Improve Light A/C Separation
Quote (can someone remind me how to do the quote thingy)
It has been mentioned that facts are required. Yes, they are. I have read, on this page alone, that there are substantial numbers of gliders in cloud and yet, there are rarely gliders in cloud. Well? A lot of glider pilots do not hold a radio licence yet many of them hold ATPLs?
I can't find a statement that there are lots of glider pilots in cloud; on the occasions when cloud flying is useful (and it has been pointed out that on most good soaring days there is no advantage in cloud flying) then there are possibly a dozen or so in cloud at any given time, and less than a hundred at some time. Difficult to get accurate figures.
If 60% of gliders have no radio licence, and 25% hold ATPLs, then both your second statements would be true. The professional pilots who are also glider pilots tend to be more active than the average, in my experience. Holding a radio licence is sensible so that, for example, one can talk to a controller if entering an ATZ is a possibility; where I fly the proportion of licence holders is increasing.
It has been mentioned that facts are required. Yes, they are. I have read, on this page alone, that there are substantial numbers of gliders in cloud and yet, there are rarely gliders in cloud. Well? A lot of glider pilots do not hold a radio licence yet many of them hold ATPLs?
I can't find a statement that there are lots of glider pilots in cloud; on the occasions when cloud flying is useful (and it has been pointed out that on most good soaring days there is no advantage in cloud flying) then there are possibly a dozen or so in cloud at any given time, and less than a hundred at some time. Difficult to get accurate figures.
If 60% of gliders have no radio licence, and 25% hold ATPLs, then both your second statements would be true. The professional pilots who are also glider pilots tend to be more active than the average, in my experience. Holding a radio licence is sensible so that, for example, one can talk to a controller if entering an ATZ is a possibility; where I fly the proportion of licence holders is increasing.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fitter2
do not have the resource to deal with a substantial number of gliders who may wish to use IMC
Auntie Whirls top tip;
Please talk on the radios as well. Look out the window and scan the sky slowly and often. Look to see if someone is there, not look to see if it is clear!!
I cannot believe that there are people who advocate radio silence.
Cheers
Whirls
PS - copy/paste your selected snippet onto the reply box. Highlight with cursor and click on quote button (last on right).
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I cannot believe that there are people who advocate radio silence"
I think you'll find that most people advocate using the right frequency at the right time for the right reason. Sticking with the Oxford area as an example, there is no "right" frequency in Open FIR. Therefore, if you're in a glider with a poor (if any) radar return) and you decide to talk to, say, Brize Radar then you could be about to share the same bit of sky as someone else talking to Farnborough LARS, Benson Radar or Kidlington - none of whom wil be co-ordinating with each other for the big picture. So, as a glider pilot I'll stick to one frequency (130.4) when cloud flying as I know at least that all other gliders in cloud will be on the same frequency. I don't however know which frequency to use if there's power traffic attempting to share the same Cumulus - and the odds of getting it right are perhaps 4 to 1 (or worse).
There is definitely a mindset difference between glider pilots (don't talk to ATC/airfields unless necessary) and power pilots (speak to everyone). I accept that each approach works for its respective community.
Fundamentally though what is going to decrease the risk of collision in VMC .....talking to people on the radio or encouraging everyone to improve their lookout skills ? Neither is 100% guaranteed to provide 100% safety but I know which one I believe will make the most difference.
PS: Techie note on <quoting> in PPRUNE - Clicking on Reply and removing the '1' at the end of the NOQUOTE=1 in the URL works providing you're not using a PC that's within a corporate firewall that does URL checking. Also, have the same problem clicking on the reply button - no quote button appears....d'oh!
I think you'll find that most people advocate using the right frequency at the right time for the right reason. Sticking with the Oxford area as an example, there is no "right" frequency in Open FIR. Therefore, if you're in a glider with a poor (if any) radar return) and you decide to talk to, say, Brize Radar then you could be about to share the same bit of sky as someone else talking to Farnborough LARS, Benson Radar or Kidlington - none of whom wil be co-ordinating with each other for the big picture. So, as a glider pilot I'll stick to one frequency (130.4) when cloud flying as I know at least that all other gliders in cloud will be on the same frequency. I don't however know which frequency to use if there's power traffic attempting to share the same Cumulus - and the odds of getting it right are perhaps 4 to 1 (or worse).
There is definitely a mindset difference between glider pilots (don't talk to ATC/airfields unless necessary) and power pilots (speak to everyone). I accept that each approach works for its respective community.
Fundamentally though what is going to decrease the risk of collision in VMC .....talking to people on the radio or encouraging everyone to improve their lookout skills ? Neither is 100% guaranteed to provide 100% safety but I know which one I believe will make the most difference.
PS: Techie note on <quoting> in PPRUNE - Clicking on Reply and removing the '1' at the end of the NOQUOTE=1 in the URL works providing you're not using a PC that's within a corporate firewall that does URL checking. Also, have the same problem clicking on the reply button - no quote button appears....d'oh!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no rule preventing any aircraft "installing" a removable device (other than possibly a CAA approved company procedures manual banning such).
Anything that is removable needs no certification or any approval.
So, you can "install" FLARM, a handheld radio, a satellite phone, you name it. All 100% legal (unless emitting on frequencies which are illegal to transmit on in the UK).
The grey area can be in the powering arrangements. If you get a proper power connector installed somewhere, that ought to be signed off, although very often they just "appear" and nobody asks when it appeared
The alternative is to use the cigar lighter socket which is messy at best.
Anything that is removable needs no certification or any approval.
So, you can "install" FLARM, a handheld radio, a satellite phone, you name it. All 100% legal (unless emitting on frequencies which are illegal to transmit on in the UK).
The grey area can be in the powering arrangements. If you get a proper power connector installed somewhere, that ought to be signed off, although very often they just "appear" and nobody asks when it appeared
The alternative is to use the cigar lighter socket which is messy at best.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I cannot believe that there are people who advocate radio silence.”
In VMC for a radio to be considered in collision avoidance you need to know that everybody has a radio, which is not the case, that they are all talking to the same station, which is not the case, and that any RIS which might be available can see all the threats, which is not he case. Many aircraft operating on hand held radios have very limited range and battery life so only use radio for t/o and landing.
