Improve Light A/C Separation
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
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.
Is there any chance we could agree on such a system.
This is what the rest of the universe is currently going for.
You start with a Mode S transponder (which nearly all of us will have to fit eventually
) and you connect it to your existing GPS (if you haven't got a GPS then forget any possibility of a low cost effective anti collision system). The transponder will then continuously radiate your GPS position. Anybody with a Mode S can do this right now - but not legally because such an installation is now Enhanced Mode S which is an EASA Major Mod etc etc etc. On an N-reg you can do it - in the USA, a GTX330 etc will be radiating anything connected to it and nobody minds (the more the better).The receiver for this data is very simple and needs just a little ADS-B aerial on the roof. The other plane has also got a GPS, of course, and a simple bit of software compares the two 3D positions. Much cheaper and much more accurate than the existing TCAS systems which for azimuth info use UHF direction finding principles whose azimuth accuracy will never be all that great.
The only issue is that I think ADS-B is meant to use barometric altitude, which is going to be a lot less accurate (in absolute terms) than GPS altitude. But it would work OK.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 80
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The logical thing would be ADS-B, implemented using the Mode S data channel.
My choice would be ADS-B but this is unlikely ever to be fitted to gliders and LAA aircraft.
This exposes or colleague with his IFR helicopter to great danger.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
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.
But it was meant to illustrate the point that SOME compromise is going to be needed by everyone. I know that gliders are perfectly able to go to great heights, but my compromise would be that ANY aircraft above a certain low-level altitude should be transponding. Those who don't wish to, stay below. Those who want to transit in relative safety, then climb into the Mode C area......just chucking ideas around 
Re fitting FLARM to IFR helicopters, they certainly are in Switzerland/Austria since an auxiliary function is obstacle warning of cables strung across valleys, as well as avoiding all the FLARM equipped gliders. I believe it is classed as a portable device, and has a temporary fitting, similar to the portable Garmins that seem remarkably common as precaution against fitted equipment failure in other certified aircraft.
FLARM is the little box above the EFIS
As far as using FLARM, a full functional description appears on their website. In real life it's switch on (its a secondary function of my flight recorder, with a small display fitted in both front and rear cockpit.
Nearby FLARM equipped aircraft are indicated by an LED in the appropriate 'clock' direction, with an above/below indication of the closest. Near but no 'threat' re green.
If the software thinks a collision risk exists, it flashes the LED RED and with increasing risk flashes faster and lights ajacent LEDs. It also beeps to alert you if you aren't looking (although the display is so small it is easy to position on the sight line) and the beep can be fed into the aux port of an intercom (but obviously not on a certified aircraft - that might be safer, but you can't connect a non-certified object into a certified installation).
Similarly, 1090ES ADS-B involves not only an extended squitter Mode S transponder, but also an aviation certified GPS, costing an order of magnitude more than a non-certified one; cost weight and power.
FLARM is the little box above the EFIS
As far as using FLARM, a full functional description appears on their website. In real life it's switch on (its a secondary function of my flight recorder, with a small display fitted in both front and rear cockpit.
Nearby FLARM equipped aircraft are indicated by an LED in the appropriate 'clock' direction, with an above/below indication of the closest. Near but no 'threat' re green.
If the software thinks a collision risk exists, it flashes the LED RED and with increasing risk flashes faster and lights ajacent LEDs. It also beeps to alert you if you aren't looking (although the display is so small it is easy to position on the sight line) and the beep can be fed into the aux port of an intercom (but obviously not on a certified aircraft - that might be safer, but you can't connect a non-certified object into a certified installation).
Similarly, 1090ES ADS-B involves not only an extended squitter Mode S transponder, but also an aviation certified GPS, costing an order of magnitude more than a non-certified one; cost weight and power.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few further random comments from my practical experience, which includes a lot of hours flying gliders in the French Alps.
