a bumpy ride for passengers but often the density of cloud or combination of clouds or routing makes that unavoidable.
Pace
Flying in good VMC in class G it would be better to have all aircraft equipt with transponders but we all know that everyone is flying around in that airspace in every type of flying machine available and hence do use MK1 eyeballs and maximum caution.
The other danger is where only one set of MK1 eyeballs are available ie where an aircraft is transitioning from IFR IMC flight to VFR VMC flight and that transition layer.
My total disagreement in this thread is where we cannot see each other ie in cloud where someone flying without the maximum level of available technology so we can know about each other is putting my life and my passenegers life at risk and no one has a right to do that.
Fitter2
There are rules for VFR VMC flying which are to remain clear of cloud horizontally and vertically with published distances to have between you and cloud.
Unless the aircraft and the pilot are equipt and licenced to be in cloud they should not be there.
I was amazed that the CAA say " Okay your a glider so these rules do not apply" that is the double standards.
Maybe its the CAA who should be sued when a 737 is brought down as you cannot blame a glider pilot for flying within the rulles the CAA stipulate but those rules are a mockery.
And yes for your information I am afraid its not only me who flies fast machinery outside of controlled airspace but Easyjet and RyanAir in their 737s and A320s so you are just as likely to hit them as me while playing in your clouds unannounced and unseen.
We do try and avoid large lumps of cumulous or towering cumulous as it gives a bumpy ride for passengers but often the density of cloud or combination of clouds or routing makes that unavoidable.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 1st Sep 2008 at 07:57.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it really is low power, small, easy to use and within a reasonable price range then I agree it would be a good candidate for everybody to adopt.
1. Where can we find out more about the operating constraints
The magazine write ups and "road tests" I have seen on PCAS units appear to indicate that they are incredibly unreliable
If I'm not going to fit a transponder, like large numbers of my colleagues, what possible use is TCAS/PCAS to me or anyone else, come to that?
I suspect that the vast majority of powered aircraft in IMC have a transponder, even if there is no legal requirment for them to do so.
This has been used to support the carriage of ELTs (not PLBs though) as well as Mode S. It is a classic politician's trick and should never be used by forumites.....
My own experience with PCAS is it is well worth a look. I cant answer what the implications are of using it in an aircraft without a transponder althoug I dont think it makes a deal of difference. I can tell you in the 12 months or so I used PCAS I dont think I had a single spurious contact. Obvioulsy I cant be sure because I didnt see a lot of them but when I did they were sure there, and when I didnt, AT often reported the same traffic. When I get a chance I am going to run PCAS with Skywatch which I now use and see how the two compare.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“There are rules for VFR VMC flying which are to remain clear of cloud horizontally and vertically with published distances to have between you and cloud.”
The most common part of the spectrum is less than 140kn, up to 3000 ft, in sight of the surface and clear of cloud. You will notice that there is no published distance between you and cloud in this case. Assuming cloud base is 3001 ft, you will get two bands of aircraft. One will be at 2000 ft (some people always fly at this level and for my sake long may they continue) the other band will be just below cloud base. I will be at 2700 ish…
The problem with this is if you are descending in IMC without a RIS both you and the VFR guys have very little change to see and avoid. There is a strong case for only doing this with a RIS, but this would be very restrictive at a weekend.
Edited to add;
“I suspect it is very accurate in altitude less so in range.”
It cannot be more accurate than the encoder info which is +/-200 ft. A Glider is unlikly to throw away 400 ft of hard won energy unless it is very sure there is a risk.
Rod1
The most common part of the spectrum is less than 140kn, up to 3000 ft, in sight of the surface and clear of cloud. You will notice that there is no published distance between you and cloud in this case. Assuming cloud base is 3001 ft, you will get two bands of aircraft. One will be at 2000 ft (some people always fly at this level and for my sake long may they continue) the other band will be just below cloud base. I will be at 2700 ish…
The problem with this is if you are descending in IMC without a RIS both you and the VFR guys have very little change to see and avoid. There is a strong case for only doing this with a RIS, but this would be very restrictive at a weekend.
