Improve Light A/C Separation
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R400... It might not seem so, but I am trying to be constructive.. by "testing" the various arguments / solutions being offered. Only if the arguments are fairly watertight does the solution have any realistic prospect?
There are a core of posters here who clearly desire a mandated system - fine, but as I said above, the trouble is, they have already gone to the expense / hassle of fitting systems. Trouble is they now seem to want (to mandate) "others" to buy kit so their (and their alone) systems "work" - but I doubt they will pay for them?
There is a long standing current system called lookout 
Until it is fairly provable that whatever system is being mandated is a significant enhancement to the current system (to all users), and by a sufficient margin to offset the cost arguments (cost v risk) I doubt we'll get anywhere.... apart from using the tragedies to emphasise look and listen out.
The "cost / hassle" but little benefit to the installer was a major argument used in the Mode C debate. So, IMHO, mandating Xpdrs for all, just so a small % of people with 5 figure bits of kit can see us just will not happen. The "benefit" has to accrue down to the installer, but at these sums I do not see it happening.
FLARM is at a realistic cost, but incompatible with the big boys' and ATC systems... so seems confined to maybe the gliding world?
To be absolutely crude about it... how much of a problem is it? What % of (GA) fatalities, over a few years' timescale, are due to midairs? And of those, how mnay might have been prevented by other means (look/listen out). If we were to blow all this money on something else, could it produce more effect / safety? Leave aside accidents under investigation for obvious reasons....
NoD
There are a core of posters here who clearly desire a mandated system - fine, but as I said above, the trouble is, they have already gone to the expense / hassle of fitting systems. Trouble is they now seem to want (to mandate) "others" to buy kit so their (and their alone) systems "work" - but I doubt they will pay for them?
How can we stop banging into each other?
Until it is fairly provable that whatever system is being mandated is a significant enhancement to the current system (to all users), and by a sufficient margin to offset the cost arguments (cost v risk) I doubt we'll get anywhere.... apart from using the tragedies to emphasise look and listen out.The "cost / hassle" but little benefit to the installer was a major argument used in the Mode C debate. So, IMHO, mandating Xpdrs for all, just so a small % of people with 5 figure bits of kit can see us just will not happen. The "benefit" has to accrue down to the installer, but at these sums I do not see it happening.
FLARM is at a realistic cost, but incompatible with the big boys' and ATC systems... so seems confined to maybe the gliding world?
To be absolutely crude about it... how much of a problem is it? What % of (GA) fatalities, over a few years' timescale, are due to midairs? And of those, how mnay might have been prevented by other means (look/listen out). If we were to blow all this money on something else, could it produce more effect / safety? Leave aside accidents under investigation for obvious reasons....
NoD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick AAIB scan shows a few midairs, and this recommendation:
I think the last point is lilely to be the problem ("cost-effective") given caveats such as
FA - of the 4 midairs I found they involved 4 gliders, 2 helicopters, 1 microlight and 1 "light aircraft" (I think). So I am not sure an additional height / speed band for, say, Xpdrs, seems warranted by experience?
To further the debate, maybe worth someone doing a search and seeing how far the CAA have got (rec was 2005)?
NoD
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority should initiate further studies into ways of improving the conspicuity of gliders and light aircraft, to include visual and electronic surveillance means, and require the adoption of measures that are likely to be cost-effective in improving conspicuity.
Accordingly, it is considered that the organisation best placed to lead any study would be the CAA.
However, it would be necessary to include other organisations, such as the BGA, in any study.
However, it would be necessary to include other organisations, such as the BGA, in any study.
To further the debate, maybe worth someone doing a search and seeing how far the CAA have got (rec was 2005)?
NoD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found something:
SAFETY RECOMMENDATION - 2005-006
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority should initiate further studies into ways of improving the conspicuity of gliders and light aircraft, to include visual and electronic surveillance means, and require the adoption of measures that are likely to be cost-effective in improving conspicuity.
Response
The CAA does not accept this Recommendation. However, the CAA reviewed its ongoing work on the use of visual and electronic measures to enhance the conspicuity of General Aviation aircraft, particularly in the light of impending wider transponder carriage. Since the review, the CAA has taken action in relation to contrasting colour and reflective surfaces. Two further recommendations concerning the "see and avoid" principle and GA carriage of transponders and electronic awareness systems will be included in the CAA's GA safety promotion activities.