1. Our glider, like virtually all in the Alps, has dayglo strips over the wings. Makes the glider a little easier to catch with the Mark One
2. Gliders are often visible on radar but not that well. It is often heard that Brize (Oxon) can see gliders winch launching at Aston Down (Glos)
3. Gliders flying cross country do not have a predicable course - in the sense of a straight line. The pilots follow the best energy line, dictated by the clouds / thermals etc
4. From my recollection of nearly 40 years of gliding accident records and reports in the UK, whilst there have been a relatively high number of glider to glider midairs - often in the circuit - and by relative I mean relative to the rate of mid airs between aeroplanes, I can only recall four midairs in that time between a glider and an aeroplane. One about 20+ years ago in the Severn Valley area, another was a bit later near Thame. Both those two happened in clear air, not in cloud. The first was where the glider was hit from behind by the aeroplane. The third I recall was in the circuit at my home airfield, when sadly we lost a great friend. I cannot recall any midairs between gliders and aeroplanes in cloud. That is not to say it could not happen; just that the empirical risk appears to be low.
5. Flarm. In the UK it is catching on in the gliding world. I would hazzard a guess at c. 7 to 10% of the glider fleet are now equipped. But of course it relies on everyone else (or most) having it fitted also. In the French Alps it is far more prevalent and my experience so far with Flarm (three seasons) is that it is an extremely valuable additional aid to the Mark One. It is not a substitute. I have had a significant number of instances when Flarm has alerted me to other traffic well before I saw the traffic. It has the advantage of immediately indicating from which direction the conflicting traffic is coming and whether above, level or below one's own level. The big advantage of Flarm is it is instantaneous and does not need a third party (ATC, FIS etc) to intervene with all the critical time delays that involves. Mind you, in the Alps, flying close to the snow covered terrain often, it is very difficutly to see other gliders visually.
6. Unfortunately the regulators stick rigidly to the rule book when it comes to practical certification matters. Which is why we gliding folks wished we had not been subject to regulatory capture by EASA and all that goes with it. Flarm should be allowed to be fitted with the minimum of fuss from the certification boys. It ain't rocket science (to agree its fitment) even though the technology behind Flarm is, relatively.
1. Our glider, like virtually all in the Alps, has dayglo strips over the wings. Makes the glider a little easier to catch with the Mark One
2. Gliders are often visible on radar but not that well. It is often heard that Brize (Oxon) can see gliders winch launching at Aston Down (Glos)
3. Gliders flying cross country do not have a predicable course - in the sense of a straight line. The pilots follow the best energy line, dictated by the clouds / thermals etc
4. From my recollection of nearly 40 years of gliding accident records and reports in the UK, whilst there have been a relatively high number of glider to glider midairs - often in the circuit - and by relative I mean relative to the rate of mid airs between aeroplanes, I can only recall four midairs in that time between a glider and an aeroplane. One about 20+ years ago in the Severn Valley area, another was a bit later near Thame. Both those two happened in clear air, not in cloud. The first was where the glider was hit from behind by the aeroplane. The third I recall was in the circuit at my home airfield, when sadly we lost a great friend. I cannot recall any midairs between gliders and aeroplanes in cloud. That is not to say it could not happen; just that the empirical risk appears to be low.
5. Flarm. In the UK it is catching on in the gliding world. I would hazzard a guess at c. 7 to 10% of the glider fleet are now equipped. But of course it relies on everyone else (or most) having it fitted also. In the French Alps it is far more prevalent and my experience so far with Flarm (three seasons) is that it is an extremely valuable additional aid to the Mark One. It is not a substitute. I have had a significant number of instances when Flarm has alerted me to other traffic well before I saw the traffic. It has the advantage of immediately indicating from which direction the conflicting traffic is coming and whether above, level or below one's own level. The big advantage of Flarm is it is instantaneous and does not need a third party (ATC, FIS etc) to intervene with all the critical time delays that involves. Mind you, in the Alps, flying close to the snow covered terrain often, it is very difficutly to see other gliders visually.
