Improve Light A/C Separation
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is becoming a bit heated at times which is a shame because I think valid points are being raised by all parties. I also recognise that there are sensiitivities being provoked - perhaps as pilots become more aware of the risks being taken by everybody, particularly in IMC conditions.
Fundementally I see the major issues as being that of risk recognition and mitigation. The positive outcome of this thread is the general increase in awareness of pilots of the risks involved when flying in uncontrolled airspace. The negative seems to be that many contributors are trying to 'mitigate' without recognizing or realizing each other's operating environments. The potential consequences of their suggestions which they describe as "common sense" may be 'sensible' based on their modus operandi and training but aren't actually sensible when the bigger picture of multiple airspace users are considered.
The interesting point of all of this is that, despite everybody being uncomfortable with the exisiting situation, statistics suggest that it actually works rather well as there have been few, if any, glider vs power collisions in IMC. A concern that I have is that changing the rules now could actually increase the possiblity of such an event occuring.
Finally, an observation to all those pilots who weren't aware that gliders operate in IMC without using LARS/RIS/RAS, the simple fact is that we do because we use a procedure that works (as borne out by statistics) of communicating on 130.4. If you didn't previously know this and have been flying in IMC whilst talking to a radar/flight information unit in the mistaken belief that there was a zero risk of collision then the only thing that has changed is your awareness. One day legislation (via EASA or CAA) may change this. Until then you may want to question why it was that you weren't aware of the situation.
Fundementally I see the major issues as being that of risk recognition and mitigation. The positive outcome of this thread is the general increase in awareness of pilots of the risks involved when flying in uncontrolled airspace. The negative seems to be that many contributors are trying to 'mitigate' without recognizing or realizing each other's operating environments. The potential consequences of their suggestions which they describe as "common sense" may be 'sensible' based on their modus operandi and training but aren't actually sensible when the bigger picture of multiple airspace users are considered.
The interesting point of all of this is that, despite everybody being uncomfortable with the exisiting situation, statistics suggest that it actually works rather well as there have been few, if any, glider vs power collisions in IMC. A concern that I have is that changing the rules now could actually increase the possiblity of such an event occuring.
Finally, an observation to all those pilots who weren't aware that gliders operate in IMC without using LARS/RIS/RAS, the simple fact is that we do because we use a procedure that works (as borne out by statistics) of communicating on 130.4. If you didn't previously know this and have been flying in IMC whilst talking to a radar/flight information unit in the mistaken belief that there was a zero risk of collision then the only thing that has changed is your awareness. One day legislation (via EASA or CAA) may change this. Until then you may want to question why it was that you weren't aware of the situation.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The interesting point of all of this is that, despite everybody being uncomfortable with the exisiting situation, statistics suggest that it actually works rather well as there have been few, if any, glider vs power collisions in IMC. A concern that I have is that changing the rules now could actually increase the possiblity of such an event occuring.
In fact so far as the present system is concerned as between power and gliders everyone is operating with their fingers crossed - kid your self not.
The vast majority of powered aircraft in IMC are not listening out on the glider frequency, gliders arent making radio calls on any of the powered frequencies, powered aircraft cant detect FLARM and gliders cant detect transponders. Other than a bit of help from AT who might be able to see gliders on primary the reality is the big sky keeps us safe nearly all the time.
In some respects I suspect it should be kpet a closely guarded secret. (If only because I have some symphathy for open FIR).
If one of the tabloids really got hold of the story and told the public that locos often had little prospect of avoiding a glider which could be legally operating in the same bit of sky without anyone knowing I suspect they would have a productive time. Once the regulator, the government and EASA had done with it that could well be the end of this particular "situation".
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have learned a lot form this thread;
I have found out far more about FLARM than I did before. I had followed the CAA’s comments criticizing it, but I now think it is the one tec which could make a real difference. I hope the take up I the UK mirrors that of parts of Europe, in which case I may well fit it.
I have also revised my opinion of PCAS. I will be seeing some of the people who have tried it and rejected it over the weekend, so I will try to find out why. Based on the comments it appears to be an interesting option, but probably not suited to my situation.
Over the winter I plan on upgrading my panel, by adding a large MFD. Collision avoidance compatibility is now on my list of research questions.