In respect of gliders the CAA has no regulatory powers to require the adoption of any recommended measures. The CAA will forward details of any recommended measures to the British Gliding Association (BGA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) for their information.
Status - Rejected
SAFETY RECOMMENDATION - 2005-008
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority should promote international co-operation and action to improve the conspicuity of gliders and light aircraft through visual and electronic methods.
Response
The CAA does not accept this Recommendation insofar as it is directed to light aircraft. The promotion of international co-operation and action to improve the conspicuity of light aircraft through visual and electronic measures will depend upon the outcome of the review noted in Recommendation 2005-06. The CAA cannot accept the Recommendation in respect of gliders since it has no regulatory powers to require adoption of recommended measures. Details of recommended measures will be forwarded to the British Gliding Association (BGA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) for their information and use for any international promotion that these agencies might believe appropriate.
Status - Rejected - closed
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority should initiate further studies into ways of improving the conspicuity of gliders and light aircraft, to include visual and electronic surveillance means, and require the adoption of measures that are likely to be cost-effective in improving conspicuity.
Response
The CAA does not accept this Recommendation. However, the CAA reviewed its ongoing work on the use of visual and electronic measures to enhance the conspicuity of General Aviation aircraft, particularly in the light of impending wider transponder carriage. Since the review, the CAA has taken action in relation to contrasting colour and reflective surfaces. Two further recommendations concerning the "see and avoid" principle and GA carriage of transponders and electronic awareness systems will be included in the CAA's GA safety promotion activities.
In respect of gliders the CAA has no regulatory powers to require the adoption of any recommended measures. The CAA will forward details of any recommended measures to the British Gliding Association (BGA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) for their information.
Status - Rejected
SAFETY RECOMMENDATION - 2005-008
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority should promote international co-operation and action to improve the conspicuity of gliders and light aircraft through visual and electronic methods.
Response
The CAA does not accept this Recommendation insofar as it is directed to light aircraft. The promotion of international co-operation and action to improve the conspicuity of light aircraft through visual and electronic measures will depend upon the outcome of the review noted in Recommendation 2005-06. The CAA cannot accept the Recommendation in respect of gliders since it has no regulatory powers to require adoption of recommended measures. Details of recommended measures will be forwarded to the British Gliding Association (BGA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) for their information and use for any international promotion that these agencies might believe appropriate.
Status - Rejected - closed
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoD
I agree. On a cost return basis it makes no sense at all. I have no idea how many flying machines there are in the UK without transponders - lets say it is 25,000 - at £4,000 a shot to fit a mode S that is a £100M business. Based on the stats that might save a dozen lives or so over its life time - assuming for that matter every mid air would be avoided if everyone had mode s - which it would not.
Of course as a society we choose not to measure safety always in terms of cost but the "return" for pilots would be abysmal (compared with say the cost of fitting seat belts to cars).
The reality is harsh and it is not much help if you are one of the very unfortunate few.
However expenditure of this sort is not always rational. How many pilots spend £1,000 on a life raft and how many ditchings occur each year? How many yachties carry a liferaft and how many end up needing it? How many yachts are now fitting transponders and how many life threatening collisions occur at sea? (There was one last year in UK waters that I know about).
I agree. On a cost return basis it makes no sense at all. I have no idea how many flying machines there are in the UK without transponders - lets say it is 25,000 - at £4,000 a shot to fit a mode S that is a £100M business. Based on the stats that might save a dozen lives or so over its life time - assuming for that matter every mid air would be avoided if everyone had mode s - which it would not.
Of course as a society we choose not to measure safety always in terms of cost but the "return" for pilots would be abysmal (compared with say the cost of fitting seat belts to cars).
The reality is harsh and it is not much help if you are one of the very unfortunate few.
However expenditure of this sort is not always rational. How many pilots spend £1,000 on a life raft and how many ditchings occur each year? How many yachties carry a liferaft and how many end up needing it? How many yachts are now fitting transponders and how many life threatening collisions occur at sea? (There was one last year in UK waters that I know about).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why I have said there is no value for money case here, and suggested simple ways to drastically reduce the risk of a mid-air.
Simply flying higher than the average pilot i.e. in the 3000ft+ bracket eliminates the vast majority of traffic, and those that do venture up there tend to be transponding and thus present a useful target to ATC radar.
There is very little chance of a widespread adoption of the £10k+ TCAS systems but a straight Radar Information Service (which is FREE) is all but worthless unless the traffic is Mode C or S.