Rod1
In VMC for a radio to be considered in collision avoidance you need to know that everybody has a radio, which is not the case, that they are all talking to the same station, which is not the case, and that any RIS which might be available can see all the threats, which is not he case. Many aircraft operating on hand held radios have very limited range and battery life so only use radio for t/o and landing.
Rod1
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a worthwhile debate.
Let me say where I am, having learnt a great deal more than I knew about how gliders operate.
WHAT WE CAN DO NOW
Radio
Luckily I have two radios. My own practise is to rarely use box 2. I flip flop to the ATIS on box 1 rather than change boxes or flip flop to a passing airfield rather than go to box 2. Perhaps not the recommended procedure - but I have always done it that way. Part of the reason is that with both frequencies active I don’t want a lot of chat going on in the background on box 2. However in some circumstances I will now have the glider frequency on box 2 and active. I suspect there will not be a lot of chatter on frequency on the days I elect to do so - I think it will suite me fine.
I accept the point that if you are a glider with a radio the conundrum is who do you talk to. We have all been in that situation. When en route you will be passing various smaller airfields - do you give them a courtesy call? Consider the area around Canterbury - you could being talk to Farnborough East, then again London info might suite, or Manston LARS, or even Rochester or Headcorn. Equally there are other occasions when there is a single very obvious frequency for local traffic. I think if you are in IMC it is a little simpler. The service provider that would give you a RIS is the obvious frequency to use. Granted there are some areas where there is more than one service providers - Farnborough East and Manston LARS is a possible example where there is some overlap. I therefore think that it would do no harm if gliders in IMC gave the service provider in question a call. Agreed the call would not give as specific information as a powered aircraft but in terms of altitude and route the information could still be useful. For example I am guessing a glider could probably indicate a block altitude in which they were working much as I do if I aeroing. They could also indicate a route, and a present position. AT would be able to establish immediately whether or not the glider was visible on radar and could also warn other traffic that gliders were routing from x to y within an expected block altitude of x. If I wished that would give me an opportunity to adjust my track to avoid.
Flarm / Pcas
I am disappointed the up take has so far been so poor. 5% is not a sufficient number for me to warrant investing in FLARM - I suspect the critical mass would be around 25% before I would consider it worth while.
I don’t accept some of the comments about PCAS. I have found the unit to be amazingly reliable. I also still believe I am correct that a glider does not need to have a transponder for PCAS to work within the glider. More to the point PCAS will not see any other gliders so combined with FLARM it will distinguish between your known buddies and everyone else. Moreover PCAS is light, cheap, easy to fit and does not require any power other than that from two AA batteries. Interestingly in the report about the recent collision between a commuter jet and a glider in the States the reporter comments - if only PCAS had been fitted in the glider it could have saved the day.
In short I think gliders would be very well advised to invest in PCAS.
THE FUTURE
The risk is incredibly small of a mid air, however the stakes are incredibly high. In the emotive world of aviation statistical chance is largely irrelevant - it only takes one accident for the pressure on the regulator to be insurmountable. I think we need to invest in ways to reduce the risk further and this means investing in technology since we know the mark 1 eyeball has evolved as far as it can (at least for the time being). I believe gliders will find it increasingly difficult to dissuade legislation being imposed on them in so far as IMC ops go outside CAS. ADS-B would seem to offer some real hope.
Let me say where I am, having learnt a great deal more than I knew about how gliders operate.
WHAT WE CAN DO NOW
Radio
Luckily I have two radios. My own practise is to rarely use box 2. I flip flop to the ATIS on box 1 rather than change boxes or flip flop to a passing airfield rather than go to box 2. Perhaps not the recommended procedure - but I have always done it that way. Part of the reason is that with both frequencies active I don’t want a lot of chat going on in the background on box 2. However in some circumstances I will now have the glider frequency on box 2 and active. I suspect there will not be a lot of chatter on frequency on the days I elect to do so - I think it will suite me fine.
I accept the point that if you are a glider with a radio the conundrum is who do you talk to. We have all been in that situation. When en route you will be passing various smaller airfields - do you give them a courtesy call? Consider the area around Canterbury - you could being talk to Farnborough East, then again London info might suite, or Manston LARS, or even Rochester or Headcorn. Equally there are other occasions when there is a single very obvious frequency for local traffic. I think if you are in IMC it is a little simpler. The service provider that would give you a RIS is the obvious frequency to use. Granted there are some areas where there is more than one service providers - Farnborough East and Manston LARS is a possible example where there is some overlap. I therefore think that it would do no harm if gliders in IMC gave the service provider in question a call. Agreed the call would not give as specific information as a powered aircraft but in terms of altitude and route the information could still be useful. For example I am guessing a glider could probably indicate a block altitude in which they were working much as I do if I aeroing. They could also indicate a route, and a present position. AT would be able to establish immediately whether or not the glider was visible on radar and could also warn other traffic that gliders were routing from x to y within an expected block altitude of x. If I wished that would give me an opportunity to adjust my track to avoid.
Flarm / Pcas
I am disappointed the up take has so far been so poor. 5% is not a sufficient number for me to warrant investing in FLARM - I suspect the critical mass would be around 25% before I would consider it worth while.
I don’t accept some of the comments about PCAS. I have found the unit to be amazingly reliable. I also still believe I am correct that a glider does not need to have a transponder for PCAS to work within the glider. More to the point PCAS will not see any other gliders so combined with FLARM it will distinguish between your known buddies and everyone else. Moreover PCAS is light, cheap, easy to fit and does not require any power other than that from two AA batteries. Interestingly in the report about the recent collision between a commuter jet and a glider in the States the reporter comments - if only PCAS had been fitted in the glider it could have saved the day.
In short I think gliders would be very well advised to invest in PCAS.