I am quite fortunate in that I flew Gliders for some time before taking up Power, used my IMC quite aggressively, then built my own aircraft and have spent time lobbying for the LAA and the BMAA. There are a few people on this thread who are very fixed in one kind of aviation and have a very low understanding of the other branches sharing the same sky. I have no idea how to solve this, but aviation would be much stronger if we all respected our different slants on the same basic principle.
Rod1
I have found out far more about FLARM than I did before. I had followed the CAA’s comments criticizing it, but I now think it is the one tec which could make a real difference. I hope the take up I the UK mirrors that of parts of Europe, in which case I may well fit it.
I have also revised my opinion of PCAS. I will be seeing some of the people who have tried it and rejected it over the weekend, so I will try to find out why. Based on the comments it appears to be an interesting option, but probably not suited to my situation.
Over the winter I plan on upgrading my panel, by adding a large MFD. Collision avoidance compatibility is now on my list of research questions.
I am quite fortunate in that I flew Gliders for some time before taking up Power, used my IMC quite aggressively, then built my own aircraft and have spent time lobbying for the LAA and the BMAA. There are a few people on this thread who are very fixed in one kind of aviation and have a very low understanding of the other branches sharing the same sky. I have no idea how to solve this, but aviation would be much stronger if we all respected our different slants on the same basic principle.
Rod1
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 few people on this thread who are very fixed in one kind of aviation and have a very low understanding of the other branches sharing the same sky. I have no idea how to solve this, but aviation would be much stronger if we all respected our different slants on the same basic principle.<
Rod1 sharing the same sky to me means being concerned for each others safety and carrying a responsability to each other.
Gliders are different as they cannot maintain altitude and heading and as such are unique in not being able to fly IFR rules in IMC. By doing so they are at an increased risk of collision compared to those of us who are able to keep a seperation by flying IFR in Imc.
One poster said that all that kept us from a collision was the "BIG SKY" and that itself is true.
With that in mind the fewer Gliders in IMC the lower that risk the higher the numbers in IMC the higher the risk.
What you are saying is that we all have a right to be in clouds and those of us who can fly to IFR standards should accept that increase in risk no matter how small because Gliders are a special case and should not have to conform to the safety requirements that the rest of us have to do.
Nothing posted here has allayed those genuine fears only increased them so we carry on in the status quo that has always been until there is a collision with something major that the press go to town on.
At that point we may all wish we had fought harder to find a solution because one will be forced on us.
I hope if nothing else some posters here are more aware that class G does not just contain small GA but they are likely to also have a 737 fill their screens.
My own apologies if I have trodden on anyones toes in this thread.
Pace
Rod1 sharing the same sky to me means being concerned for each others safety and carrying a responsability to each other.
Gliders are different as they cannot maintain altitude and heading and as such are unique in not being able to fly IFR rules in IMC. By doing so they are at an increased risk of collision compared to those of us who are able to keep a seperation by flying IFR in Imc.
One poster said that all that kept us from a collision was the "BIG SKY" and that itself is true.
With that in mind the fewer Gliders in IMC the lower that risk the higher the numbers in IMC the higher the risk.
What you are saying is that we all have a right to be in clouds and those of us who can fly to IFR standards should accept that increase in risk no matter how small because Gliders are a special case and should not have to conform to the safety requirements that the rest of us have to do.
Nothing posted here has allayed those genuine fears only increased them so we carry on in the status quo that has always been until there is a collision with something major that the press go to town on.
At that point we may all wish we had fought harder to find a solution because one will be forced on us.
I hope if nothing else some posters here are more aware that class G does not just contain small GA but they are likely to also have a 737 fill their screens.
My own apologies if I have trodden on anyones toes in this thread.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 4th Sep 2008 at 10:05.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes stuff comes over as being agressive when in fact it is not meant to be! It has been an informative thread
But what about mandatory fitting of FLARM in gliders? Seems a sensible, cost effective option, and I'm sure that if gliders had them then most light aircraft would certainly have them...They no need for transponders or radios or checking in with a LARS controller.....I'd certainly buy one......The problem is the CAA won't mandate FLARM for LA for reasons pointed out earlier, but if powered pilots had a reason to get one, I'm sure most would (just like most have a GPS).
But what about mandatory fitting of FLARM in gliders? Seems a sensible, cost effective option, and I'm sure that if gliders had them then most light aircraft would certainly have them...They no need for transponders or radios or checking in with a LARS controller.....I'd certainly buy one......The problem is the CAA won't mandate FLARM for LA for reasons pointed out earlier, but if powered pilots had a reason to get one, I'm sure most would (just like most have a GPS).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>Sometimes stuff comes over as being agressive when in fact it is not meant to be!<
Yes I would go with that as text is a faceless medium and can be easely misread.