Simply flying higher than the average pilot i.e. in the 3000ft+ bracket eliminates the vast majority of traffic, and those that do venture up there tend to be transponding and thus present a useful target to ATC radar.
There is very little chance of a widespread adoption of the £10k+ TCAS systems but a straight Radar Information Service (which is FREE) is all but worthless unless the traffic is Mode C or S.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the right for people to NOT carry transponders / radios / whatever should be preserved if they really want.
However there has to be some give and take and I'd be happy to have mandatory Mode C (as a minimum) above say 3000' AGL, and Mode C vales around big ATC controlled airports which don't have Class D airspace attached (Exeter / Plymouth for example). If you want access inside this mode C area, obviously you need to have it turned on to Mode C or better unless previously agreed with ATC.
Isn't this fair enough? The the microlight lobby can go on flying without one, gliders can as long as they stay below 3000' and no one has to dash out and spend any money on a txpdr, and we don't suddenly see new airspace popping up everywhere.....
However there has to be some give and take and I'd be happy to have mandatory Mode C (as a minimum) above say 3000' AGL, and Mode C vales around big ATC controlled airports which don't have Class D airspace attached (Exeter / Plymouth for example). If you want access inside this mode C area, obviously you need to have it turned on to Mode C or better unless previously agreed with ATC.
Isn't this fair enough? The the microlight lobby can go on flying without one, gliders can as long as they stay below 3000' and no one has to dash out and spend any money on a txpdr, and we don't suddenly see new airspace popping up everywhere.....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I wonder what percentage of LAA types are unable to fit a transponder (because of weight or power) and what percentage are unwilling because of cost?”
About 50% of the LAA fleet has a radio. 20% are micros, so almost certainly no transponder. I would guess 25% of the LAA Fleet have transponders. The BMAA would be probably 5%. The micros effectively cannot fit one (there are a few exceptions), the next largest group are the vintage enthusiasts. Almost all are constrained by power, space and weight. The aircraft values range from £1500 up to £100,000 but at the lower end you are not going to fit £2k of kit to a £2000 aircraft even if it is technically possible.
“In short I would suggest the 10,000 rule is largely irrelevant to GA.”
I and 90% of the gliding community find the 10,000 foot limit a pain. 12000 would have been better.
“How many aircraft capable of flying above 100 knots indicated are incapable of fitting a transponder for reasons other than cost or desire?”
Many 1000’s could not fit one. 200kn would be another mater. CAA were convinced of this after a very rigorous investigation.
FLARM would be great, but the CAA will not back it (not compatible with TCAS plus many other reasons).
Most of the issues raised above regarding transponder mandatory altitudes etc have been thrashed out in detail over the last three years. The decisions have been made in the last few months and it is not going to be revisited for many years.
I see very little support for mandatory training to improve lookout, but lots of attempts to keep the majority of aircraft out of the spamcan drivers way. Do you all think you have nothing to learn?
Rod1
(I was one of the LAA team involved in the interoperability consultations (Mode S))
About 50% of the LAA fleet has a radio. 20% are micros, so almost certainly no transponder. I would guess 25% of the LAA Fleet have transponders. The BMAA would be probably 5%. The micros effectively cannot fit one (there are a few exceptions), the next largest group are the vintage enthusiasts. Almost all are constrained by power, space and weight. The aircraft values range from £1500 up to £100,000 but at the lower end you are not going to fit £2k of kit to a £2000 aircraft even if it is technically possible.
“In short I would suggest the 10,000 rule is largely irrelevant to GA.”
I and 90% of the gliding community find the 10,000 foot limit a pain. 12000 would have been better.
“How many aircraft capable of flying above 100 knots indicated are incapable of fitting a transponder for reasons other than cost or desire?”
Many 1000’s could not fit one. 200kn would be another mater. CAA were convinced of this after a very rigorous investigation.
FLARM would be great, but the CAA will not back it (not compatible with TCAS plus many other reasons).
Most of the issues raised above regarding transponder mandatory altitudes etc have been thrashed out in detail over the last three years. The decisions have been made in the last few months and it is not going to be revisited for many years.
I see very little support for mandatory training to improve lookout, but lots of attempts to keep the majority of aircraft out of the spamcan drivers way. Do you all think you have nothing to learn?
Rod1
(I was one of the LAA team involved in the interoperability consultations (Mode S))
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See and avoid is not something that can't be taught.