THE FUTURE
The risk is incredibly small of a mid air, however the stakes are incredibly high. In the emotive world of aviation statistical chance is largely irrelevant - it only takes one accident for the pressure on the regulator to be insurmountable. I think we need to invest in ways to reduce the risk further and this means investing in technology since we know the mark 1 eyeball has evolved as far as it can (at least for the time being). I believe gliders will find it increasingly difficult to dissuade legislation being imposed on them in so far as IMC ops go outside CAS. ADS-B would seem to offer some real hope.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably when using a RIS I need to provide the controller with a bit of help...things like height, heading and routing? Well my height is going to between the ground and the base of any controlled airspace. I could go from one extreme to the other in four minutes (1000fpm isn't unknown in UK). My heading ? I rarely maintain a heading for more than ten seconds. My routing ? If I only I knew! Flying from, say, Wycombe to Enstone may take me down past Abingdon, routing alongside the edge of the Brize Zone, West of Kidlington, up around Weston-On-The-Green OR East along the Chiltern Ridge, up to Aylesbury, across to Milton Keynes, up past Northampton, then West and South of Hinton-In-The-Hedges. Either route depnds upon the conditinos experienced during the flight (and necessitates avoiding several parachute sites in the process). Oh, and while I'm doing this flight there may be 10-15 other gliders all attempting the same thing. Not sure how happy ATC would be to have 15 different gliders all reporting that they're operating in the Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire/Northamptonshire area between ground level and 6000' . That's all from one Club on a not particularly busy day. Combine that with activity from (say) te other Clubs and you're never going to get through on any RIS/LARS frequency!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPN01
I bow to your greater knowledge
duwn south for example gliders often route along one side of the downs or the other in the soaring conditions of the ridge line. They dont go far from the edge of ridge.
I can imagine there are occasions when the aim is to cross country from say Chichester to Eastbourne. What is the issue with reporting "glider x presently overhead Chalvington routing along the downs to Chichester between 1,500 and 4,500" and providing a position update every so often? From my point of view I am only really interested if you are in cloud or a few hundred feet above or below the base where I might not see you. If the tops are 4,500 I couldnt really care what you do above that, and if the base is 1,500 feet I couldnt really care what you do below say 1,300 feet if needs arise to take you out of your block altitude.
I dont accept you will not get through on frequecy. If you listen out on most LARS frequencies on days when the weather would suite thermaling in IMC I suspect there also will not be a significant amount of GA traffic about either - the powered mob are on the hole a bunch of softies, given them convective conditions with cloud and most of them will be whining about the weather in the clubhouse.
I bow to your greater knowledge
duwn south for example gliders often route along one side of the downs or the other in the soaring conditions of the ridge line. They dont go far from the edge of ridge.
I can imagine there are occasions when the aim is to cross country from say Chichester to Eastbourne. What is the issue with reporting "glider x presently overhead Chalvington routing along the downs to Chichester between 1,500 and 4,500" and providing a position update every so often? From my point of view I am only really interested if you are in cloud or a few hundred feet above or below the base where I might not see you. If the tops are 4,500 I couldnt really care what you do above that, and if the base is 1,500 feet I couldnt really care what you do below say 1,300 feet if needs arise to take you out of your block altitude.
I dont accept you will not get through on frequecy. If you listen out on most LARS frequencies on days when the weather would suite thermaling in IMC I suspect there also will not be a significant amount of GA traffic about either - the powered mob are on the hole a bunch of softies, given them convective conditions with cloud and most of them will be whining about the weather in the clubhouse.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod1, I'm afraid your post #265 above is an example of what is wrong with this thread. You have quoted me, yet responded to something I haven't said or indeed even implied. You do know what advocate means???
Earlier on, someone recommended as a top tip to forget about talking on the radio. That is what I find worrying; that someone should think they are safer by not communicating on their radio.
SO. I normally fly with two radios, Mode C transponder in Glass G with RIS. Is there anyone out there who would advocate I would be better off not using these facilities? 'Cos it sure as hell read like that to me!
Cheers
Whirls
Earlier on, someone recommended as a top tip to forget about talking on the radio. That is what I find worrying; that someone should think they are safer by not communicating on their radio.
SO. I normally fly with two radios, Mode C transponder in Glass G with RIS. Is there anyone out there who would advocate I would be better off not using these facilities? 'Cos it sure as hell read like that to me!
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The points I'm trying to make are:
- Sheer volume of VMC glider traffic calling a LARS is likely to overwhelm the unit with calls from gliders who, whilst they'll know where they are currently, don't have any idea where they'll be ten minutes later - there's times where I'll be at 5000' one minute and then ten minutes later I'll be at 500'. During that time I may have covered 20NM in any direction (including backtracking). A call to a LARS (if we can all decide which one to use) would result in something like "Glider 123 is operating in Open FIR in a height band between ground level and controlled airspace in the Oxfordshire area" is sometimes as accurate a report as I can get. This isn't going to help the controller and it's not going to help any power pilots either.
- In IMC conditions there may may again be a high volume of gliders unable to comply with RAS requiremenets (see doc http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_07webSSL08.pdf - "You must also inform the controller before making any other changes in heading or level" - in a glider that would require constant radio calls!).
- In IMC, while in cloud, there'll be a much lower volume of gliders in cloud (and they'll have a better idea of where they are whilst climbing but not whilst cruising)
FYI, ridge soaring only works in certain wind conditions and assumes that the pilot is attempting to ridge soar - so there's no guarantee which route a glider pilot will take. The locals will probably stick to a preferred route which is known to produce suitable conditions - the Southdowns being a good example. Non-locals won't known any better!
- Sheer volume of VMC glider traffic calling a LARS is likely to overwhelm the unit with calls from gliders who, whilst they'll know where they are currently, don't have any idea where they'll be ten minutes later - there's times where I'll be at 5000' one minute and then ten minutes later I'll be at 500'. During that time I may have covered 20NM in any direction (including backtracking). A call to a LARS (if we can all decide which one to use) would result in something like "Glider 123 is operating in Open FIR in a height band between ground level and controlled airspace in the Oxfordshire area" is sometimes as accurate a report as I can get. This isn't going to help the controller and it's not going to help any power pilots either.
- In IMC conditions there may may again be a high volume of gliders unable to comply with RAS requiremenets (see doc http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_07webSSL08.pdf - "You must also inform the controller before making any other changes in heading or level" - in a glider that would require constant radio calls!).