6. Unfortunately the regulators stick rigidly to the rule book when it comes to practical certification matters. Which is why we gliding folks wished we had not been subject to regulatory capture by EASA and all that goes with it. Flarm should be allowed to be fitted with the minimum of fuss from the certification boys. It ain't rocket science (to agree its fitment) even though the technology behind Flarm is, relatively.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having caught up on this thread since yesterday I am not happy about the priviliges enjoyed by the gliding community.
I accept there is merit in not imposing transponders on traffic outside CAS in VMC. The argument that not all flying machines can fit transponders is persuasive as more importantly is the evidence that the risk of a collision is small.
There are two reasons it is small. See and avoid has a good chance of working given the low level speed restrictions imposed on all aircraft. The big sky comes to the rescue most times see and avoid fails.
See and avoid cannot wok in IMC. A RIS provides a good degree of salvation BUT the service is often not available and even when it is gliders do not always make good primary targets.
This can mean than anyone in IMC has no protection afforded to them what so ever from gliders also in IMC where the gliders are operating outside designated gliding sites.
I dont accept that is reasonable or fair to other airspace users. I would ban gliders flying in IMC unless they were fitted with a transponder that was at least turned on in cloud.
God forbid it ever happens but if there were a mid air between a glider and a powered aircraft in IMC I suspect the AAIB would have no alternative but recommend all gliders operating in IMC should be required to carry a transponder.
I accept there is merit in not imposing transponders on traffic outside CAS in VMC. The argument that not all flying machines can fit transponders is persuasive as more importantly is the evidence that the risk of a collision is small.
There are two reasons it is small. See and avoid has a good chance of working given the low level speed restrictions imposed on all aircraft. The big sky comes to the rescue most times see and avoid fails.
See and avoid cannot wok in IMC. A RIS provides a good degree of salvation BUT the service is often not available and even when it is gliders do not always make good primary targets.
This can mean than anyone in IMC has no protection afforded to them what so ever from gliders also in IMC where the gliders are operating outside designated gliding sites.
I dont accept that is reasonable or fair to other airspace users. I would ban gliders flying in IMC unless they were fitted with a transponder that was at least turned on in cloud.
God forbid it ever happens but if there were a mid air between a glider and a powered aircraft in IMC I suspect the AAIB would have no alternative but recommend all gliders operating in IMC should be required to carry a transponder.
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?
Secondly, at the current price levels a transponder costs about the same as a good wing. In effect, it doubles the price of a paraglider and adds maybe 50% to the cost of a paramotor rig.
There is also the power source issue. Somehow you got to find enough power to keep the transponder operating reliably for a few hours. This takes a big battery, as few paramotors have any charging circuitry at all.
Lastly, there is the added problem of the risk of injury that carrying bulky stuff carries when operating a paramotor. Falling over is an occupational hazard when launching or landing these machines, so any hard and bulky bit of kit will both get bashed about and add to the possibility of injury.
Seems a bloody daft thing to do to me, especially as this is a machine that can only legally be flown under VFR, clear of cloud etc, isn't normally allowed to fly in controlled airspace and what's more cannot operate from most airfields, due to the restrictions it would place on other users.
VP
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So many of the posters to this thread want to improve safety ... but only their own safety, at the expense of the safety of other pilots.
For example, englishal (as the most recent only of these) wants to restrict my glider flying to 3,000 ft, which puts me at the risk of around 4 field landing per hour. Is that an acceptable trade-off? Or I should fit a transponder, which restricts my time in the air to 3 hours or so and will cost 30%-50% of the hull value of my aircraft. I note that he doesn't intend to change the way he flies to improve the safety of others.
There is no absolute safety in flying - it is a matter of minimising risk to the lowest acceptable extent. I can think of many ways to improve safety which would be unacceptable because they would stop others flying. As an example, how about excluding from class G airspace all aircraft which have restricted visibility from the cockpit? Gliders would keep on flying, but many powered aircraft would not. Clearly it is safer to be able to look out as far as possible, but in my view it is not acceptable to propose restrictions which would effectively ground or radically restrict the operation of aircraft which currently fly perfectly legally.