Maybe too we sometimes overstate a point to encourage debate when we are not that far apart. Then there is the natural competative side to debate" I know better than you etc "
But I hope we are all friends at the end of these debates regardless of differences of opinion.
And as in the Sky should respect each other
Pace
Yes I would go with that as text is a faceless medium and can be easely misread.
Maybe too we sometimes overstate a point to encourage debate when we are not that far apart. Then there is the natural competative side to debate" I know better than you etc "
But I hope we are all friends at the end of these debates regardless of differences of opinion.
And as in the Sky should respect each other
Pace
flying in clouds
I think it is worth a bit of explanation to reduce some posters fears and in anwer to the question raised by Pace.
If one were to consider there to be 2 main types of cloud. cumulus and stratus
Gliders rarely fly in stratus except when climbing into or descending from a wave climb or after a high climb on the edge of " spread out"
With cumulus, gliders only take a cloud climb when they really need to as it is not a fast way to go cross country, it is much quicker to run cloud streets and remain clear of cloud. Glider pilots will take climbs in the following circumstances;
Basically Glider pilots take cloud climbs only when really needed and seldom cruise in cloud for extended periods of time, hence the quaint " British only" quadrantal rule is not relevant.
to summarise;
If an aeroplane is cruising in stratus he is unlikely to encounter any gliders unless the met office form 215 has predicted " sig mountain wave"
If there are towering cu near areas that do not have cu forming it might be best for the aeroplane to fly round that isolated cloud rather than blasting straight through it if he is concerned.
I hope this puts some minds at ease
If one were to consider there to be 2 main types of cloud. cumulus and stratus
Gliders rarely fly in stratus except when climbing into or descending from a wave climb or after a high climb on the edge of " spread out"
With cumulus, gliders only take a cloud climb when they really need to as it is not a fast way to go cross country, it is much quicker to run cloud streets and remain clear of cloud. Glider pilots will take climbs in the following circumstances;
Basically Glider pilots take cloud climbs only when really needed and seldom cruise in cloud for extended periods of time, hence the quaint " British only" quadrantal rule is not relevant.
to summarise;
If an aeroplane is cruising in stratus he is unlikely to encounter any gliders unless the met office form 215 has predicted " sig mountain wave"
If there are towering cu near areas that do not have cu forming it might be best for the aeroplane to fly round that isolated cloud rather than blasting straight through it if he is concerned.
I hope this puts some minds at ease
Further benefit of FLARM
FLARM has a flight recorder function and the pilot's flight can be easily downloaded using the s/d card. The file can then be viewed on inexpensive software like seeyou
Naviter
With this you can see where you or your early solo pilot actually flew. This is a great tool for de briefing pilots of all experience levels.
With this recording function pilots on their qualifying cross country could be seen to have done everything to the required standard.
bb
Naviter
With this you can see where you or your early solo pilot actually flew. This is a great tool for de briefing pilots of all experience levels.
With this recording function pilots on their qualifying cross country could be seen to have done everything to the required standard.
bb
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“But what about mandatory fitting of FLARM in gliders?”
Why limit it to gliders, why not go for mandatory FLARM in all aircraft which cannot fit Transponders, or even all of GA?
Rod1
Why limit it to gliders, why not go for mandatory FLARM in all aircraft which cannot fit Transponders, or even all of GA?
Rod1
Pace appears to be obsessed with the idea that a collision between a locost 737 flying out of a regional airport and a glider who in his opinion should not be there is likely.
My understanding is that the holiday bound (or returning) 737s spend as little time as possible at low level (i.e. below say 12,000ft) for good economic reasons. The flight paths into and out of these airports are well known and sensibly avoided, even if it would be legal to fly IMC in a glider there. Unless planning wave flying, gliders do not normally carry supplemental oxygen, and therefore do not climb above around 12,000ft.
The higher risk, I suggest, is to smaller business jets positioning to smaller airfields which are capable of handling them. A poster whose contributions indicate they fly such operations has said they often do so at relatively low level in the open FIR, rather than airways, for convenience and economic reasons (even when that option is available).
I hope they avoid flying just below cloudbase on days where the cloud is mainly cumulus; that is where a higher density of gliders is to be expected. The lack of collisions so far, and of airprox reports indicates that this is the case, and 'big sky' is working.
