Improve Light A/C Separation
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why do they not call the most appropriate ATC unit for a meaningful service"
...Perhaps because it isn't always easy to establish which is the most appropriate ATC unit ? As an example, if climbing above 3000' in cloud near Bedford, should I called Brize Radar, Benson Zone, Cranfield, London FIS, Luton ? (apols if this is a poor example, I don't have a half-mil map to hand to use a valid case but it hopefully makes the point). The most likely traffic to be in a cloud in Open FIR is going to be another glider (or several) on 130.4. Therefore it makes sense for a common frequency to be used (although it would be nice if some more of the radio spectrum could be allocated - say a North and South frequency, using a half-mil map to differentiate which one to use).
A Position report is given before entering cloud...e.g. "Glider 123 entering cloud 3 NM SW of Ely, 3500'". Subsequent position reports are primarily to give height "Glider 123 is remaining in cloud, climbing through 5000', last known position 3NM SW of Ely". As there's no point in cloud climbing in 30kt winds, then a guestimate is generally sufficient. GPS can also be used as an additional aid.
Denhamflyer - David's thorough response describes well the areas that gliders operate in relation to their home airfield - we often operate hundreds of miles away from base. If we're flying on a cross-country day (e.g. cloudbase of 2000'+, nice Cumulus growing, 5/8 cover) then you'll probably discover that there aern't many gliders near the home airfield as we're all making the best use of the conditions to go fly for hundreds of miles elsewhere!
...Perhaps because it isn't always easy to establish which is the most appropriate ATC unit ? As an example, if climbing above 3000' in cloud near Bedford, should I called Brize Radar, Benson Zone, Cranfield, London FIS, Luton ? (apols if this is a poor example, I don't have a half-mil map to hand to use a valid case but it hopefully makes the point). The most likely traffic to be in a cloud in Open FIR is going to be another glider (or several) on 130.4. Therefore it makes sense for a common frequency to be used (although it would be nice if some more of the radio spectrum could be allocated - say a North and South frequency, using a half-mil map to differentiate which one to use).
A Position report is given before entering cloud...e.g. "Glider 123 entering cloud 3 NM SW of Ely, 3500'". Subsequent position reports are primarily to give height "Glider 123 is remaining in cloud, climbing through 5000', last known position 3NM SW of Ely". As there's no point in cloud climbing in 30kt winds, then a guestimate is generally sufficient. GPS can also be used as an additional aid.
Denhamflyer - David's thorough response describes well the areas that gliders operate in relation to their home airfield - we often operate hundreds of miles away from base. If we're flying on a cross-country day (e.g. cloudbase of 2000'+, nice Cumulus growing, 5/8 cover) then you'll probably discover that there aern't many gliders near the home airfield as we're all making the best use of the conditions to go fly for hundreds of miles elsewhere!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Actually, (Rod will correct me on this) you can't now fit a new Mode C, only a secondhand one.”
This was overturned to allow Mode C to be fitted (both new and old). The second hand units from C of A aircraft requiring IFR fit have boosted transponder numbers in the LAA fleet to current levels.
To give some more numbers, there is about 7000 C of A SEP aircraft in the UK. I do not know what % of these have transponders, but less than 1% will have any form of traffic detection.
Some people are suggesting we should use RIS. I have not managed to get a RIS at a weekend for years. There are almost no units open at weekends and if it is a good VFR day they cannot offer RIS (for VFR traffic) due to workload. If you want to base separation on current transponder tec then you would have to provide blanket LARS plus compulsory radio and transponder, or compulsory traffic avoidance on top of a transponder. I do not see either happening in the next 10 years and not at all with current tec..
Rod1
This was overturned to allow Mode C to be fitted (both new and old). The second hand units from C of A aircraft requiring IFR fit have boosted transponder numbers in the LAA fleet to current levels.
To give some more numbers, there is about 7000 C of A SEP aircraft in the UK. I do not know what % of these have transponders, but less than 1% will have any form of traffic detection.
Some people are suggesting we should use RIS. I have not managed to get a RIS at a weekend for years. There are almost no units open at weekends and if it is a good VFR day they cannot offer RIS (for VFR traffic) due to workload. If you want to base separation on current transponder tec then you would have to provide blanket LARS plus compulsory radio and transponder, or compulsory traffic avoidance on top of a transponder. I do not see either happening in the next 10 years and not at all with current tec..