Within that constraint, what could be done?
Mode S, ADS-B etc are out because of the practical (power and space) and financial constraints.
Something FLARM-like could work if it were permitted without certification. Allowing the fitting of uncertified transponders (as in US gliders) would help, but wouldn't be as good as a universal, low power consumption solution because many users would need to turn the transponder off outside high traffic flow areas to conserve power. Certification seems to multiply costs x 10, which is why an uncertified solution seems to me the only possibility. I suspect that if enough gliders fit FLARM, it will be worthwhile other pilots adopting it as removable equipment (like a hand-held GPS). I'm not pushing FLARM, merely using it as an example of the kind of cheap solution which might be workable.
The cheapest solution is for all of us to work on lookout. If I haven't scanned the entire field of view (that's about 120 degress fore and aft, and 240 degrees side to side) at least once every 30 seconds I slap myself on the wrist. Some pilots would say that's barely adequate. Do we all set appropriate standards for our lookout? Do we all achieve them? This won't avoid all mid-air collisions, but then neither will any of the other solutions proposed here.
Finally, it's worth noting that the genesis of this thread is the collision of two powered aircraft on approach, both talking to ATC. No-one has proposed ways of reducing that (clearly real) risk, but the accident seems to have focussed minds on lower risks which might be avoidable if others changed the way they flew.
If it's relevant, I don't think I've ever flown so as to require a non-glider to manoeuvre to avoid me. I have taken avoiding action on a number of occasions when a powered aircraft has flown straight at me, on the assumption that the pilot hasn't seen me. This doesn't surprise me, given the restricted field of view, my lack of visibility and the number of things in the other pilot's cockpit which require attention, so (rules of the air notwithstanding) I make it my responsibility to look out for such situations and avoid the danger. I don't find this risk unacceptable.
For example, englishal (as the most recent only of these) wants to restrict my glider flying to 3,000 ft, which puts me at the risk of around 4 field landing per hour. Is that an acceptable trade-off? Or I should fit a transponder, which restricts my time in the air to 3 hours or so and will cost 30%-50% of the hull value of my aircraft. I note that he doesn't intend to change the way he flies to improve the safety of others.
There is no absolute safety in flying - it is a matter of minimising risk to the lowest acceptable extent. I can think of many ways to improve safety which would be unacceptable because they would stop others flying. As an example, how about excluding from class G airspace all aircraft which have restricted visibility from the cockpit? Gliders would keep on flying, but many powered aircraft would not. Clearly it is safer to be able to look out as far as possible, but in my view it is not acceptable to propose restrictions which would effectively ground or radically restrict the operation of aircraft which currently fly perfectly legally.
Within that constraint, what could be done?
Mode S, ADS-B etc are out because of the practical (power and space) and financial constraints.
Something FLARM-like could work if it were permitted without certification. Allowing the fitting of uncertified transponders (as in US gliders) would help, but wouldn't be as good as a universal, low power consumption solution because many users would need to turn the transponder off outside high traffic flow areas to conserve power. Certification seems to multiply costs x 10, which is why an uncertified solution seems to me the only possibility. I suspect that if enough gliders fit FLARM, it will be worthwhile other pilots adopting it as removable equipment (like a hand-held GPS). I'm not pushing FLARM, merely using it as an example of the kind of cheap solution which might be workable.
The cheapest solution is for all of us to work on lookout. If I haven't scanned the entire field of view (that's about 120 degress fore and aft, and 240 degrees side to side) at least once every 30 seconds I slap myself on the wrist. Some pilots would say that's barely adequate. Do we all set appropriate standards for our lookout? Do we all achieve them? This won't avoid all mid-air collisions, but then neither will any of the other solutions proposed here.
Finally, it's worth noting that the genesis of this thread is the collision of two powered aircraft on approach, both talking to ATC. No-one has proposed ways of reducing that (clearly real) risk, but the accident seems to have focussed minds on lower risks which might be avoidable if others changed the way they flew.