If positioning bizjets would like further reassurance that clouds ahead are glider free, then listening on 130.400 will give further confidence.
I have only one COM set. My most likely risk is another glider on the days when cloud climbs are desirable. My responsibility to the most likely conflict dictates my mode of operation.
I fit FLARM as the only current option available to me to further reduce the risk.
I agree that a fully interoperable system would further reduce the already small risk, and believe the obsession within the CAA that Mode S is a good answer, and the only answer (neither of which are backed up by the data available, or technical considerations) is unhelpful.
Meanwhile, I hope not to meet some of you gentlemen (meant in the nicest possible way).
My understanding is that the holiday bound (or returning) 737s spend as little time as possible at low level (i.e. below say 12,000ft) for good economic reasons. The flight paths into and out of these airports are well known and sensibly avoided, even if it would be legal to fly IMC in a glider there. Unless planning wave flying, gliders do not normally carry supplemental oxygen, and therefore do not climb above around 12,000ft.
The higher risk, I suggest, is to smaller business jets positioning to smaller airfields which are capable of handling them. A poster whose contributions indicate they fly such operations has said they often do so at relatively low level in the open FIR, rather than airways, for convenience and economic reasons (even when that option is available).
I hope they avoid flying just below cloudbase on days where the cloud is mainly cumulus; that is where a higher density of gliders is to be expected. The lack of collisions so far, and of airprox reports indicates that this is the case, and 'big sky' is working.
If positioning bizjets would like further reassurance that clouds ahead are glider free, then listening on 130.400 will give further confidence.
I have only one COM set. My most likely risk is another glider on the days when cloud climbs are desirable. My responsibility to the most likely conflict dictates my mode of operation.
I fit FLARM as the only current option available to me to further reduce the risk.
I agree that a fully interoperable system would further reduce the already small risk, and believe the obsession within the CAA that Mode S is a good answer, and the only answer (neither of which are backed up by the data available, or technical considerations) is unhelpful.
Meanwhile, I hope not to meet some of you gentlemen (meant in the nicest possible way).
Use of radio
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 will try to explain.
When I fly the south downs ridge I listen out on the glider chat frequency to monitor how much glider traffic is around ( often 40 + gliders) and form a mental picture of where they are. There is a lot of chat about which sections of the ridge are working well and more importantly, which bits are not.This info is useful.
If I were to call for an air traffic service, I have the choice of 3 radar services or calling Goodwood and Shoreham for FIS. I guess I would be expected to call each as I work my way from west to east then the same on the return leg. Say I start at Butser hill, I guess I would be expected to talk to Solent as they have radar and traffic and would like to know something about my movements. Then 5 min later call Good wood as they might have traffic in the area. Then I guess a LARS unit, then before passing through the extended c/l I should be talking to Shoreham and so on.
All in all my head would be in the cockpit to dial up frequency changes 7 times in each direction. That is a lot of time heads down when the traffic I need to avoid is in the same narrow band of lift that I am running and at similar heights on a reciprocal track with both doing 80 to 120 kts. I would be increasing my risk of a head on collision greatly. None of these controllers can realistically give me any traffic information that would be of any use to me what so ever.If I am getting a radar service the controller would be warning me of traffic head on every minute ( 40 gliders on a 40nm ridge), and with it advice to turn right 45 deg if traffic not sighted. Well if I turn behind the ridge I will be in sink and landing out! If I turn left I will fly out of the lift and land out. Most controllers tend to blurt out a bunch of useless info about regional pressure settings etc when that is not only of no use, it is the wrong setting for avoiding the base of CAS. Then when I do call I get asked a bunch of irrelevant questions like where did you take off from, where re you going to land, what type of glider are you flying, how many souls on board etc etc This serves only as an unwelcome distraction and an annoyance. All that they need to know is that this leg is from Petersfield to Eastbourne operating between surface and base of CAS. Given that there are 40 sailplanes between surface and base of CAS what will the 5 ATC agencies relay to you? look out, lots of gliders,various heights. Think how the controllers would feel if 40 gliders were to do the same, that would be one glider calling twice each every minute. They would not be able to give the usual service to existing customers.
Now if I am down at ridge top there is unlikely to be any non glider traffic, also I am unlikely to show on radar and might not be able to receive VHF
In short by using the radio to call ATC neither I nor the others on frequency gain anything and the risk of collision actually increases due to the distraction and heads down time.