- In IMC, while in cloud, there'll be a much lower volume of gliders in cloud (and they'll have a better idea of where they are whilst climbing but not whilst cruising)
FYI, ridge soaring only works in certain wind conditions and assumes that the pilot is attempting to ridge soar - so there's no guarantee which route a glider pilot will take. The locals will probably stick to a preferred route which is known to produce suitable conditions - the Southdowns being a good example. Non-locals won't known any better!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glider: "Wycombe good afternoon, Glider 123"
Wycombe "Glider 123 pass your message"
Glider "Glider 123 is a standard class glider operating to the West of your ATZ requesting Radar Information
Wycombe: "We're not radar equipped, can only provide flight information. Report your position and intention"
Glider: "Roger, understood. Glider 123 will be routing between Wycombe and Kidlington"
Wycombe: "Glider 123 confirm intended height and heading"
Glider: "Glider 123 will be operating between 500' AGL and base of the London TMA and will be routing somewhere over Oxfordshire"
Wycombe: "Roger Glider 123, no known traffic"
Glider: "Wycombe are you in contact with the Cessna, Pitts Special, Extra, Piper Cub or microlight that I can see in the area?"
Wycome: "Negative"
Glider: "Roger, be advised I can also see a further ten gliders in the area"
The point here is that there could be lots of other traffic, all using different frequencies (Wycombe, Kidlington, Benson, Halton, White Waltham and others all being valid contenders)
(D) Glider with handheld radio (720ch + pilot with an RT licence), in IMC. Here's the scene:
Glider: "Benson Radar, Glider 123"
Benson: ........ (it's Saturday, so there's no answer)
Glider: "Farnborough Radar, Glider 123"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, pass your message"
Glider "Glider 123 is a standard class glider operating in IMC between Wycombe and Kidlington requesting Radar Information"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, squawk 1234"
Glider: "Glider 123 isn't transponder equipped. Only power is in my handheld radio"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, Can you accept a radar heading for identification?"
Glider: "Glider 123, negative, currently climbing in a thermal in a cloud"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, Can provide Flight Information only"
Glider: "Roger that, can you confirm that you're co-ordinating all IMC traffic around the Benson area?"
Farnborough West: "Negative, only the ones talking to us."
Point here is that IMC traffic could be liaising with Kidlington, Benson (on UHF), Brize Radar or Farnborough West.
Hopefully Englishal this'll help to explain why there's a reluctance for gliders to call ATZ's in VMC or LARS in IMC.
Wycombe "Glider 123 pass your message"
Glider "Glider 123 is a standard class glider operating to the West of your ATZ requesting Radar Information
Wycombe: "We're not radar equipped, can only provide flight information. Report your position and intention"
Glider: "Roger, understood. Glider 123 will be routing between Wycombe and Kidlington"
Wycombe: "Glider 123 confirm intended height and heading"
Glider: "Glider 123 will be operating between 500' AGL and base of the London TMA and will be routing somewhere over Oxfordshire"
Wycombe: "Roger Glider 123, no known traffic"
Glider: "Wycombe are you in contact with the Cessna, Pitts Special, Extra, Piper Cub or microlight that I can see in the area?"
Wycome: "Negative"
Glider: "Roger, be advised I can also see a further ten gliders in the area"
The point here is that there could be lots of other traffic, all using different frequencies (Wycombe, Kidlington, Benson, Halton, White Waltham and others all being valid contenders)
(D) Glider with handheld radio (720ch + pilot with an RT licence), in IMC. Here's the scene:
Glider: "Benson Radar, Glider 123"
Benson: ........ (it's Saturday, so there's no answer)
Glider: "Farnborough Radar, Glider 123"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, pass your message"
Glider "Glider 123 is a standard class glider operating in IMC between Wycombe and Kidlington requesting Radar Information"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, squawk 1234"
Glider: "Glider 123 isn't transponder equipped. Only power is in my handheld radio"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, Can you accept a radar heading for identification?"
Glider: "Glider 123, negative, currently climbing in a thermal in a cloud"
Farnborough West: "Glider 123, Can provide Flight Information only"
Glider: "Roger that, can you confirm that you're co-ordinating all IMC traffic around the Benson area?"
Farnborough West: "Negative, only the ones talking to us."
Point here is that IMC traffic could be liaising with Kidlington, Benson (on UHF), Brize Radar or Farnborough West.
Hopefully Englishal this'll help to explain why there's a reluctance for gliders to call ATZ's in VMC or LARS in IMC.
Glider 123: Boscombe Radar Glider 123
Boscombe: Glider 123 pass your message
Glider123: Boscombe Radar, glider 123 is a standard class glider operating between X and Y currently 2200 climbing in IMC overhead Z
Boscombe Radar: Glider 123 roger, report VMC
Gider 123: Wilco
Then I come along in at 200 kts
GABCD: GABCD 3000' IFR IMC direct SAM
Boscombe Radar: GABCD roger. Be advised we have a report of a glider climbing in IMC overhead Z, last reported 2200'
GABCD: Roger, deviating 10 right for traffic
Boscombe Radar: Roger, contact Bournemouth Radar now on 119.475
Glider 123: Boscombe Radar Glider 123 VMC 4500 overhead Z changing frequency enroute
Boscombe Radar: Thanks for the call, bye....
That sort of thing...It is not important whether you get a RADAR service yourself, the mere fact that you reported where you were, in IMC, and then reported back in VMC makes life safer for everyone. You just have to think logically about who to call - and who would anyone transitting IFR would call (in my example, Bournemouth probably).....Call either the closest or the one with the bigest coverage (e.g. Farnborough).
If all gliders in IMC did this, then we wouldn't even be having a discussion about transponders.....