If it's relevant, I don't think I've ever flown so as to require a non-glider to manoeuvre to avoid me. I have taken avoiding action on a number of occasions when a powered aircraft has flown straight at me, on the assumption that the pilot hasn't seen me. This doesn't surprise me, given the restricted field of view, my lack of visibility and the number of things in the other pilot's cockpit which require attention, so (rules of the air notwithstanding) I make it my responsibility to look out for such situations and avoid the danger. I don't find this risk unacceptable.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God forbid it ever happens but if there were a mid air between a glider and a powered aircraft in IMC I suspect the AAIB would have no alternative but recommend all gliders operating in IMC should be required to carry a transponder.
"An appropriate EASA Licence will be mandatory for piloting aircraft covered by EASA airworthiness regulations, often known as Annex I aircraft."
"EASA licences will be available for ballooning, gliding (sailplane) and airships, as well as fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft."
"There will be no IMC rating unless further regulations are proposed"
"There will be no 'cloud flying rating'"
Furthermore, if I read the summary correctly, the IR can only be attached to a PPL (or higher), not to an LPL or BLPL, and the IR would only apply to powered flying.
Now I don't know how much of the gliding community is actually going to be brought under EASAs authority (it seems to depend on whether your glider is an Annex I aircraft) but the whole business of gliders flying in cloud might be gone anyway in a few years.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The logical thing would be ADS-B, implemented using the Mode S data channel.
This is what the rest of the universe is currently going for.
You start with a Mode S transponder (which nearly all of us will have to fit eventually ) and you connect it to your existing GPS (if you haven't got a GPS then forget any possibility of a low cost effective anti collision system). The transponder will then continuously radiate your GPS position. Anybody with a Mode S can do this right now -
This is what the rest of the universe is currently going for.
You start with a Mode S transponder (which nearly all of us will have to fit eventually ) and you connect it to your existing GPS (if you haven't got a GPS then forget any possibility of a low cost effective anti collision system). The transponder will then continuously radiate your GPS position. Anybody with a Mode S can do this right now -
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who want to know about gliders flying in cloud, this thread from a couple of years back is pretty comprehensive (and quite good-tempered, considering).
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ing-cloud.html
I've given up, at least temporarily, because although I can climb satisfactorily I can't straighten up and fly out of the cloud. A safety improvement for the rest of the community, though not as a result of this thread.
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ing-cloud.html
I've given up, at least temporarily, because although I can climb satisfactorily I can't straighten up and fly out of the cloud. A safety improvement for the rest of the community, though not as a result of this thread.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ProfChrisReed
Well I have scan read that thread - which I vaguely remembered from its time.
I caught the following words.
.. .. .. something like flying in IMC without a transponder is like a lottery, you might as well close your eyes and cross your fingers.
It just does not make sense to me.
Forgive me for being blunt but it should be banned - no transponder, no IMC.
No transponder, but within VMC privileges, fill your boots.
.. .. .. but please note from my point of view I still dont want you stretching the limits of VMC and lurking around the base be you a glider, hot air balloon, or anything that cant fit a transponder, not because I have anything WHATSOEVER against anyone who cant or wont fit a transponder, but because if I have no possibility what so ever of seeing you and I'd rather not just cross my fingers.
Well I have scan read that thread - which I vaguely remembered from its time.
I caught the following words.
.. .. .. something like flying in IMC without a transponder is like a lottery, you might as well close your eyes and cross your fingers.
It just does not make sense to me.
Forgive me for being blunt but it should be banned - no transponder, no IMC.
No transponder, but within VMC privileges, fill your boots.
.. .. .. but please note from my point of view I still dont want you stretching the limits of VMC and lurking around the base be you a glider, hot air balloon, or anything that cant fit a transponder, not because I have anything WHATSOEVER against anyone who cant or wont fit a transponder, but because if I have no possibility what so ever of seeing you and I'd rather not just cross my fingers.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am baffled by all this insistent talk of No IMC flying without a transponder, (although by all means use one if you have the money and inclination.)