Edited to add;
“I suspect it is very accurate in altitude less so in range.”
It cannot be more accurate than the encoder info which is +/-200 ft. A Glider is unlikly to throw away 400 ft of hard won energy unless it is very sure there is a risk.
Rod1
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if this has benn asked before...
Two aircraft approaching each other head on with their widgets singing and dancing - how does the conflict get resolved? In other words do they climb and descend or do both aircraft turn right and will the widget indicate what to do?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two aircraft approaching each other head on with their widgets singing and dancing - how does the conflict get resolved? In other words do they climb and descend or do both aircraft turn right and will the widget indicate what to do?
AFAIK, all other systems rely on "pilot" interpretation / decisions. Even the PCAS manufacturer states bearing accuracy as +-22degrees i.e. if it says it's directly ahead of you, it could be 22degrees left or right. When you avoid laterally by visual means, your eyes are very accurate in direction, and also in "trend" which is important in collision avoidance/ assessment. I cannot see how a "reliable" turn could be made on such information, so the vertical plane would seem, again "best".
NoD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod1
Have printed these details off. How a Glider with non IFR equiptment and not even a minimum of an IMC rating can legally fly in cloud puzzles me. One rule for all of us another for gliders :-)
>Weather minima for VFR flight outside Controlled Airspace (Classes F and G Airspace)
(a) At and above FL 100
8km flight visibility
1500 m horizontally from cloud
1000ft vertically from cloud.
(b) Below FL 100
5
5km flight visibility
1500 m horizontally from cloud
1000ft vertically from cloud.
(c) At or below 3000ft
As in (b) above or:
for fixed wing aircraft:
5 km flight visibility
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
for fixed wing aircraft operating at 140kt or less:
1500 m flight visibility
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
for helicopters operating at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
Speed Limitations
Below FL100, an airspace speed limit of 250kt applies. In addition, this limit may be lower when published in procedures or when required
by ATC.<
Pace
Have printed these details off. How a Glider with non IFR equiptment and not even a minimum of an IMC rating can legally fly in cloud puzzles me. One rule for all of us another for gliders :-)
>Weather minima for VFR flight outside Controlled Airspace (Classes F and G Airspace)
(a) At and above FL 100
8km flight visibility
1500 m horizontally from cloud
1000ft vertically from cloud.
(b) Below FL 100
5
5km flight visibility
1500 m horizontally from cloud
1000ft vertically from cloud.
(c) At or below 3000ft
As in (b) above or:
for fixed wing aircraft:
5 km flight visibility
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
for fixed wing aircraft operating at 140kt or less:
1500 m flight visibility
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
for helicopters operating at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
Speed Limitations
Below FL100, an airspace speed limit of 250kt applies. In addition, this limit may be lower when published in procedures or when required
by ATC.<
Pace
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zaon appears to be a mode "C" receiver. It requires the conflicting traffic to be transponder equipped.
So it won't work in the middle of nowhere, but over there it's not very likely you bump into someone.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How a Glider with non IFR equiptment and not even a minimum of an IMC rating can legally fly in cloud puzzles me.
Their rules are delegated to, and determined by, the BGA, and what is the problem for that? And how/why does it affect you (and I). None of the IFR "equipment" (e.g. AI) we (powered pilots) require, or rules we operate to (IMC rating), outside CAS appear to be relevant to collision avoidance... which to me seems the only way it might affect other users. With the appropriate equipment and qualification, we powered aircraft can also fly in IMC without a Xpdr and without talking to anyone... which seems a level playing field?
NoD
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zaon appears to be a mode "C" receiver. It requires the conflicting traffic to be transponder equipped.
Two aircraft approaching each other head on with their widgets singing and dancing - how does the conflict get resolved? In other words do they climb and descend or do both aircraft turn right and will the widget indicate what to do?
A Glider is unlikly to throw away 400 ft of hard won energy unless it is very sure there is a risk.