I once flew IFR from Scotland to Oxford. The weather was ****e (and hence high workload - very turbulent) and the radar controller gave me a warning "multiple contacts 10 miles ahead, no height information, could be gliders". I wasn't near a gliding site so carried on regardless (I was at about 6k' OCAS). However over that area there were a few breaks in the cloud and low and behold, looking down I could see gliders below me. At the time I thought I was safe as I was in the cloud, had I known that there could have (or may have been) gliders in the cloud with me, then that scares the heck out of me - and really it should scare the glider pilot too. If I smack into one at 150 kts the chances are that it is going to a bad outcome for everyone. It hasn't happened yet, thank goodness, but just the Reno glider / Hawker incident shows that it can happen, even in VMC. All involved in that incident were SO lucky....
Last edited by englishal; 3rd Sep 2008 at 12:48.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FYI, ridge soaring only works in certain wind conditions and assumes that the pilot is attempting to ridge soar - so there's no guarantee which route a glider pilot will take. The locals will probably stick to a preferred route which is known to produce suitable conditions - the Southdowns being a good example. Non-locals won't known any better!
OK so ridge soaring only works in certain conditions (accepted) but in the area I have mentioned that is where I always see gliders at any distance from the various local sites. I see them quite regularly working their way along the ridge. I cant imagine too many other gliders get there cross country so if they arent locals they are certainly starting out having trailed their glider to one of the local sites. I assume they might talk to the odd local or two before setting off.
There is only one unit in the area that can provide a LARS and there are only a couple of airfields. Everyone works these frequencies.
For those reasons I fail to understand why gliders is this area cant do as I have proposed? It is a small thing one is asking - it might not do any good but unless there is persuasive grounds for not doing so it has to be worth a try - and you have not yet persuaded me on this point.
I am not suggesting this is always a common denominator but equally I bet there are some other favoured routes about which activity could be passed in the same way. On top of all of that other asute aviates are expecting activity in these areas - that is why the gliding sites are marked as well as all the hang gliding sites all along the ridge.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>There are a number of pilots who have posted here who previously flew IMC in class G under three erroneous beliefs:
a. Gliders aren't allowed at all;
b. Other aircraft aren't allowed if not transponding;
c. All IMC flight in class G are in receipt of some kind of radar service.
None of these are true. How good was their training? <
ProfChrisReed
I have read through all the postings and cant find any powered pilots who have indicated any of the above
>The points I'm trying to make are:
- Sheer volume of VMC glider traffic calling a LARS is likely to overwhelm the unit with calls from gliders who, whilst they'll know where they are currently, don't have any idea where they'll be ten minutes later - there's times where I'll be at 5000' one minute and then ten minutes later I'll be at 500'. During that time I may have covered 20NM in any direction (including backtracking). A call to a LARS (if we can all decide which one to use) would result in something like "Glider 123 is operating in Open FIR in a height band between ground level and controlled airspace in the Oxfordshire area" is sometimes as accurate a report as I can get. This isn't going to help the controller and it's not going to help any power pilots either.
- In IMC conditions there may may again be a high volume of gliders unable to comply with RAS requiremenets (see doc http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_07webSSL08.pdf - "You must also inform the controller before making any other changes in heading or level" - in a glider that would require constant radio calls!).
- In IMC, while in cloud, there'll be a much lower volume of gliders in cloud (and they'll have a better idea of where they are whilst climbing but not whilst cruising)<
GPN01
When I read this all it does is make me realise that there is a substantial risk of a collision with Gliders.
When we do anything with an element of risk normally we do everything we can to minimise that risk.
Take the rock climber. Most will use every bit of modern technology to safeguard themselves. Some free climb and the risk factor increases dramatically. But if they fall they kill themselves.
When flying airways we are under control, our aircraft cost a fortune to comply with RVSM requirements to fly in the high flight levels and to keep an accurate seperation. Controllers an dpilots do make mistakes and so another level of safeguards are in place. TCAS to give an ultimate warning.
Coming down the scale there is flight in IMC out of controlled airspace. There is no possibility of see and be seen so all we can rely on is a different set of rules which keep us seperated. We have to trust in the other guy that he is suitably trained to be able to fly his aircraft and navigate as well as communicate to a set accuracy we also use a radar service if possible so that there is an extra set of eyes keeping a lookout on us.
Yes an aircraft can fly in IMC without a transponder but I would hope to know about him and have faith in the fact that he is suitably qualified to be flying at the correct quadrantel level and the level that he states he is at.
It is all about risk management and trust in your fellow aviator to be responsable towards you and your passengers.
It is this need to be responsable for the lives of others rather than taking the attitude of "I will do what the hell I like and damn you" that should make us want act on a level playing field to set standards.
If you read your piece above then you must realise the extreme danger for a collission in IMC for as you put it "there maybe a high volume of gliders who cannot comply with RAS services". Actually there are NONE but we wont go into that. By your own admission you or anyone else doesnt know where the hell you are or at what height and in IMC thats a lethal combination.
I personally would like to see a legal requirement of at least ModeC for flight in IMC conditions.
I also appreciate that when cornered its a natural human response to become personal and to degenerate an argument into personal flaming which is sad as it achieves nothing.
probably nothing will happen until the unthinkable happens and then the regulators will take charge and force changes.
And those changes should be an across the board level playing field for flight in IMC which gives us all a reasonable chance of not hitting each other.
If either the pilots or aircraft cannot meet those standards then they should not be there. I stress I am only talking about IMC where see and avoid is impossible. VMC do what you want.
And yes to those who think I should keep in controlled airspace with fast machinery like jets which I fly it would be great to fly in controlled airspace from takeoff to touchdown but in very many places that is impossible for me or the holiday 737 A320
It would be possible but only by adding large areas of more controlled airspace and I am sure many here would not appreciate that either, Which recently happened to the air around Doncaster.
Pace
a. Gliders aren't allowed at all;
b. Other aircraft aren't allowed if not transponding;
c. All IMC flight in class G are in receipt of some kind of radar service.
None of these are true. How good was their training? <
ProfChrisReed
I have read through all the postings and cant find any powered pilots who have indicated any of the above
>The points I'm trying to make are:
- Sheer volume of VMC glider traffic calling a LARS is likely to overwhelm the unit with calls from gliders who, whilst they'll know where they are currently, don't have any idea where they'll be ten minutes later - there's times where I'll be at 5000' one minute and then ten minutes later I'll be at 500'. During that time I may have covered 20NM in any direction (including backtracking). A call to a LARS (if we can all decide which one to use) would result in something like "Glider 123 is operating in Open FIR in a height band between ground level and controlled airspace in the Oxfordshire area" is sometimes as accurate a report as I can get. This isn't going to help the controller and it's not going to help any power pilots either.