A new Mode C txpdr can be bought for under £1000. I don't nescessarily agree with forcing people to fit Mode S if they have a servicable Mode C transponder but I am of the view that the majority of aircraft should have a transponder. If not we'll be regulated in other ways (airspace for example).
Look at the USA, many "homebuilt" aeroplanes have them. It seems that they are not too hard to fit in the USA are they? Why is that? Different mentality perhaps? Of course in the USA you can fly your homebuilt or ex-warbird IFR with the right kit. You'll find many second world war warbirds with a GNS430onboard. There are many Mode C Vales, where aircraft are not allowed without a Mode C txpdr unless previous agreement with ATC has been sought. Sounds fair enough to me.....
A new Mode C txpdr can be bought for under £1000. I don't nescessarily agree with forcing people to fit Mode S if they have a servicable Mode C transponder but I am of the view that the majority of aircraft should have a transponder. If not we'll be regulated in other ways (airspace for example).
Look at the USA, many "homebuilt" aeroplanes have them. It seems that they are not too hard to fit in the USA are they? Why is that? Different mentality perhaps? Of course in the USA you can fly your homebuilt or ex-warbird IFR with the right kit. You'll find many second world war warbirds with a GNS430onboard. There are many Mode C Vales, where aircraft are not allowed without a Mode C txpdr unless previous agreement with ATC has been sought. Sounds fair enough to me.....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“A new Mode C txpdr can be bought for under £1000.”
More importantly a second hand one is £250 ish. This is one of the reasons getting the ban on fitting Mode C removed was important. As a direct result of this the number of mode c transponders on the LAA fleet has risen to current levels.
“Look at the USA, many "homebuilt" aeroplanes have them.”
“many” UK home builts have them, 30% is 1100 + (total LAA fleet 4300 ish). If you introduce the US rules and remove the Euro/CAA restrictions, transponder usage on home builts would increase by 50% in my opinion. The empty weight nonsense, for example, has no equivalent in the USA so 5000 UK aircraft can now fit them in one stroke of the pen.
Rod1
More importantly a second hand one is £250 ish. This is one of the reasons getting the ban on fitting Mode C removed was important. As a direct result of this the number of mode c transponders on the LAA fleet has risen to current levels.
“Look at the USA, many "homebuilt" aeroplanes have them.”
“many” UK home builts have them, 30% is 1100 + (total LAA fleet 4300 ish). If you introduce the US rules and remove the Euro/CAA restrictions, transponder usage on home builts would increase by 50% in my opinion. The empty weight nonsense, for example, has no equivalent in the USA so 5000 UK aircraft can now fit them in one stroke of the pen.
Rod1
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod1 - I have to say I have never understood this obsession with mode S other than regulatory conformity. As you say mode C transponders can be purchased for very little. That largely eliminates the cost argument.
The weight power aspect is more difficult. I dont think there is really any significant weight saving between a mode C and a mode S unit with both offering light weight alternatives.
I wonder what percentage of the fleet could / would fit a mode C transponder if they were required to?
The weight power aspect is more difficult. I dont think there is really any significant weight saving between a mode C and a mode S unit with both offering light weight alternatives.
I wonder what percentage of the fleet could / would fit a mode C transponder if they were required to?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I wonder what percentage of the fleet could / would fit a mode C transponder if they were required to?”
If the regulatory structure remained the same regarding max empty weight etc, maybe an additional 10 – 15%. The rest would be unable to comply for a variety of reasons. If you start looking at individual cases it gets very complicated indeed! It was this that changed the CAA’s mind on compulsory carriage, it is just not possible for many 1000’s of aircraft using current tec and current rules.
Mode S has advantages in high traffic density, according to the CAA this is important, but the US experience is different.
Rod1
If the regulatory structure remained the same regarding max empty weight etc, maybe an additional 10 – 15%. The rest would be unable to comply for a variety of reasons. If you start looking at individual cases it gets very complicated indeed! It was this that changed the CAA’s mind on compulsory carriage, it is just not possible for many 1000’s of aircraft using current tec and current rules.
Mode S has advantages in high traffic density, according to the CAA this is important, but the US experience is different.
Rod1
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would go with all flying machines being fitted with at least mode C.
It is all very well saying see and avoid which might be great in a pure VFR machine with good visibility and minimal instruments.