Rod1
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
At least, that was the official policy that was published on the noticeboards of the glider field where I spent a week learning how to glide.
I've never heard of a (presumably passive) "radar reflector" in a glider or any other type of aircraft. I've heard a story once about military target radar being able to pick up seagulls and such, so I guess with that type of radar a glider, particularly if partly made from carbon fibre, would not be hard to pick up. But I would not know about civilian primary radar, and whether yacht-type radar reflectors would make a difference.
"Why do they not call the most appropriate ATC unit for a meaningful service"
To finish, a little anekdote. A few weeks ago I flew from Rotterdam to Berlin Tempelhof. We were warned about glider championships near EDOJ (Luesse) so we avoided that area by at least 10 nm (routing was north of Magdeburg, EDBG, south of Brandenburg if you're interested).
Near EDBG (Burg) I spot a glider far away, same level. I focus and see three more, flying at the same altitude and direction. I make a comment to my brother who was pax sitting beside me "looks like they're flying in formation". As I say this, I spot eight more, and then another dozen or so. As it turns out, apparently the assignment for that day took them from EDOJ to EDBG and since this was a good thermal day but with (relatively) low cloud bottoms, all these gliders were following one another at approx. 3500'. My altitude. Possibly a hundred of them. Directly across my track.
I climbed over them instead of trying to cross the stream same level. But the funny thing was, I was on a FIS from Bremen Info, who warned me of every traffic they could see on their scopes (for practical purposes, it was a RIS). They knew about glider activity in the area of EDOJ (that was NOTAMed, even), but did not know the assignment for that day. And none of these gliders, apparently, had a transponder turned on. So I never got a warning about them from Bremen.
It seems to me, gliders somehow live in a world of their own. They have their own ideas about radio use, transponder use, altimeter use, airspace use, traffic patterns, risk avoidance and acceptance, navigation methods, GPS usage and so forth. I, for once, am very glad to have done a weeks gliding course so I sort of know the way they operate and think. It's been a real eye-opener for me.
Risk management.
Quite apart from gpn01's valid point about which is the most appropriate ATC unit (and in this case it's information - they have no controlling responsibility) who is most likely to give a glider pilot useful information - a wide area Air Traffic service or another glider pilot in the same cloud with a personal interest in avoiding a collision?
And as for knowing where we are, when racing in competitions control at a waypoint is recorded by GPS position within 500metres of a point. Looking at the positions competent pilots fly just into the circle (typically 450meters from the point), tight turn and fly on. I know my position to within a wingspan (actually better - my normal span is 26.5 metres).
Quite apart from gpn01's valid point about which is the most appropriate ATC unit (and in this case it's information - they have no controlling responsibility) who is most likely to give a glider pilot useful information - a wide area Air Traffic service or another glider pilot in the same cloud with a personal interest in avoiding a collision?
And as for knowing where we are, when racing in competitions control at a waypoint is recorded by GPS position within 500metres of a point. Looking at the positions competent pilots fly just into the circle (typically 450meters from the point), tight turn and fly on. I know my position to within a wingspan (actually better - my normal span is 26.5 metres).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 80
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Robin400; 28th Aug 2008 at 09:31.
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
gpn01,
I'm very surprised by that comment; where did you glean that information because it is surely incorrect? From practical experience I disagree most strongly. I have flown TCAS equipped rotary aircraft in "open FIR" for a living for ten years now (twenty years before without). One thing TCAS has taught me is to always use an appropriate radar service where available. The number of transponder equipped aircraft operating in Class G in IMC is increasing all the time, much of it rotary wing. On an average IFR / IMC flight from the south of England to the Leeds area I nearly always encounter a number of other aircraft carrying out IMC transits, either informed by ATC or via TCAS, or both.
If you fly in IMC over Bedford you really should speak to Cranfield Approach on 122.850 who do not have radar, but they do give a very useful FIS and will obviously pass details of aircraft in their instrument pattern, which is sometimes very busy). Bedford is only 2 miles east of the CIT NDB and therefore any glider circling in cloud is dangerously close to the instrument letdown for their main runway 21 and aircraft holding at the beacon at varying levels, including jet traffic. Bedford is also directly on a track commonly used by IFR helicopters coming through the Luton CTR via their overhead and routing just west of the Bedford Danger Area 206 before continuing north or northwest bound via LIC or east of the EME.