- In IMC conditions there may may again be a high volume of gliders unable to comply with RAS requiremenets (see doc http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_07webSSL08.pdf - "You must also inform the controller before making any other changes in heading or level" - in a glider that would require constant radio calls!).
- In IMC, while in cloud, there'll be a much lower volume of gliders in cloud (and they'll have a better idea of where they are whilst climbing but not whilst cruising)<
GPN01
When I read this all it does is make me realise that there is a substantial risk of a collision with Gliders.
When we do anything with an element of risk normally we do everything we can to minimise that risk.
Take the rock climber. Most will use every bit of modern technology to safeguard themselves. Some free climb and the risk factor increases dramatically. But if they fall they kill themselves.
When flying airways we are under control, our aircraft cost a fortune to comply with RVSM requirements to fly in the high flight levels and to keep an accurate seperation. Controllers an dpilots do make mistakes and so another level of safeguards are in place. TCAS to give an ultimate warning.
Coming down the scale there is flight in IMC out of controlled airspace. There is no possibility of see and be seen so all we can rely on is a different set of rules which keep us seperated. We have to trust in the other guy that he is suitably trained to be able to fly his aircraft and navigate as well as communicate to a set accuracy we also use a radar service if possible so that there is an extra set of eyes keeping a lookout on us.
Yes an aircraft can fly in IMC without a transponder but I would hope to know about him and have faith in the fact that he is suitably qualified to be flying at the correct quadrantel level and the level that he states he is at.
It is all about risk management and trust in your fellow aviator to be responsable towards you and your passengers.
It is this need to be responsable for the lives of others rather than taking the attitude of "I will do what the hell I like and damn you" that should make us want act on a level playing field to set standards.
If you read your piece above then you must realise the extreme danger for a collission in IMC for as you put it "there maybe a high volume of gliders who cannot comply with RAS services". Actually there are NONE but we wont go into that. By your own admission you or anyone else doesnt know where the hell you are or at what height and in IMC thats a lethal combination.
I personally would like to see a legal requirement of at least ModeC for flight in IMC conditions.
I also appreciate that when cornered its a natural human response to become personal and to degenerate an argument into personal flaming which is sad as it achieves nothing.
probably nothing will happen until the unthinkable happens and then the regulators will take charge and force changes.
And those changes should be an across the board level playing field for flight in IMC which gives us all a reasonable chance of not hitting each other.
If either the pilots or aircraft cannot meet those standards then they should not be there. I stress I am only talking about IMC where see and avoid is impossible. VMC do what you want.
And yes to those who think I should keep in controlled airspace with fast machinery like jets which I fly it would be great to fly in controlled airspace from takeoff to touchdown but in very many places that is impossible for me or the holiday 737 A320
It would be possible but only by adding large areas of more controlled airspace and I am sure many here would not appreciate that either, Which recently happened to the air around Doncaster.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 3rd Sep 2008 at 18:17.
And the glider pilot (or a pilot who happens today to be flying a glider rather than a powered aircraft) is also minimising risk as he sees it.
The dilemma is that in met conditions where cloud flying is advantageous, the most likely collision risk is with another glider. To be confident when approaching cloudbase and deciding to use the cloud that another glider is not already there, the only useful frequency is 130.400. Changing to the appropriate LARS frequency, and attempting to get a word in may miss the important call from the guy I don't want to bump into.
If (in your Citation or whatever) there is an isolated cumulus directly on your track, do you just fly straight through anyway or make a minor diversion to remain in VMC?
And we can't now fit mode C - the CAA says it has to be Mode S or nothing. And some controllers have said that with the expected clutter of everything that flies having a transponder, they will have to selectively remove from the display light aircraft and gliders (which they can do with Mode S, so we won't be transponding anyway, except as a response to a TCA system.
Roll on affordable ADS-B (although I'm sure the regulatory authorities will do their best to make it unaffordable by insisting on Aviation IR certified GPS engines ).
The dilemma is that in met conditions where cloud flying is advantageous, the most likely collision risk is with another glider. To be confident when approaching cloudbase and deciding to use the cloud that another glider is not already there, the only useful frequency is 130.400. Changing to the appropriate LARS frequency, and attempting to get a word in may miss the important call from the guy I don't want to bump into.
If (in your Citation or whatever) there is an isolated cumulus directly on your track, do you just fly straight through anyway or make a minor diversion to remain in VMC?
And we can't now fit mode C - the CAA says it has to be Mode S or nothing. And some controllers have said that with the expected clutter of everything that flies having a transponder, they will have to selectively remove from the display light aircraft and gliders (which they can do with Mode S, so we won't be transponding anyway, except as a response to a TCA system.
Roll on affordable ADS-B (although I'm sure the regulatory authorities will do their best to make it unaffordable by insisting on Aviation IR certified GPS engines ).
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace,
I read your comment in post #98:
as meaning you weren't aware this was possible. I realise it could mean that you were aware (though see your post #115) and amazed as well.
In post #118 Fuji Abound wrote:
and I understood later posts to have pointed out that this wasn't the case.
Apologies if I've misunderstood anyone.
It seems to me that the big concern is not GA v glider/non-transponding power collisions, but airline v glider/non-transponding power collisions. Until fairly recently this risk was managed by keeping airline traffic largely out of class G airspace.
With my lawyer's hat on, I'd think that such a collision might lead to the airline being sued for negligence, or possibly even prosecuted for corporate manslaughter, given the known risk of flying in IMC where there is the possibility of non-transponding traffic being present. GA and glider pilots can be presumed to have voluntarily accepted the risk, but the same can't be true of airline passengers. Whether such a lawsuit or prosecution would succeed I can't say, and I wish I were convinced that the airlines which have chosen to route through class G have reviewed this risk.