Take a twin stacked with instrumentation, poor visibility, engines obscuring the views and going a lot faster and he needs a back up to his eyes ie TCAS.
Gliders do pose a problem as they circle in numbers and being white in colour blend with the clouds and sky.
There is a problem or threat to aircraft like performance singles or twin aircraft flying in IMC conditions or in poor visibility and the pilots transitioning from instrument flying to VFR flying.
It is a case of "I am descending through cloud, I may be under RIS or RAS but can the controller know about a microlight or glider around the base of the clouds especially if it does not have a transponder? It is a game of Russian roulette whether you meet such an aircraft breaking cloud.
Or even worse flying IMC with no radar coverage which does happen a lot.
If its a case that we all fly VFR and in VMC out of controlled airspace at least we are all on a level playing field but its when the boundaries of VFR IFR VMC IMC overlap outside of controlled airspace that the threat of a collision increases especially with such a variety of aircraft types, speed and pilot capability.
Unlike in a car it is also hard to determine where another aircraft is going. a small speck can appear to be heading in another direction but can quickly turn into a screen full of aircraft or can be obscured by a high wing an engine or a turn.
We probably can all remember an occasion that we got too close and there for the grace of god go I to aircraft that do collide.
Maybe the solution has to be a mix of techology, a stronger boundary between VMC flying and IMC flying, more visible aircraft colouring, better communication and more advancement in the fitting of ballistic chute systems so that you do stand a chance if it all goes pear shaped.
Pace
It is all very well saying see and avoid which might be great in a pure VFR machine with good visibility and minimal instruments.
Take a twin stacked with instrumentation, poor visibility, engines obscuring the views and going a lot faster and he needs a back up to his eyes ie TCAS.
Gliders do pose a problem as they circle in numbers and being white in colour blend with the clouds and sky.
There is a problem or threat to aircraft like performance singles or twin aircraft flying in IMC conditions or in poor visibility and the pilots transitioning from instrument flying to VFR flying.
It is a case of "I am descending through cloud, I may be under RIS or RAS but can the controller know about a microlight or glider around the base of the clouds especially if it does not have a transponder? It is a game of Russian roulette whether you meet such an aircraft breaking cloud.
Or even worse flying IMC with no radar coverage which does happen a lot.
If its a case that we all fly VFR and in VMC out of controlled airspace at least we are all on a level playing field but its when the boundaries of VFR IFR VMC IMC overlap outside of controlled airspace that the threat of a collision increases especially with such a variety of aircraft types, speed and pilot capability.
Unlike in a car it is also hard to determine where another aircraft is going. a small speck can appear to be heading in another direction but can quickly turn into a screen full of aircraft or can be obscured by a high wing an engine or a turn.
We probably can all remember an occasion that we got too close and there for the grace of god go I to aircraft that do collide.
Maybe the solution has to be a mix of techology, a stronger boundary between VMC flying and IMC flying, more visible aircraft colouring, better communication and more advancement in the fitting of ballistic chute systems so that you do stand a chance if it all goes pear shaped.
Pace
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I think an all encompassing fix is never going to happen. However, I have developed my own strategy for minimising the problem; I think personal awareness coupled with good lookout and use of all available facilities is the best way but there is no foolproof method.
Mode S on, TCAS (TAS) on, RIS/FIS whenever possible. Transit inside controlled airspace in preference to skirting round the edge of it. Avoid the airspace just below the cloudbase. Avoid choke points, climbout areas and approach paths (some intelligence needed at times if you aren't familiar) and don't overfly beacons if at all possible, VFR or IFR. Use the second radio to listen to minor airfields en route, even if keeping well clear of the ATZs and do speak up if relevant, provided it doesn't adversely interrupt the ATC service under receipt.
A couple of things I have noticed in my thirty odd years of flying:
Some pilots don't speak up when relevant. For example, pilots operating in the circuit where there is no ATC (or leaving or about to join) seem reluctant to answer a call from a passing aircraft and simply plod away giving standard circuit calls and nothing else. Calls such as "Two miles south, approaching the overhead for join", or "Climbing 2500 ft and departing west", or even "In the circuit, remaining" might be a very sensible type of call to make in reply, allowing us all to build a mental picture of who's about.
