Improve Light A/C Separation
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>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?<
It maybe a tiny risk but my question to you is how does the rule of see and be seen apply in cloud?
As stated in my post above the risk is not only to twins but to 737s A320s operating on a radar advisory service out of controlled airspace.
Radar gives false returns and you flying blindly along in cloud making reports on some obscure glider frequency which no serious IFR pilot will even know about will make it a game of Russian Roulette.
Flying is an expensive business and I am sure you fork out for expensive bits of equiptment to improve your gliding experience so why not a transponder?
Then at least radar will see you and aircraft equipt with TCAS will see you too.
Pace
It maybe a tiny risk but my question to you is how does the rule of see and be seen apply in cloud?
As stated in my post above the risk is not only to twins but to 737s A320s operating on a radar advisory service out of controlled airspace.
Radar gives false returns and you flying blindly along in cloud making reports on some obscure glider frequency which no serious IFR pilot will even know about will make it a game of Russian Roulette.
Flying is an expensive business and I am sure you fork out for expensive bits of equiptment to improve your gliding experience so why not a transponder?
Then at least radar will see you and aircraft equipt with TCAS will see you too.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
However some elments are incorrect.
A transponder "gives" you better than TCAS. More correctly AT can provide you with a RIS. Even on busy days if you tell them you are IMC you are likely to get a service. You and others can buy PCAS - an effective on board form of TAS at the cost of a few hundred pounds.
It is not true some pilots require you to spend money without an equivalent committment. In the same way powered pilots have bought a transponder.
The reality is our regulatory authority has based collision avoidance on transponders not FLARM. You might not agree, but there is little sense in people using different systems.
I agree the apparent lack of risk is a consideration. However, statistically an accident will happen. The consequences are horrific.
The number of aircraft and pilots that are "qualified" to operate in IMC is relatively few - it seems extraordinary we cannot agree on a common system for these few.
A radar service is only as good as the resource available outside controlled airspace.
I am not confident in the ability of the present system to cope with a large number of extra transponder equipped traffic, if the CAA have their way.
Our regulatory authority is determined that Mode S is the way to go, but has signally failed to answer (or refused to answer) many relevant technical questions.
Much of the rest of the world has recognised that ADS-B is a much more sensible, forward looking system.
FLARM works in large areas of Continental Europe for gliders and powered aircraft, and is affordable.
It seems extraordinary that a common system is only acceptable if it's yours.
I am not confident in the ability of the present system to cope with a large number of extra transponder equipped traffic, if the CAA have their way.
Our regulatory authority is determined that Mode S is the way to go, but has signally failed to answer (or refused to answer) many relevant technical questions.
Much of the rest of the world has recognised that ADS-B is a much more sensible, forward looking system.
FLARM works in large areas of Continental Europe for gliders and powered aircraft, and is affordable.
It seems extraordinary that a common system is only acceptable if it's yours.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“The point of my post was that if a paramotor can fit it, so can anything else.”
Actually, this is not at all correct. A paramotor (to the best of my knowledge) is unregulated, so no rules, no max empty weight, it has no “structure” so no issues with internal aerials being blocked off and many other “advantages”.
Pace
“I have to say that I am amazed that gliders or any other aircraft should be allowed to fly in cloud without a transponder.”
I did not think there were any “other aircraft” which are allowed to fly in cloud, in the uk without a transponder? What did you have in mind?
“You quote that there has not been a collision. I do not know whether that is factual or not.”
It is correct.
If you regularly fly a sophisticated GA machine in IMC, you have all the toys, but you are worried about gliders fit FLARM. The glider cannot fit a £2000 transponder, but you could fit a £300 FLARM. Making FLARM compulsory to fly in the IMC OCAS would provide you all with an actual collision avoidance system.
Edited to add;
“Our regulatory authority is determined that Mode S is the way to go, but has signally failed to answer (or refused to answer) many relevant technical questions.”
To be fair to the CAA they have accepted the Mode S for all was technically flawed, and have taken a huge leap back from this.
Rod1
Actually, this is not at all correct. A paramotor (to the best of my knowledge) is unregulated, so no rules, no max empty weight, it has no “structure” so no issues with internal aerials being blocked off and many other “advantages”.
Pace
“I have to say that I am amazed that gliders or any other aircraft should be allowed to fly in cloud without a transponder.”
I did not think there were any “other aircraft” which are allowed to fly in cloud, in the uk without a transponder? What did you have in mind?
“You quote that there has not been a collision. I do not know whether that is factual or not.”
It is correct.
If you regularly fly a sophisticated GA machine in IMC, you have all the toys, but you are worried about gliders fit FLARM. The glider cannot fit a £2000 transponder, but you could fit a £300 FLARM. Making FLARM compulsory to fly in the IMC OCAS would provide you all with an actual collision avoidance system.
Edited to add;
“Our regulatory authority is determined that Mode S is the way to go, but has signally failed to answer (or refused to answer) many relevant technical questions.”
To be fair to the CAA they have accepted the Mode S for all was technically flawed, and have taken a huge leap back from this.