Forgive me but I sense a reluctance on the part of the glider community to do anything proactive. Fair enough if you feel the risk just doesnt warrant it - I cant defeat that argument other than by repeating that personally I feel a lot more comfortable in cloud knowing that I have something on which to "rely" other than keeping my fingers crossed.
From this thread it would appear that less than 5% of the gliding community have taken up FLARM. How could I in good faith invest in that sytem when almost not a single powered aircraft is going to have the system and only 5% of gliders have bothered to fit it? In the alternative I'd bet that 95% of powered aircraft in IMC have a transponder.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no direct experience of PCAS, most of the people I know who have tried it were not impressed, but maybe the new units are better. With this in mind I have some basic questions;
If the unit requires radar to activate the transponder in order to see the target, then I assume it will not work at low level – say up to 2000 ft ish in a normal environment?
Assuming I am flying straight at another aircraft with mode c, at 2500 ft, what sort of range would I typically pick up the other contact?
I did seriously consider a unit some months ago, which is why I estimated the non transponder traffic in my local area and decided it was a non starter.
Rod1
If the unit requires radar to activate the transponder in order to see the target, then I assume it will not work at low level – say up to 2000 ft ish in a normal environment?
Assuming I am flying straight at another aircraft with mode c, at 2500 ft, what sort of range would I typically pick up the other contact?
I did seriously consider a unit some months ago, which is why I estimated the non transponder traffic in my local area and decided it was a non starter.
Rod1
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NigelOnDraft
Why the rules should be determined by the BGA an organisation that has its own interests at heart and not all of us puzzles me.
That would be like the PFA setting its own rules and stating that homebuilts can fly in IMC conditions which they cannot. Yet most Homebuilt aircraft are more capable of IMC flight than gliders.
The CAA should be the regulatory authority which should lay out regulations to protect us all in an even handed way.
Realistically if you are flying solid IMC and ask for radar and when asked to squak say you do not have a transponder you will get raised eyebrows.
There can be very few aircraft who fly solid IMC and are irresponsable enough to do so without a transponder.
This whole thread started because of a tragic collision between two aircraft one a complex twin and the other a light aircraft.
The question was where are the risks and how can those risks be minimised.
The above accident happened in VMC but it is likely that the complex twin commander with poor and obstructed visibility from his twin did not see the light aircraft. Couple that with the fact that he thought he was on an approach and had his head in the cockpit sorting charts and configuring the aircraft and its easy to see how such an accident could occur.
That stresses the fact that all we can do is to be extra vigilant in VMC for other aircraft.
But IMC is a different matter because the idea of keeping a good lookout becomes irrelevant and hence I personally would have regulations which stipulate a transponder for all IMC flight and basic IMC flight training for those who enter IMC conditions.
Pace
Why the rules should be determined by the BGA an organisation that has its own interests at heart and not all of us puzzles me.
That would be like the PFA setting its own rules and stating that homebuilts can fly in IMC conditions which they cannot. Yet most Homebuilt aircraft are more capable of IMC flight than gliders.
The CAA should be the regulatory authority which should lay out regulations to protect us all in an even handed way.
Realistically if you are flying solid IMC and ask for radar and when asked to squak say you do not have a transponder you will get raised eyebrows.
There can be very few aircraft who fly solid IMC and are irresponsable enough to do so without a transponder.
This whole thread started because of a tragic collision between two aircraft one a complex twin and the other a light aircraft.
The question was where are the risks and how can those risks be minimised.
The above accident happened in VMC but it is likely that the complex twin commander with poor and obstructed visibility from his twin did not see the light aircraft. Couple that with the fact that he thought he was on an approach and had his head in the cockpit sorting charts and configuring the aircraft and its easy to see how such an accident could occur.
That stresses the fact that all we can do is to be extra vigilant in VMC for other aircraft.
But IMC is a different matter because the idea of keeping a good lookout becomes irrelevant and hence I personally would have regulations which stipulate a transponder for all IMC flight and basic IMC flight training for those who enter IMC conditions.