Some pilots don't make full use of their transponder. This is increasingly important in the days of TCAS equipment; everyone flying with a Mode C transponder should actually use it, 100% of the time! The most silly remark I've heard in respect of this is "Why should I bother, when I'm not getting the benefit?" Everyone gets the benefit because the pilot of the TCAS equipped aircraft coming the other way will get advanced warning, rather than relying on his/her lookout at a much closer range. The paradox is that pilots who believe their lookout and "see and avoid" is foolproof might actually be the ones most at risk; they don't understand the limitations of the human eye and habitually miss seeing many other aircraft. They relax in the false belief that the sky is less congested than it really is.
Mode S on, TCAS (TAS) on, RIS/FIS whenever possible. Transit inside controlled airspace in preference to skirting round the edge of it. Avoid the airspace just below the cloudbase. Avoid choke points, climbout areas and approach paths (some intelligence needed at times if you aren't familiar) and don't overfly beacons if at all possible, VFR or IFR. Use the second radio to listen to minor airfields en route, even if keeping well clear of the ATZs and do speak up if relevant, provided it doesn't adversely interrupt the ATC service under receipt.
A couple of things I have noticed in my thirty odd years of flying:
Some pilots don't speak up when relevant. For example, pilots operating in the circuit where there is no ATC (or leaving or about to join) seem reluctant to answer a call from a passing aircraft and simply plod away giving standard circuit calls and nothing else. Calls such as "Two miles south, approaching the overhead for join", or "Climbing 2500 ft and departing west", or even "In the circuit, remaining" might be a very sensible type of call to make in reply, allowing us all to build a mental picture of who's about.
Some pilots don't make full use of their transponder. This is increasingly important in the days of TCAS equipment; everyone flying with a Mode C transponder should actually use it, 100% of the time! The most silly remark I've heard in respect of this is "Why should I bother, when I'm not getting the benefit?" Everyone gets the benefit because the pilot of the TCAS equipped aircraft coming the other way will get advanced warning, rather than relying on his/her lookout at a much closer range. The paradox is that pilots who believe their lookout and "see and avoid" is foolproof might actually be the ones most at risk; they don't understand the limitations of the human eye and habitually miss seeing many other aircraft. They relax in the false belief that the sky is less congested than it really is.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A new Mode C txpdr can be bought for under £1000. I don't nescessarily agree with forcing people to fit Mode S if they have a servicable Mode C transponder but I am of the view that the majority of aircraft should have a transponder. If not we'll be regulated in other ways (airspace for example).
Since March all new installations are supposed to be Mode S and they are not available at less than £1800. Some who have fitted Filsers have now found they don't work and there is an AD on them
Our dear CAA have been telling us for some years that Mode S won't be mandated unless and until there is a low-cost low-powered version at less than £1000- they are starting to rat on this, as industry is not playing ball
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey EnglishAL, I'm not sure if your comment "The the microlight lobby can go on flying without one, gliders can as long as they stay below 3000' " is well intended, or said tongue in cheek or intended to be inflammatory but it suggests a complete misunderstanding of the modus operandi of gliders in the UK.
For cross-country flight in a glider I prefer to be between 4000'-6000' as this gives me sufficient gliding range to search out thermals and stay within reach of friendly airfields and glidng sites. At 3000', assuming flying in still air (a fairly rare situation), a glider is typically losing 150'-180' per minute. So a maximum height of 3000' gives a useable period for soaring/searching for thermals of around 12-15 minutes (allowing for a safe circuit). At 60kts that equates to a range, at best, of 15nm. Would you be comfortable on a three hour flight having to choose a field to potentially land in every 15 minutes ?
If you genuinely don't know much about glidng then I'd suggest that you go and visit a gliding club that does cross-country soaring and chat to the members about the typical height operating bands....see if you can have a flight too but beware, you might enjoy it!
For cross-country flight in a glider I prefer to be between 4000'-6000' as this gives me sufficient gliding range to search out thermals and stay within reach of friendly airfields and glidng sites. At 3000', assuming flying in still air (a fairly rare situation), a glider is typically losing 150'-180' per minute. So a maximum height of 3000' gives a useable period for soaring/searching for thermals of around 12-15 minutes (allowing for a safe circuit). At 60kts that equates to a range, at best, of 15nm. Would you be comfortable on a three hour flight having to choose a field to potentially land in every 15 minutes ?