If you read through back issues of AIRPROX reports you will be amazed how often an airprox occurs between 2 aeroplanes that are in the same bit of sky talking to different controllers, many of which would have been avoided if the pilots had been looking out
Really these controllers cannot save you and the sooner pilots let go of this bizarre belief that talking to some one on a radio will somehow protect them the better. Look out the window, stop distracting your self with radios.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad Bear
Dont bother with all that - do me a favour and just tell Farnborough - one call.
They are the only one who are going to provide a LARS along any of the route (Solent arent interested, other than possibly at the very western edge if you were inside CAS, and you would need to talk to them anyway in that case, Gatwick are even less interested).
Anyone with any sense enroute along the South Downs in IMC will be getting a service from Farnborough. Even if it is too busy for Farnborough to provide a RIS they will warn us about glider traffic along the south downs ridge last reported at X. If I know you are there I will arrange my flight to be above or below you in VMC if I can and I certainly will not be going through any Cu just in case.
If I were to call for an air traffic service, I have the choice of 3 radar services or calling Goodwood and Shoreham for FIS. I guess I would be expected to call each as I work my way from west to east then the same on the return leg. Say I start at Butser hill, I guess I would be expected to talk to Solent as they have radar and traffic and would like to know something about my movements. Then 5 min later call Good wood as they might have traffic in the area. Then I guess a LARS unit, then before passing through the extended c/l I should be talking to Shoreham and so on.
They are the only one who are going to provide a LARS along any of the route (Solent arent interested, other than possibly at the very western edge if you were inside CAS, and you would need to talk to them anyway in that case, Gatwick are even less interested).
Anyone with any sense enroute along the South Downs in IMC will be getting a service from Farnborough. Even if it is too busy for Farnborough to provide a RIS they will warn us about glider traffic along the south downs ridge last reported at X. If I know you are there I will arrange my flight to be above or below you in VMC if I can and I certainly will not be going through any Cu just in case.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>Pace appears to be obsessed with the idea that a collision between a locost 737 flying out of a regional airport and a glider who in his opinion should not be there is likely.<<
I never said it was Likely so please dont misquote me I said there is an increased risk of such a collision
>>My understanding is that the holiday bound (or returning) 737s spend as little time as possible at low level (i.e. below say 12,000ft) for good economic reasons. The flight paths into and out of these airports are well known and sensibly avoided, even if it would be legal to fly IMC in a glider there. Unless planning wave flying, gliders do not normally carry supplemental oxygen, and therefore do not climb above around 12,000ft.<<
Business jets operate in exactly the same way also need to climb to reduce fuel burn and often climb faster than airlines
>>The higher risk, I suggest, is to smaller business jets positioning to smaller airfields which are capable of handling them. A poster whose contributions indicate they fly such operations has said they often do so at relatively low level in the open FIR, rather than airways, for convenience and economic reasons (even when that option is available).<<
We fly business jets airways when practical and would love to fly controlled airspace takeoff to touchdown but it is not always practical how are you going to fly airways positioning Biggin to Farnborough for example? It is not only business jets but turboprops, Military and 737s which operate out side of controlled airspace read my posts again including operations from Londonderry where there isnt even radar for Airbus A320 until they get onto a military unit near by.
>>I hope they avoid flying just below cloudbase on days where the cloud is mainly cumulus; that is where a higher density of gliders is to be expected. The lack of collisions so far, and of airprox reports indicates that this is the case, and 'big sky' is working.<<
From what you say we should avoid flying in the clouds too as nowhere is safe.
>>If positioning bizjets would like further reassurance that clouds ahead are glider free, then listening on 130.400 will give further confidence.<<
I am more intent on listening to a Radar Service than some obscure glider frequency covering gliders from the top to the bottom of the country.
>>I have only one COM set. My most likely risk is another glider on the days when cloud climbs are desirable. My responsibility to the most likely conflict dictates my mode of operation.
I fit FLARM as the only current option available to me to further reduce the risk.<<
>>I agree that a fully interoperable system would further reduce the already small risk, and believe the obsession within the CAA that Mode S is a good answer, and the only answer (neither of which are backed up by the data available, or technical considerations) is unhelpful.
Meanwhile, I hope not to meet some of you gentlemen (meant in the nicest possible way).<<
Fitter2 I really think you should become a little bit more knowledgeable about what and how airspace is used especially if you operate in it rather than taking pot shots at me because I have somehow ruffled your feathers.