99% of GA flying outside CAS is VMC, and there have been no recorded powered midairs in IMC since world war two, virtually all encounters occurring in VMC at low level. Many IMC and IR rated pilots make a specific point of flying IMC as much as possible, since statistically it is the safest place to be. Efforts should be concentrated in the low level VMC environment, not the high(er) level IMC environment
99% of GA flying outside CAS is VMC, and there have been no recorded powered midairs in IMC since world war two, virtually all encounters occurring in VMC at low level. Many IMC and IR rated pilots make a specific point of flying IMC as much as possible, since statistically it is the safest place to be. Efforts should be concentrated in the low level VMC environment, not the high(er) level IMC environment
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VP959, two points:
1. To fly in controlled airspace (where it most certainly is allowed to fly), the paramotor in question needs a transponder. Might be a daft thing to do if ATS where you fly wouldn't allow it in anyway ... But most people in the world do not fly in the UK...
2. The point of my post was that if a paramotor can fit it, so can anything else. Not sure exactly what transponder he uses, but it's not the same type of ancient, power hungry kit you'd find in an average 70's vintage PA28.
Seems to me having or not having a transponder is a cost issue complicated by British aviation regulations, not a practical issue of power and weight...
1. To fly in controlled airspace (where it most certainly is allowed to fly), the paramotor in question needs a transponder. Might be a daft thing to do if ATS where you fly wouldn't allow it in anyway ... But most people in the world do not fly in the UK...
2. The point of my post was that if a paramotor can fit it, so can anything else. Not sure exactly what transponder he uses, but it's not the same type of ancient, power hungry kit you'd find in an average 70's vintage PA28.
Seems to me having or not having a transponder is a cost issue complicated by British aviation regulations, not a practical issue of power and weight...
VP959, two points:
1. To fly in controlled airspace (where it most certainly is allowed to fly), the paramotor in question needs a transponder. Might be a daft thing to do if ATS where you fly wouldn't allow it in anyway ... But most people in the world do not fly in the UK...
2. The point of my post was that if a paramotor can fit it, so can anything else. Not sure exactly what transponder he uses, but it's not the same type of ancient, power hungry kit you'd find in an average 70's vintage PA28.
Seems to me having or not having a transponder is a cost issue complicated by British aviation regulations, not a practical issue of power and weight...
1. To fly in controlled airspace (where it most certainly is allowed to fly), the paramotor in question needs a transponder. Might be a daft thing to do if ATS where you fly wouldn't allow it in anyway ... But most people in the world do not fly in the UK...
2. The point of my post was that if a paramotor can fit it, so can anything else. Not sure exactly what transponder he uses, but it's not the same type of ancient, power hungry kit you'd find in an average 70's vintage PA28.
Seems to me having or not having a transponder is a cost issue complicated by British aviation regulations, not a practical issue of power and weight...
Secondly, ALL transponders have to have a peak power output of around a couple of hundred watts in order to do what they have to - NATS have made it clear that upgrading the sensitivity of SSR to allow low power transponders to have an effective range won't happen. My health and safety concerns remain.
The cost issue is real and one of relative importance to those who take up this form of budget flying.
Jeremy
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>I am baffled by all this insistent talk of No IMC flying without a transponder, (although by all means use one if you have the money and inclination.)
99% of GA flying outside CAS is VMC, and there have been no recorded powered midairs in IMC since world war two, virtually all encounters occurring in VMC at low level. Many IMC and IR rated pilots make a specific point of flying IMC as much as possible, since statistically it is the safest place to be. Efforts should be concentrated in the low level VMC environment, not the high(er) level IMC environment<
FlybyMike
I have to say that I am amazed that gliders or any other aircraft should be allowed to fly in cloud without a transponder.
You quote that there has not been a collision. I do not know whether that is factual or not.
A lot of this thread is based on see and be seen, the mark one eyeball.
How can that possibly work in cloud?