If you genuinely don't know much about glidng then I'd suggest that you go and visit a gliding club that does cross-country soaring and chat to the members about the typical height operating bands....see if you can have a flight too but beware, you might enjoy it!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Aylesbury,Bucks
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gpn01 - you start to raise an interesting point. Specifically how far gliders go from a recognised gliding site. Dont get me wrong as far as I am concerned the air is for all of us. But as I understand it many glider pilots are allowed to enter IMC and often do to benefit from the thermal properties within them. Now I often take care to avoid or be very alert at / over / near recognised glider sites BUT get quite nervous when they move much further away and use clouds without any requirement for transponder or radio. Whilst I accept this is perfectly legal it makes me feel un-comfortable. Not least because I had a "scare" when a glider popped out of some cloud well away from any gliding sites. See and Avoid would have been useless at the closings speeds we were at, but luckily there were far enough away. Now my question is how many of the longer range gliders will carry radios / transponders? As someone previously stated gliders will often not paint on radar - are they required to carry radar reflectors?
Also what are glider pilots taught wrt to radio frequencies - I know they will use the glider frequency when at know sites or in groups but what about trundling across the country? I would hope that they use FIS / RIS etc when possible?
Sorry for my ignorance about gliders in advance...
Also what are glider pilots taught wrt to radio frequencies - I know they will use the glider frequency when at know sites or in groups but what about trundling across the country? I would hope that they use FIS / RIS etc when possible?
Sorry for my ignorance about gliders in advance...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virtually all gliders that fly cross-country will have radios, although this is not required by any current regulations. Their pilots will be operating on one of several dedicated gliding frequencies - mostly 130.100, 130.125 for cross country. When a glider pilot wants to enter cloud they should (must) change to the cloud flying frequency which is 130.400 and call their position and height (the latter at regular intervals).
Pilots will call FIS or ATC units when close to or wanting to transit certain classes of controlled airspace, obviously on the appropriate frequencies.
There are about 2,600 gliders in the UK. I would guess that c.50% to 70% of them could be airborne cross-country on a good thermal day, particularly weekends.
The performance of modern gliders is such that distances of 300 km in a flight is now normal, and 500km+ is done regularly. The UK record is c. 1,500 km in a day (in Scotland, in wave). Cross country cruising (gliding) speeds are generally between 60kts and 100kts, but occasionally up to 120kts, depending on the glider type / performance and weather / thermal conditions on the day.
To get some idea of the number of cross country flights in a year, go to
Ladder Home
Here glider pilots log their cross country (or wave, height gain) flights. Not everyone by any means logs their flights on this website. Those that do have logged 2,900 flights so far this year, and 2008 has been one of the worst seasons for cross country gliding, weather-wise. Imagine a good year!
Gliders operate generally up to the base of (cumulus, mainly) cloud before setting off on a glide to the next thermal. On days when there is 'wave' the are likely to be operating above cloud and up to heights that can reach 25,000 feet (subject to airspace restrictions of course) in mountainous areas such as Scotland, Vale of York, Welsh border country, Eden Valley, Severn Valley. Most wave flights however tend to be from c. 4,000 ft to 15,000 ft.
Enough info?
Pilots will call FIS or ATC units when close to or wanting to transit certain classes of controlled airspace, obviously on the appropriate frequencies.
There are about 2,600 gliders in the UK. I would guess that c.50% to 70% of them could be airborne cross-country on a good thermal day, particularly weekends.
The performance of modern gliders is such that distances of 300 km in a flight is now normal, and 500km+ is done regularly. The UK record is c. 1,500 km in a day (in Scotland, in wave). Cross country cruising (gliding) speeds are generally between 60kts and 100kts, but occasionally up to 120kts, depending on the glider type / performance and weather / thermal conditions on the day.
To get some idea of the number of cross country flights in a year, go to
Ladder Home
Here glider pilots log their cross country (or wave, height gain) flights. Not everyone by any means logs their flights on this website. Those that do have logged 2,900 flights so far this year, and 2008 has been one of the worst seasons for cross country gliding, weather-wise. Imagine a good year!
Gliders operate generally up to the base of (cumulus, mainly) cloud before setting off on a glide to the next thermal. On days when there is 'wave' the are likely to be operating above cloud and up to heights that can reach 25,000 feet (subject to airspace restrictions of course) in mountainous areas such as Scotland, Vale of York, Welsh border country, Eden Valley, Severn Valley. Most wave flights however tend to be from c. 4,000 ft to 15,000 ft.
Enough info?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
When a glider pilot wants to enter cloud they should (must) change to the cloud flying frequency which is 130.400 and call their position and height (the latter at regular intervals).