A call to Luton would at least give them the chance to inform other aircraft speaking to them about your presence, even if you didn't remain on frequency (a call departing the area would be appreciated too). North of Bedford a call to Cottesmore 130.20 would allow them to do the same for aircraft participating in their LARS service.
The most likely traffic to be in a cloud in Open FIR is going to be another glider (or several) on 130.4.
If you fly in IMC over Bedford you really should speak to Cranfield Approach on 122.850 who do not have radar, but they do give a very useful FIS and will obviously pass details of aircraft in their instrument pattern, which is sometimes very busy). Bedford is only 2 miles east of the CIT NDB and therefore any glider circling in cloud is dangerously close to the instrument letdown for their main runway 21 and aircraft holding at the beacon at varying levels, including jet traffic. Bedford is also directly on a track commonly used by IFR helicopters coming through the Luton CTR via their overhead and routing just west of the Bedford Danger Area 206 before continuing north or northwest bound via LIC or east of the EME.
A call to Luton would at least give them the chance to inform other aircraft speaking to them about your presence, even if you didn't remain on frequency (a call departing the area would be appreciated too). North of Bedford a call to Cottesmore 130.20 would allow them to do the same for aircraft participating in their LARS service.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Bedford is only 2 miles east of the CIT NDB ...". ......I did put in a caveat in my posting "(apols if this is a poor example, I don't have a half-mil map to hand to use a valid case but it hopefully makes the point)". I was simply trying to choose somewhere (off the top of my head) which would demonstrate that there's often several valid air traffic units with whom aircraft could be in contact with.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
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."
Ok, Englishal, so how about the rights of the people that they kill in the midair who were in an aircraft that was transponding with TCAS etc... is it fair for their level of risk to be controlled by the bloke who has built a plane in his garage and wants to just bimble around not talking or squawking to anybody?
TCAS repeatedly helps me avoid low level VFR traffic who generally remain oblivious to the fact that we have got a little closer than comfortable and that I have had to take avoiding action. Last time it saved my bacon was on Monday on the approach to Lausanne, Switzerland, a VFR airport on the end of an IFR flightplan. I had just cancelled IFR with Geneva when we had a near miss - low level VFR, same level, reciprocal heading. We came very close, he never saw me and I doubt I would have seen him in time had the "traffic" not began chiming. Could have been Coventry all over again.
Although I completely agree that see and avoid is the best policy, TCAS can seriously open your eyes to the real risks out there that you miss 75% of the time when you are relying on the mark 1 eyeball alone. It should be seen as visual scan amplification and absolutely does not encourage complacency.
As far as I am concerned if people want to jump off a cliff then that's absolutely fine with me, so long as they don't take me and my family out with them.
SB
Ok, Englishal, so how about the rights of the people that they kill in the midair who were in an aircraft that was transponding with TCAS etc... is it fair for their level of risk to be controlled by the bloke who has built a plane in his garage and wants to just bimble around not talking or squawking to anybody?
TCAS repeatedly helps me avoid low level VFR traffic who generally remain oblivious to the fact that we have got a little closer than comfortable and that I have had to take avoiding action. Last time it saved my bacon was on Monday on the approach to Lausanne, Switzerland, a VFR airport on the end of an IFR flightplan. I had just cancelled IFR with Geneva when we had a near miss - low level VFR, same level, reciprocal heading. We came very close, he never saw me and I doubt I would have seen him in time had the "traffic" not began chiming. Could have been Coventry all over again.
Although I completely agree that see and avoid is the best policy, TCAS can seriously open your eyes to the real risks out there that you miss 75% of the time when you are relying on the mark 1 eyeball alone. It should be seen as visual scan amplification and absolutely does not encourage complacency.
As far as I am concerned if people want to jump off a cliff then that's absolutely fine with me, so long as they don't take me and my family out with them.
SB
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
gpn01,
I think you chose a very good example to illustrate that glider pilots (and some others) perhaps need to think "outside of the box" in these days of increasing air traffic congestion. The UK "big sky" is getting smaller.