We are not just talking about the potential for a collision with a twin or sophisticated single but also the potentail for hitting an airliner carrying 300 people.
Remember that not all airports have a block of controlled airspace around them. Humberside and Inverness are examples of two where 737s and A320s operate out of.
The chance of a radar controller missing a glider flying in cloud and not transponding must be high.
In that situation there is no question of see and be seen MADNESS.
It will only take another major disaster for the CAA to see sense and stop this ludicrous practice. NO TRANSPONDER NO IMC !
Pace
99% of GA flying outside CAS is VMC, and there have been no recorded powered midairs in IMC since world war two, virtually all encounters occurring in VMC at low level. Many IMC and IR rated pilots make a specific point of flying IMC as much as possible, since statistically it is the safest place to be. Efforts should be concentrated in the low level VMC environment, not the high(er) level IMC environment<
FlybyMike
I have to say that I am amazed that gliders or any other aircraft should be allowed to fly in cloud without a transponder.
You quote that there has not been a collision. I do not know whether that is factual or not.
A lot of this thread is based on see and be seen, the mark one eyeball.
How can that possibly work in cloud?
We are not just talking about the potential for a collision with a twin or sophisticated single but also the potentail for hitting an airliner carrying 300 people.
Remember that not all airports have a block of controlled airspace around them. Humberside and Inverness are examples of two where 737s and A320s operate out of.
The chance of a radar controller missing a glider flying in cloud and not transponding must be high.
In that situation there is no question of see and be seen MADNESS.
It will only take another major disaster for the CAA to see sense and stop this ludicrous practice. NO TRANSPONDER NO IMC !
Pace
VP959
For under 15,000ft, 175kts you only need 71 watts peak at the antenna. Stilll significant power.
CAA for many years proposed a 'low cost, low power' transponder. In spite of many voices saying 'it won't work, and no one will build it for £500' they persisted.
Surprise, now no one will build it and finally doing a trial, it doesn't work (and has been quietly dropped from their recent consultation).
Fuji Abound
You suggest that to make you feel happy I should spend several thousand pounds (and still not have a certified TCAS system that will help me). I suggest if you want to stop bumping into me, or many other gliders, in cloud or in VMC, you spend a few hundred pounds. Alternatively, (since my carrying a transponder is not a panacea) you only fly IMC in controlled airspace where you will have a full radar service to ensure your safety. As Prof. Chris Reed tactfully points out, some pilots require others to spend large sums of money (but do nothing thermselves) to minimise their own risk.
Alternatively, we can all carry on doing what we enjoy with a demonstrably tiny risk - remind me how many IMC glider/power collisions there have been?
As far as 'normal gliding areas' goes, mine is approximately the right hand two-thirds of the 1:500,000 S. England chart (and occasional sorties into Wales), excluding those classes of controlled airspace where I can't go.
For under 15,000ft, 175kts you only need 71 watts peak at the antenna. Stilll significant power.
CAA for many years proposed a 'low cost, low power' transponder. In spite of many voices saying 'it won't work, and no one will build it for £500' they persisted.
Surprise, now no one will build it and finally doing a trial, it doesn't work (and has been quietly dropped from their recent consultation).
Fuji Abound
You suggest that to make you feel happy I should spend several thousand pounds (and still not have a certified TCAS system that will help me). I suggest if you want to stop bumping into me, or many other gliders, in cloud or in VMC, you spend a few hundred pounds. Alternatively, (since my carrying a transponder is not a panacea) you only fly IMC in controlled airspace where you will have a full radar service to ensure your safety. As Prof. Chris Reed tactfully points out, some pilots require others to spend large sums of money (but do nothing thermselves) to minimise their own risk.
Alternatively, we can all carry on doing what we enjoy with a demonstrably tiny risk - remind me how many IMC glider/power collisions there have been?
As far as 'normal gliding areas' goes, mine is approximately the right hand two-thirds of the 1:500,000 S. England chart (and occasional sorties into Wales), excluding those classes of controlled airspace where I can't go.