More airspace isn't necessarily the answer either, as recent legal developments have opened up the possibility that if a collision between GA/gliders in class G is in part attributable to the funneling of that traffic into narrow corridors, the Government might have legal responsibility for that accident.
It may be that the current oil price jump is enough to limit the growth of low cost airlines, in which case the problem will go away, in the sense that the finger-crossing which IMC pilots have been using for the last 70 years or more will continue to be adequate.
Bear in mind that the risk of a glider/power collision in IMC is, on current numbers, lower than the risk of structural failure - in the last 60 years there appear to have been no such collisions, and there have certainly been multiple cases of structural failure for both categories of aircraft.
I'm not thereby arguing that the risk is so low we should ignore it, merely that it's important to put it in perspective. If I were to retry cloud flying in my glider I'd probably install PCAS, and would try a few initial calls to ATC to see what kind of response I got.
PS to all: On the FLARM issue, 5% is certainly too small to be useful generally. However, last year the number of gliders fitted with FLARM was almost 0%. In two or three years this number could increase dramatically (like credit cards - when I got one in 1974 there was nowhere local to use it, but a few years later there were many takers). This will lead to a further dilemma - I have space for FLARM or PCAS, but not both! Maybe by then there will be a combined unit, which might help us all.
I read your comment in post #98:
I have to say that I am amazed that gliders or any other aircraft should be allowed to fly in cloud without a transponder.
In post #118 Fuji Abound wrote:
No one is flying powered in IMC without a transponder.
Apologies if I've misunderstood anyone.
It seems to me that the big concern is not GA v glider/non-transponding power collisions, but airline v glider/non-transponding power collisions. Until fairly recently this risk was managed by keeping airline traffic largely out of class G airspace.
With my lawyer's hat on, I'd think that such a collision might lead to the airline being sued for negligence, or possibly even prosecuted for corporate manslaughter, given the known risk of flying in IMC where there is the possibility of non-transponding traffic being present. GA and glider pilots can be presumed to have voluntarily accepted the risk, but the same can't be true of airline passengers. Whether such a lawsuit or prosecution would succeed I can't say, and I wish I were convinced that the airlines which have chosen to route through class G have reviewed this risk.
More airspace isn't necessarily the answer either, as recent legal developments have opened up the possibility that if a collision between GA/gliders in class G is in part attributable to the funneling of that traffic into narrow corridors, the Government might have legal responsibility for that accident.
It may be that the current oil price jump is enough to limit the growth of low cost airlines, in which case the problem will go away, in the sense that the finger-crossing which IMC pilots have been using for the last 70 years or more will continue to be adequate.
Bear in mind that the risk of a glider/power collision in IMC is, on current numbers, lower than the risk of structural failure - in the last 60 years there appear to have been no such collisions, and there have certainly been multiple cases of structural failure for both categories of aircraft.
I'm not thereby arguing that the risk is so low we should ignore it, merely that it's important to put it in perspective. If I were to retry cloud flying in my glider I'd probably install PCAS, and would try a few initial calls to ATC to see what kind of response I got.
PS to all: On the FLARM issue, 5% is certainly too small to be useful generally. However, last year the number of gliders fitted with FLARM was almost 0%. In two or three years this number could increase dramatically (like credit cards - when I got one in 1974 there was nowhere local to use it, but a few years later there were many takers). This will lead to a further dilemma - I have space for FLARM or PCAS, but not both! Maybe by then there will be a combined unit, which might help us all.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Retirement home..
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fitter2, I made a simple suggestion but you reply to say I have "failed" to come up with a solution (to suit you). A deliberate, inflammatory use of words, in my view, but I don't bite so easily.
However, I didn't know I had a duty to find a solution for you. The CAA and BGA haven't managed to do it so far, so why do you think I should or could? I merely saw a positive suggestion which I thought could help improve the awareness and safety of common airspace users in IMC, glider pilots included. Perhaps because it would mean giving something on your part (a simple radio call), you refuse to countenance it?
This wasn't my previous view, but my thought in response to you can only be "Bring on mandatory Mode C".
Gpn01, Your quotes referring to the difficulties of glider pilots using a RAS in IMC are understood, at least by me. This is clearly an inappropriate service for a glider, or any other type of aircraft requiring to freely manoeuvre in cloud. You could use a RIS instead (or "Traffic Service" as it will soon be called). I routinely transit in Class G in IMC (I have to, I'd be out of a job if I didn't, only for someone else to replace me) and I don't ask for a RAS, it's too restrictive. However, I will certainly accept an RAS if ATC ask me to in order to satisfy their requirement to separate my aircraft from other traffic. If I called a radar unit for a service and ATC were aware of your presence, I would be very pleased to accept a radar vector to go round you.
Alternatively, rather than ask for a formal service of any kind (so you could get back to the glider IMC frequency), you could, as I suggested earlier, make a very brief call to inform a sensibly chosen ATC agency who can pass details of your flight to other aircraft on his frequency. Powered aircraft then at least have an informed chance to avoid the area previously reported by yourself. Other gliders, suitably informed, could head straight for your area in an attempt to steal your thermal
However, I didn't know I had a duty to find a solution for you. The CAA and BGA haven't managed to do it so far, so why do you think I should or could? I merely saw a positive suggestion which I thought could help improve the awareness and safety of common airspace users in IMC, glider pilots included. Perhaps because it would mean giving something on your part (a simple radio call), you refuse to countenance it?
This wasn't my previous view, but my thought in response to you can only be "Bring on mandatory Mode C".
Gpn01, Your quotes referring to the difficulties of glider pilots using a RAS in IMC are understood, at least by me. This is clearly an inappropriate service for a glider, or any other type of aircraft requiring to freely manoeuvre in cloud. You could use a RIS instead (or "Traffic Service" as it will soon be called). I routinely transit in Class G in IMC (I have to, I'd be out of a job if I didn't, only for someone else to replace me) and I don't ask for a RAS, it's too restrictive. However, I will certainly accept an RAS if ATC ask me to in order to satisfy their requirement to separate my aircraft from other traffic. If I called a radar unit for a service and ATC were aware of your presence, I would be very pleased to accept a radar vector to go round you.