Pace
You are way out of date.
EASA are the authority - the CAA act as their local agents.
A number of ways have been suggested in earlier posts to minmise risk for all concerned; a blanket demand that other aircraft fit equipment that is impractical for the aircraft concerned, or cease operating in a normal manner is not really making any useful contribution to the discussion.
EASA are the authority - the CAA act as their local agents.
A number of ways have been suggested in earlier posts to minmise risk for all concerned; a blanket demand that other aircraft fit equipment that is impractical for the aircraft concerned, or cease operating in a normal manner is not really making any useful contribution to the discussion.
Last edited by Fitter2; 1st Sep 2008 at 11:20.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: oxford
Age: 86
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLARM
Flarm (short for Flight Alarm) is becoming popular in the UK but has a long way to go to match the UK`s share of the 11,000 or so now used, mainly in Europe and Australia The product is licensed to be made by other than Flarm Technology GmbH of Switzerland and so you will find different versions around; but the important thing is that they all use the same algorithms and are interoperable with each other.
The situation in the UK that the CAA has a policy of no objection and we are now waiting for Ofcom to issue its approval, for its use of 868.2 MHz, a licence free band in Europe, and this is expected any day.
I admit to a commercial interest in Flarm as the UKs main vendor but it is a reality, it does work and at around £500 incl VAT for a fully portable system it might just help avoid that near miss frightening you or worse as it gives a warning out to a range of mile or 2 and helps you to look in the right direction and take the appropriate action. Made originally to enable glider pilots to avoid hitting each other when flying in the Alps its usefulness has now been recognised as far wider. Of note, it contains a database of obstructions (currently Alpine cables and masts) but it could easily be loaded with a regional database of TV masts, high tension wires, and the like. This could be of interest to helicopter operators.......
I`ll publish more info once Ofcom has issue formal approval. Meanwhile, there is info on www.Flarm.com and www.lXavionics.co.uk
John Delafield
LX avionics Ltd
The situation in the UK that the CAA has a policy of no objection and we are now waiting for Ofcom to issue its approval, for its use of 868.2 MHz, a licence free band in Europe, and this is expected any day.
I admit to a commercial interest in Flarm as the UKs main vendor but it is a reality, it does work and at around £500 incl VAT for a fully portable system it might just help avoid that near miss frightening you or worse as it gives a warning out to a range of mile or 2 and helps you to look in the right direction and take the appropriate action. Made originally to enable glider pilots to avoid hitting each other when flying in the Alps its usefulness has now been recognised as far wider. Of note, it contains a database of obstructions (currently Alpine cables and masts) but it could easily be loaded with a regional database of TV masts, high tension wires, and the like. This could be of interest to helicopter operators.......
I`ll publish more info once Ofcom has issue formal approval. Meanwhile, there is info on www.Flarm.com and www.lXavionics.co.uk
John Delafield
LX avionics Ltd
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming I am flying straight at another aircraft with mode c, at 2500 ft, what sort of range would I typically pick up the other contact?
As long as the other aircrafts transponder is being interogated by either a ground based radar or an airborn system (such as Sywatch or TCAS) PCAS will read the squitter. That means that cover for most of the UK is pretty solid.
You will be warned of the traffic at over 5 nm. At 5 nm at typical GA v glider speeds head on you will have over 2 minutes to deal with the conflict.
I suspect when you hear the usual - limited radar service due to range and / or radar clutter that does not mean the response of PCAS will be reduced unless there is terrain between you and the radar head.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a couple of points of academic pedantry.
I think the commander of the twin was a "she" not a "he"
Basic PPL without an instrument qualification at less than 140 knots is limited to minimum 3k vis outside CAS (UK ANO license restriction, not VFR rules) and 5k insideCAS
I think the commander of the twin was a "she" not a "he"
Basic PPL without an instrument qualification at less than 140 knots is limited to minimum 3k vis outside CAS (UK ANO license restriction, not VFR rules) and 5k insideCAS