Infact it would be good if we both understood each others operational modes better. I am picking up a lot from the sensible gliding fraternity here but you appear blind to wanting to understand anything
Pace
I never said it was Likely so please dont misquote me I said there is an increased risk of such a collision
>>My understanding is that the holiday bound (or returning) 737s spend as little time as possible at low level (i.e. below say 12,000ft) for good economic reasons. The flight paths into and out of these airports are well known and sensibly avoided, even if it would be legal to fly IMC in a glider there. Unless planning wave flying, gliders do not normally carry supplemental oxygen, and therefore do not climb above around 12,000ft.<<
Business jets operate in exactly the same way also need to climb to reduce fuel burn and often climb faster than airlines
>>The higher risk, I suggest, is to smaller business jets positioning to smaller airfields which are capable of handling them. A poster whose contributions indicate they fly such operations has said they often do so at relatively low level in the open FIR, rather than airways, for convenience and economic reasons (even when that option is available).<<
We fly business jets airways when practical and would love to fly controlled airspace takeoff to touchdown but it is not always practical how are you going to fly airways positioning Biggin to Farnborough for example? It is not only business jets but turboprops, Military and 737s which operate out side of controlled airspace read my posts again including operations from Londonderry where there isnt even radar for Airbus A320 until they get onto a military unit near by.
>>I hope they avoid flying just below cloudbase on days where the cloud is mainly cumulus; that is where a higher density of gliders is to be expected. The lack of collisions so far, and of airprox reports indicates that this is the case, and 'big sky' is working.<<
From what you say we should avoid flying in the clouds too as nowhere is safe.
>>If positioning bizjets would like further reassurance that clouds ahead are glider free, then listening on 130.400 will give further confidence.<<
I am more intent on listening to a Radar Service than some obscure glider frequency covering gliders from the top to the bottom of the country.
>>I have only one COM set. My most likely risk is another glider on the days when cloud climbs are desirable. My responsibility to the most likely conflict dictates my mode of operation.
I fit FLARM as the only current option available to me to further reduce the risk.<<
>>I agree that a fully interoperable system would further reduce the already small risk, and believe the obsession within the CAA that Mode S is a good answer, and the only answer (neither of which are backed up by the data available, or technical considerations) is unhelpful.
Meanwhile, I hope not to meet some of you gentlemen (meant in the nicest possible way).<<
Fitter2 I really think you should become a little bit more knowledgeable about what and how airspace is used especially if you operate in it rather than taking pot shots at me because I have somehow ruffled your feathers.
Infact it would be good if we both understood each others operational modes better. I am picking up a lot from the sensible gliding fraternity here but you appear blind to wanting to understand anything
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 4th Sep 2008 at 18:07.
The ruffling of feathers appears to be mutual.
I could pull up my flight planning software and route Biggin-Farnborough almost all in controlled airspace , and nowhere en-route would you be likely to encounter a glider cloud flying. There is also virtually no chance of that risk anywhere near Londonderry. By understanding how airspace is used, and the densities of traffic of each sort, I am content that I am operating with minimal risk to myself and others. One could point out that much of the military traffic that does fly in IMC until recently did not carry any equipment compatible with civilian TCAS/TPAS systems, usually was operating to a separate control system (yes, the systems do communicate but airprox reports indicate that misunderstandings do arise) and arguably posed a much greater risk to non-controlled airspace traffic.
If we all learn more about how each sector of the aviation community operates, then misunderstanding is less likely to arise. We might even agree on measures to reduce accidents which demonstrably do occur.
I could pull up my flight planning software and route Biggin-Farnborough almost all in controlled airspace , and nowhere en-route would you be likely to encounter a glider cloud flying. There is also virtually no chance of that risk anywhere near Londonderry. By understanding how airspace is used, and the densities of traffic of each sort, I am content that I am operating with minimal risk to myself and others. One could point out that much of the military traffic that does fly in IMC until recently did not carry any equipment compatible with civilian TCAS/TPAS systems, usually was operating to a separate control system (yes, the systems do communicate but airprox reports indicate that misunderstandings do arise) and arguably posed a much greater risk to non-controlled airspace traffic.
If we all learn more about how each sector of the aviation community operates, then misunderstanding is less likely to arise. We might even agree on measures to reduce accidents which demonstrably do occur.