Imagine this situation: A transponding, TCAS equipped powered aircraft, in receipt of a Lower Airspace Radar service, flying in IMC in Class G at the correct quadrantal level, collides with a glider thermalling in cloud, the pilot of which was not in receipt of any ATC service, had not announced his presence, had no transponder and was invisible to radar. The wreckage of both aircraft falls into a congested area, causing further casualties and damage on the ground.
What would be the general opinion of the public? What would the press say? Who would be held responsible? Increased legislation and restrictions would quite possibly be the outcome, which would help no-one.
I think you chose a very good example to illustrate that glider pilots (and some others) perhaps need to think "outside of the box" in these days of increasing air traffic congestion. The UK "big sky" is getting smaller.
Imagine this situation: A transponding, TCAS equipped powered aircraft, in receipt of a Lower Airspace Radar service, flying in IMC in Class G at the correct quadrantal level, collides with a glider thermalling in cloud, the pilot of which was not in receipt of any ATC service, had not announced his presence, had no transponder and was invisible to radar. The wreckage of both aircraft falls into a congested area, causing further casualties and damage on the ground.
What would be the general opinion of the public? What would the press say? Who would be held responsible? Increased legislation and restrictions would quite possibly be the outcome, which would help no-one.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is somewhat entertaining, if a bit depressing, to see the “spamcan” minority systematically having a go at the micros, the home builts, the gliders and presumably other spam can drivers with fewer toys.
The rules are well known to all of us. The risks are well known to most of us. We all have the option to stay on the ground.
In the example given above it would be interesting to talk to the glider pilot afterwards and understand which make of shoot he would recommend and his view on the mad GA types who enter cloud without the right equipment.
Rod1
The rules are well known to all of us. The risks are well known to most of us. We all have the option to stay on the ground.
In the example given above it would be interesting to talk to the glider pilot afterwards and understand which make of shoot he would recommend and his view on the mad GA types who enter cloud without the right equipment.
Rod1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 80
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure we would all feel more comfortable if all flying machines were equipped with a inexpesive, light, low power traffic alerting system.
Is there any chance we could agree on such a system.
I would still feel very exposed to collision if I operated with TCAS, due to its failure to warn of all traffic.
There are lost of viewers of this thread but only a small number of contributors, please post your thoughts.
Is there any chance we could agree on such a system.
I would still feel very exposed to collision if I operated with TCAS, due to its failure to warn of all traffic.
There are lost of viewers of this thread but only a small number of contributors, please post your thoughts.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Rod1's point that everybody knows the rules is actually part of the problem....many pilots seem to be completely unaware of the risks that theyr'e exposing themselves to in 'Open' airspace. They need to remember that an ATC unit provides only an information SERVICE outside of CONTROLLED airspace.
Part of the risk of operating in UNCONTROLLED airspace is that it is exactly that - ATC can't guarantee that they know about every aircraft in the area (but all credit to them for trying, and being pretty clear about the service they're providing, e.g. "No KNOWN contacts in the area....").
If you choose to fly in uncontrolled airspace then you have to accept that there is a risk element involved. Yes, procedures will help (e.g. keeping to the right of ground features) but they do not guarantee your safety. By all means chat away to whatever ground unit you feel will be able to best help you (but it's not 100% guaranteed). Likewise pilots should be encouraged to adopt any technology that helps to improve EVERYONE's safety. Part of the risk with the Mode-S/TMZ proposal is that it could channel non-transponding aircraft into an even smaller piece of sky, thereby INCREASING the risk of collision.
We can all hypothesise about how the press would spin a story to increase the sensasionalisation of an event. Indeed you only need to look at the recent Ryanair depressurisation story - don't see any newspapers with headline banners saying "passenger admits that he ignored the safety briefing, put the oxygen mask on his child's face instead of his own and didn't tug the mask to activate the oxygen"....No, because "Oxygen fails on Ryanair flight as passenger rescues his Son" makes far more meaty headlines for the Public. I'm therefore keen that we ensure that everyone is aware of the risks involved and, where appropriate, we mitigate against them - whether that be through processes, controls or VIABLE technology adoption. I also want to make sure that we protect aviation for everybody (and on this forum, particularly for the GA community, whether that be power, helicopter, glider, microlight or hang glider).
Part of the risk of operating in UNCONTROLLED airspace is that it is exactly that - ATC can't guarantee that they know about every aircraft in the area (but all credit to them for trying, and being pretty clear about the service they're providing, e.g. "No KNOWN contacts in the area....").