Alternatively, rather than ask for a formal service of any kind (so you could get back to the glider IMC frequency), you could, as I suggested earlier, make a very brief call to inform a sensibly chosen ATC agency who can pass details of your flight to other aircraft on his frequency. Powered aircraft then at least have an informed chance to avoid the area previously reported by yourself. Other gliders, suitably informed, could head straight for your area in an attempt to steal your thermal
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fitter 2
No we dont go through large lumps of cumulous mainly because its bumpy for passengers.
I will aslo give you that there are varying degrees of IMC. The type that wouldnt appeal to Glider pilots ie cloudbase 600 feet and solid all the way up and as you put it mainly VFR with fairly well dispersed large cumulous or towering cumulous. In the second that would not create a major hazard.
Just through interest how much of an IMC conditions do you fly in? There are days when there is a mixture of small, large, towering and Cbs all mixed together where we normally use eyes and radar to find a way through. To me that is pretty well IMC with small patches of VMC.
There are also days which are fairly IMC with Mountain wave cloud.
I am trying to get a better understanding of your operations
Pace :-)
No we dont go through large lumps of cumulous mainly because its bumpy for passengers.
I will aslo give you that there are varying degrees of IMC. The type that wouldnt appeal to Glider pilots ie cloudbase 600 feet and solid all the way up and as you put it mainly VFR with fairly well dispersed large cumulous or towering cumulous. In the second that would not create a major hazard.
Just through interest how much of an IMC conditions do you fly in? There are days when there is a mixture of small, large, towering and Cbs all mixed together where we normally use eyes and radar to find a way through. To me that is pretty well IMC with small patches of VMC.
There are also days which are fairly IMC with Mountain wave cloud.
I am trying to get a better understanding of your operations
Pace :-)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ProfChrisreed
>I have to say that I am amazed that gliders or any other aircraft should be allowed to fly in cloud without a transponder. <
Apaology accepted as amazed means just that. All aircraft flying in IMC should have at least Mode C to be visible to Radar units, I am amazed that they are allowed to fly without mode C.
>With my lawyer's hat on, I'd think that such a collision might lead to the airline being sued for negligence, or possibly even prosecuted for corporate manslaughter, given the known risk of flying in IMC where there is the possibility of non-transponding traffic being present. GA and glider pilots can be presumed to have voluntarily accepted the risk, but the same can't be true of airline passengers. Whether such a lawsuit or prosecution would succeed I can't say, and I wish I were convinced that the airlines which have chosen to route through class G have reviewed this risk.<
Please read this incident report of a RyanAir into LondonDerry N Ireland and you might have a better understanding of where airliners do operate and how.
This was not a collision risk but just to explain that there are many airports like this with little control, some with NO radar and the 737s and A320s might go some way before entering an airway and proper control, so they could be in the same airspace as you and your non transponding glider and the same goes for me Flying a Citation Jet.
http://www.aerohabitat.org/link/21-0...IJ%2001-07.pdf
Londonderry ATC procedures
LDY operates two radio frequencies, Approach and
Tower. There is no radar facility at the airport, hence the
ATC approach service is procedural. When the tower
is staffed, it is done so by one ATCO who monitors and
controls both frequencies, which are cross coupled.
Additionally, he is responsible for carrying out ‘domestic’
duties that include the taking of landing fees, submitting
flight plans and issuing ATC clearances. When the
ATCO requires a break, the tower service closes down
Pace
>I have to say that I am amazed that gliders or any other aircraft should be allowed to fly in cloud without a transponder. <
Apaology accepted as amazed means just that. All aircraft flying in IMC should have at least Mode C to be visible to Radar units, I am amazed that they are allowed to fly without mode C.
>With my lawyer's hat on, I'd think that such a collision might lead to the airline being sued for negligence, or possibly even prosecuted for corporate manslaughter, given the known risk of flying in IMC where there is the possibility of non-transponding traffic being present. GA and glider pilots can be presumed to have voluntarily accepted the risk, but the same can't be true of airline passengers. Whether such a lawsuit or prosecution would succeed I can't say, and I wish I were convinced that the airlines which have chosen to route through class G have reviewed this risk.<
Please read this incident report of a RyanAir into LondonDerry N Ireland and you might have a better understanding of where airliners do operate and how.
This was not a collision risk but just to explain that there are many airports like this with little control, some with NO radar and the 737s and A320s might go some way before entering an airway and proper control, so they could be in the same airspace as you and your non transponding glider and the same goes for me Flying a Citation Jet.
http://www.aerohabitat.org/link/21-0...IJ%2001-07.pdf
Londonderry ATC procedures
LDY operates two radio frequencies, Approach and
Tower. There is no radar facility at the airport, hence the
ATC approach service is procedural. When the tower
is staffed, it is done so by one ATCO who monitors and
controls both frequencies, which are cross coupled.
Additionally, he is responsible for carrying out ‘domestic’
duties that include the taking of landing fees, submitting
flight plans and issuing ATC clearances. When the
ATCO requires a break, the tower service closes down
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 3rd Sep 2008 at 21:00.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of FLARM....How about this for a compromise:
If the BGA or whoever regulates gliding made FLARM madatory for gliders, would this be acceptible to the gliding community? Because if it was then I'd be prepared to buy FLARM for my aeroplane and I'm sure many others would. Before you know it you could find that MOST GA / Gliders in the UK and possibly even Europe fitted with FLARM - it's cheap cost make it very attractive.
This would also drop the price of FLARM
If the BGA or whoever regulates gliding made FLARM madatory for gliders, would this be acceptible to the gliding community? Because if it was then I'd be prepared to buy FLARM for my aeroplane and I'm sure many others would. Before you know it you could find that MOST GA / Gliders in the UK and possibly even Europe fitted with FLARM - it's cheap cost make it very attractive.
This would also drop the price of FLARM
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, had read it when it came out. I believe I have a pretty good idea about how commercial a/t operates, to the extent one can from merely reading as opposed to piloting it. My point was that some of the choices made by the airlines appear riskier than seems advisable from a litigation perspective, but it's not my role to second guess their risk assessments if they've actually made them.