Last edited by Fitter2; 4th Sep 2008 at 18:40. Reason: I must learn to spell.........
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fitter2 London Military usually give a very good service at and above FL100 in the open FIR. They are as good as airways controllers and will give a service to civilians as well as Military.
Both LondonDerry and Inverness which handle heavies have Glider sites close to as usual its Military for a RAS or RIS and both are someway off from airways.
Londonderry does not have radar and I have been in the hold there with a 737holding below and another IFR aircraft above. We are all reliant on eachother to change levels and report our positions in the holds or approaches.
Atc verbally co ordinate everything but it is all verbal between us and them and eachother. There has to be a lot of trust between us that we are all flying accurately but at least the 737 can see me on his TCAS and I can see him.
The approaches are procedural
While I know many ATPLs who love gliding and am sure many many others are very experienced it still worries me that a low time, inexperienced glider pilot in cloud unnanounced and not knowing where he was could cause a disaster especially in situations as above. If he is also not transponding which I appreciate is difficult for you then we dont see him either on our extravigant TCAS.
Maybe the gliding fraternity should limit IMC flight to very experienced Glider pilots and introduce a good basis of IR training or IR awareness specific to gliders?
Its Ok I dont get ruffled easely :-) take care
Pace
Both LondonDerry and Inverness which handle heavies have Glider sites close to as usual its Military for a RAS or RIS and both are someway off from airways.
Londonderry does not have radar and I have been in the hold there with a 737holding below and another IFR aircraft above. We are all reliant on eachother to change levels and report our positions in the holds or approaches.
Atc verbally co ordinate everything but it is all verbal between us and them and eachother. There has to be a lot of trust between us that we are all flying accurately but at least the 737 can see me on his TCAS and I can see him.
The approaches are procedural
While I know many ATPLs who love gliding and am sure many many others are very experienced it still worries me that a low time, inexperienced glider pilot in cloud unnanounced and not knowing where he was could cause a disaster especially in situations as above. If he is also not transponding which I appreciate is difficult for you then we dont see him either on our extravigant TCAS.
Maybe the gliding fraternity should limit IMC flight to very experienced Glider pilots and introduce a good basis of IR training or IR awareness specific to gliders?
Its Ok I dont get ruffled easely :-) take care
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 4th Sep 2008 at 19:40.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“But what about mandatory fitting of FLARM in gliders?”
Why limit it to gliders, why not go for mandatory FLARM in all aircraft which cannot fit Transponders, or even all of GA?
Rod1
Why limit it to gliders, why not go for mandatory FLARM in all aircraft which cannot fit Transponders, or even all of GA?
Rod1
The point is that if some are forced, those who are sensible would buy the kit anyway. I would if by buying it I new I could avoid all gliders (in and out of IMC) and/or all non transponding aeroplanes.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
englishal
99.99% of the aircraft which cannot fit Transponders are not on a std CAA C of A. As FLARM can come as a very small portable unit it would not require any installation and would not be included in any empty weight calculation. The PFA/BGA/BMAA could make it happen, but some “assistance” from the CAA would help. I would fall outside the group as I have a Transponder, but if as you say the above group had the units, I would get one anyway.
Rod1
99.99% of the aircraft which cannot fit Transponders are not on a std CAA C of A. As FLARM can come as a very small portable unit it would not require any installation and would not be included in any empty weight calculation. The PFA/BGA/BMAA could make it happen, but some “assistance” from the CAA would help. I would fall outside the group as I have a Transponder, but if as you say the above group had the units, I would get one anyway.
Rod1
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must saythat FLARM does appear to fit all of the requirements admirably.
Cheap, effective, reasonably accurate, standalone device, interchangeable from aircraft to aircraft, and which also has the advantage of operating outside the radar and ATC environment.
This last point might be quite an incentive for those pilots who are apprehensive about sqawking their location to ATC in these days of compulsory infringement reporting.
Although I operate with a transponder I would happily buy a FLARM unit if there were substantial uptake. I wonder what could be done to "make it happen?"
Cheap, effective, reasonably accurate, standalone device, interchangeable from aircraft to aircraft, and which also has the advantage of operating outside the radar and ATC environment.
This last point might be quite an incentive for those pilots who are apprehensive about sqawking their location to ATC in these days of compulsory infringement reporting.
Although I operate with a transponder I would happily buy a FLARM unit if there were substantial uptake. I wonder what could be done to "make it happen?"