If you choose to fly in uncontrolled airspace then you have to accept that there is a risk element involved. Yes, procedures will help (e.g. keeping to the right of ground features) but they do not guarantee your safety. By all means chat away to whatever ground unit you feel will be able to best help you (but it's not 100% guaranteed). Likewise pilots should be encouraged to adopt any technology that helps to improve EVERYONE's safety. Part of the risk with the Mode-S/TMZ proposal is that it could channel non-transponding aircraft into an even smaller piece of sky, thereby INCREASING the risk of collision.
We can all hypothesise about how the press would spin a story to increase the sensasionalisation of an event. Indeed you only need to look at the recent Ryanair depressurisation story - don't see any newspapers with headline banners saying "passenger admits that he ignored the safety briefing, put the oxygen mask on his child's face instead of his own and didn't tug the mask to activate the oxygen"....No, because "Oxygen fails on Ryanair flight as passenger rescues his Son" makes far more meaty headlines for the Public. I'm therefore keen that we ensure that everyone is aware of the risks involved and, where appropriate, we mitigate against them - whether that be through processes, controls or VIABLE technology adoption. I also want to make sure that we protect aviation for everybody (and on this forum, particularly for the GA community, whether that be power, helicopter, glider, microlight or hang glider).
Actually, ShyTorque, the glider pilot would have announced his presence and position in cloud on a standard frequency (rather than one of many possible information service frequencies and is increasingly likely to be carrying a traffic information system, albeit one mainly carried by gliders.
Is that less responsible than flying in IMC with no certain knowledge of other traffic?
Is that less responsible than flying in IMC with no certain knowledge of other traffic?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Aylesbury,Bucks
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gpn01 + Dave etc. thanks for elaborating on behalf of gliders. But I dont agree with Rod1's assertion that the spamcan flyers are trying to dictate what others do.
I lean more towards ShyTorque and ScooterBoy in that we all have a duty to minimise the risk to others, what we do with our own lives is one thing but to do nothing to mitigate what harm we can do to others is not so clever.
Personally I would not enter cloud if my transponder was not working and hope others would not. I have relied on radar services to assist with collision avoidance even though the other aircraft was conversing with a different AT service. Because we were all transponding we painted a clear picture with altitude lives were saved. If people then have TAS or TCAS then all the better. It is still uncomfortable in IMC to hear the other craft is altering course to match your change - but thats yet another discussion.
I think there are number of immediate things I can take from this.
All PPLs etc should be made much more aware of the Glider "cloud" frequency and the fact they may be there. and dual listen when possible.
I would hope that most Glider pilots would try and contact the "most likely" AT station to increase awareness that they are there.
I would also like to understand how well Gliders paint on radar - when I had a boat i was amazed at how many small yachts painted no picture at all on radar and that they did not invest in radar reflectors - I think things have improved - but just because a glider pilot has a parachute does that really exempt them from bothering to think about the family of people that would be killed by them not being seen?
Since more and more controlled "areas" will need transponders it does not make sense to try and invent yet another system. And I would certainly upgrade to TAS if more people had transponders.
Having said all this - given the small number of actual collisions that actually happen then we need to be rational about what we should do next. BUT GA is being squeezed into smaller areas and with the good advent of more and more LAA aircraft running faster and higher then we need to take change seriously and all play our part in keeping others safe.
I lean more towards ShyTorque and ScooterBoy in that we all have a duty to minimise the risk to others, what we do with our own lives is one thing but to do nothing to mitigate what harm we can do to others is not so clever.
Personally I would not enter cloud if my transponder was not working and hope others would not. I have relied on radar services to assist with collision avoidance even though the other aircraft was conversing with a different AT service. Because we were all transponding we painted a clear picture with altitude lives were saved. If people then have TAS or TCAS then all the better. It is still uncomfortable in IMC to hear the other craft is altering course to match your change - but thats yet another discussion.
I think there are number of immediate things I can take from this.
All PPLs etc should be made much more aware of the Glider "cloud" frequency and the fact they may be there. and dual listen when possible.
I would hope that most Glider pilots would try and contact the "most likely" AT station to increase awareness that they are there.
I would also like to understand how well Gliders paint on radar - when I had a boat i was amazed at how many small yachts painted no picture at all on radar and that they did not invest in radar reflectors - I think things have improved - but just because a glider pilot has a parachute does that really exempt them from bothering to think about the family of people that would be killed by them not being seen?
Since more and more controlled "areas" will need transponders it does not make sense to try and invent yet another system. And I would certainly upgrade to TAS if more people had transponders.
Having said all this - given the small number of actual collisions that actually happen then we need to be rational about what we should do next. BUT GA is being squeezed into smaller areas and with the good advent of more and more LAA aircraft running faster and higher then we need to take change seriously and all play our part in keeping others safe.
An interesting debate. I'm currently one of the large number of aviators who fly something that cannot physically fit a power hungry, high RF Tx power system, so have a somewhat different perspective on this, perhaps. I've got lots of experience in bigger stuff and flew gliders maybe 30 years ago too, so can see this from most angles.
With the state of the art we have available at the moment, there is absolutely no technological solution that would even come vaguely close to giving a significant reduction in mid-air incidents. Far more than half of the private aircraft fleet in the UK are unable to carry and use a transponder all the time. Very few could fit a TCAS-like system. Unless transponder equipped aircraft become the majority, and they fly all the time with both transponders and radios on and serviceable, then we cannot hope to gain any real anti-collision benefit.
It's already been pointed out that the cost effectiveness of these expensive solutions doesn't stand up to scrutiny with respect to other ways of improving safety. £100M spent on better pilot training and skills enhancement would prevent many more incidents, I'm sure.
Mention was made earlier of the strobe detection system trialled years ago. Potentially this could be something that might be developed into a working system. We can now fairly easily detect strobes very reliably with cheap sensors, thanks to lots of work that's gone into missile detection systems over many years (and now largely unclassified).
Strobes are already commonplace, even on hang gliders and paragliders - I have a small one that fits to the top of my paramotor frame that cost me about £15. They also have the advantage of enhancing visibility as well as potentially providing a trigger source for an anti-collision system.
Although not a panacea, such a system would not require such a massive outlay as either a transponder based anti-collision system or something like Flarm. All that is needed is a cheap and reliable detector system, which would, potentially, be a great deal simpler to develop than any other option at the moment, in my view.
VP
With the state of the art we have available at the moment, there is absolutely no technological solution that would even come vaguely close to giving a significant reduction in mid-air incidents. Far more than half of the private aircraft fleet in the UK are unable to carry and use a transponder all the time. Very few could fit a TCAS-like system. Unless transponder equipped aircraft become the majority, and they fly all the time with both transponders and radios on and serviceable, then we cannot hope to gain any real anti-collision benefit.
It's already been pointed out that the cost effectiveness of these expensive solutions doesn't stand up to scrutiny with respect to other ways of improving safety. £100M spent on better pilot training and skills enhancement would prevent many more incidents, I'm sure.
Mention was made earlier of the strobe detection system trialled years ago. Potentially this could be something that might be developed into a working system. We can now fairly easily detect strobes very reliably with cheap sensors, thanks to lots of work that's gone into missile detection systems over many years (and now largely unclassified).
Strobes are already commonplace, even on hang gliders and paragliders - I have a small one that fits to the top of my paramotor frame that cost me about £15. They also have the advantage of enhancing visibility as well as potentially providing a trigger source for an anti-collision system.
Although not a panacea, such a system would not require such a massive outlay as either a transponder based anti-collision system or something like Flarm. All that is needed is a cheap and reliable detector system, which would, potentially, be a great deal simpler to develop than any other option at the moment, in my view.
VP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 80
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We can now fairly easily detect strobes very reliably with cheap sensors, thanks to lots of work that's gone into missile detection systems over many years (and now largely unclassified).
The info at the time was a detection range of about a mile in clear air and 300yds in average cloud.
This is the only info I can recal.
But the strobe on its own doesn't really help, you need a strobe detector also, and how well does that work in cloud? Normally I see a potentially conflicting aircraft in VMC long before I see its strobe. How many detectors do you need for 3 dimensional detection?
Strobe + strobe detector, cost = ? Do strobe detect and display systems currently exist?
FLARM exists, is low power and affordable. Using GPS position information it is much more informative than the relative crudeness of transponder based solutions. I was astonished to hear from a CAA Technical expert that the position information contained in Mode S extended squitter is not used by TCAS systems, and there are no proposals to do this until ADS-B comes along sometime/never.
The proportion of cross-country gliders fitted with FLARM is almost certianly higher than the proportion of small powered aircraft (Group A, Microlights, LAA permit) fitted with TCAS.
If all VMC air users want a practical solution that can be fitted to virtually all relevant aircraft, rather than saying 'you must do it my way' then one answer exists.
I have FLARM. There is no current TCAS sytem/Transponder that I can practicably fit. I don't have a philosophical objection, just practical engineering.
Head down for incomimg........................
Strobe + strobe detector, cost = ? Do strobe detect and display systems currently exist?
FLARM exists, is low power and affordable. Using GPS position information it is much more informative than the relative crudeness of transponder based solutions. I was astonished to hear from a CAA Technical expert that the position information contained in Mode S extended squitter is not used by TCAS systems, and there are no proposals to do this until ADS-B comes along sometime/never.
The proportion of cross-country gliders fitted with FLARM is almost certianly higher than the proportion of small powered aircraft (Group A, Microlights, LAA permit) fitted with TCAS.
If all VMC air users want a practical solution that can be fitted to virtually all relevant aircraft, rather than saying 'you must do it my way' then one answer exists.
I have FLARM. There is no current TCAS sytem/Transponder that I can practicably fit. I don't have a philosophical objection, just practical engineering.
Head down for incomimg........................
Last edited by Fitter2; 28th Aug 2008 at 18:21. Reason: Dyslexic fingers
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
Is that less responsible than flying in IMC with no certain knowledge of other traffic?
Gpn01,
You appear to have changed back to the VMC option; I was replying to your comments regarding gliding in IMC! How do glider pilots keep to the right of line features when orbitting in cloud? VMC see and avoid is a different situation altogether.
Rod1,
If you referred to me, although I don't fly a "spamcan" as you indelicately put it, I'm not "having a go" at anyone. We are all entitled to use the open skies, for what ever purpose we wish, and long may it remain so. I began my flying as as a glider pilot, albeit for a short time over 37 years ago.
However, as someone flying for my living, much of it necessarily in Class G airspace, I am always concerned about my own safety, the safety of my passengers and the safety of all others. I use all the facilities and equipment available to me to keep everyone safe but if I can't see a glider, or know of its presence by the other means available, I can't avoid, and it worries me hugely. This situation should concern us all and not simply result in this regrettable "Us v them" situation which usually occurs when ever we try to discuss it; obviously a mid-air collision never involves just one aircraft!
Encountering what is is in effect a "stealth" aircraft, in IMC, is something that should simply not be allowed to occur in this day and age.
Yes, we should all make ourselves aware of the true risks we take and do our best to minimise them. Having been flying for a living for all my adult life, the initial eighteen years as a military pilot, the last fourteen as a civvy one, I do have some idea of what I'm involved with.
It saddens me greatly that some pilots apparently don't care enough to make a simple one minute radio conversation to an ATC unit to help minimise the risk for their own safety and that of other airspace users. Or are perhaps not taught the "big picture" and how they fit into it and the risks they could create for others. The point that might be slipping by some is that an ATC unit will give whatever assistance it can, to anyone in contact. The simple call I proposed (Position, altitude, flight conditions) would benefit ALL airspace users, glider pilots included.
I would ask for FLARM if I thought it practical to do so. However, I fly an IFR public transport helicopter, which has to comply with a CAA regulated equipment list. The possibilities for fitting extra equipment such as FLARM are actually far more involved than for a glider or for a LAA aircraft; it's definitely NOT a buy, fit in a cigarette lighter socket and use option!
Because (at least AFAIK) FLARM has never been fitted to an IFR helicopter, someone would have to pay for the design, trials and certification costs for such an installation, prior to purchase, which would no doubt run into many tens of thousands of pounds, if not hundreds of thousands. It's unrealistic to expect any individual owner to bear these costs so in practice we would have to wait for mandatory action by the CAA. We all know what a debacle we already have over the proposal for mandatory transponders.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was serious though. A friend of mine has a transponder for his paramotor, to allow him to fly in controlled airspace. He's certainly not the only one. Few aircraft are more weight and (electrical) power limited than a paramotor, right? So how can it be so hard to fit them to all other aircraft?
Or is this really more of a cost issue than a weight and power issue?
Or is this really more of a cost issue than a weight and power issue?