Rod1
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji Abound: I don't believe anyone has fitted a transponder in order to improve collision avoidance in Class G. Transponders are fitted to improve access to controlled airspace. The reduction in collision risk in Class G is a collateral benefit, but not why the transponder was fitted in the first place.
The collision you refer to will not happen "statistically" - there is a risk, which is roughly the same on average each year, though it varies with the amount of non-transponding flying (by powered a/c as well as gliders). It might happen tomorrow, it might never happen. The question is whether the costs of an avoidance measure are worth while.
As an example, there will be more than one fatal car crash in the UK today. That doesn't stop people driving. There will be more than one fatal passenger aircraft crash world-wide each year, but people still buy airline tickets. We all make these cost-benefit calculations (though not very well, beiing influenced more by the perceived risk than the actual risk).
Is the collision risk in Class G (as you now understand it) high enough to stop you flying IMC? I suspect not - just that you'd like it lowered. This takes us back to the question; is the cost acceptable, and who should bear it?
Pace asks, why not fork out for a transponder. The answer is that I don't see sufficient benefit compared to the cost. The cost is not purely financial - as an example, there is no good place on a glider to fit the aerial, and if I have a transponder fitted I'm obliged to use it (I believe) which reduces my flight time to the battery capacity I can carry. The benefit to me would be minimal - a minuscule reduction in the chance of being hit by a TCAS/PCAS equipped aircraft. I think this is the same reason Pace hasn't fitted FLARM - not enough benefit even though the financial cost is quite low (and I haven't fitted FLARM either, though it's on my list of possibles).
If anyone thinks this is dreadfully selfish, I still haven't noticed anyone on this thread proposing a measure to improve collision risk which will cost them something without achieving any appreciable benefit to themselves. I've seen a number of proposals for imposing costs on others to achieve benefits for oneself.
The collision you refer to will not happen "statistically" - there is a risk, which is roughly the same on average each year, though it varies with the amount of non-transponding flying (by powered a/c as well as gliders). It might happen tomorrow, it might never happen. The question is whether the costs of an avoidance measure are worth while.
As an example, there will be more than one fatal car crash in the UK today. That doesn't stop people driving. There will be more than one fatal passenger aircraft crash world-wide each year, but people still buy airline tickets. We all make these cost-benefit calculations (though not very well, beiing influenced more by the perceived risk than the actual risk).
Is the collision risk in Class G (as you now understand it) high enough to stop you flying IMC? I suspect not - just that you'd like it lowered. This takes us back to the question; is the cost acceptable, and who should bear it?
Pace asks, why not fork out for a transponder. The answer is that I don't see sufficient benefit compared to the cost. The cost is not purely financial - as an example, there is no good place on a glider to fit the aerial, and if I have a transponder fitted I'm obliged to use it (I believe) which reduces my flight time to the battery capacity I can carry. The benefit to me would be minimal - a minuscule reduction in the chance of being hit by a TCAS/PCAS equipped aircraft. I think this is the same reason Pace hasn't fitted FLARM - not enough benefit even though the financial cost is quite low (and I haven't fitted FLARM either, though it's on my list of possibles).
If anyone thinks this is dreadfully selfish, I still haven't noticed anyone on this thread proposing a measure to improve collision risk which will cost them something without achieving any appreciable benefit to themselves. I've seen a number of proposals for imposing costs on others to achieve benefits for oneself.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I still haven't noticed anyone on this thread proposing a measure to improve collision risk which will cost them something without achieving any appreciable benefit to themselves. I've seen a number of proposals for imposing costs on others to achieve benefits for oneself.”
I proposed mandatory lookout training and testing. This would cost everyone money, but all would benefit. Nobody was listening, but I tried!
I would be very happy to fit FLARM, if it can get to critical mass for most flying machines. It has the big benefit that almost all could use it and all would benefit. I get zero benefit form my transponder.
Rod1
I proposed mandatory lookout training and testing. This would cost everyone money, but all would benefit. Nobody was listening, but I tried!
I would be very happy to fit FLARM, if it can get to critical mass for most flying machines. It has the big benefit that almost all could use it and all would benefit. I get zero benefit form my transponder.
Rod1
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems extraordinary that a common system is only acceptable if it's yours.
It is not me wanting to impose transponders on you, it just so happens that is the only approved system on offer.
Moreover the issue cuts both ways. You could buy a PCAS for couple hundred quid. It runs on two AA batteries and weighs less than a matchbox. I think the unit is cheaper and lighter than FLARM. Have you bought a PCAS?
BTW I will certainly consider a FLARM unit - I am away to have a look at their web site.
In so far as Europe is concerned is it the case that gliders can legally operate in IMC.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>However the short range of the present power output makes FLARM unsuitable for avoiding collisions with fast moving aircraft.<
ProfChrisReed
Flarm in its present state is not the answer.
A mode C minimum fitted to an aircraft will at least give a Radar controller the ability to see you and your level rather than not seeing you at all.
I cannot fly a business jet airways which I do without a working transponder. If its U/S I am grounded.
In the same way an aircraft which is not suitably equipt to fly in clouds should not be there.
Its not me expecting you to pay out but flying in cloud you are putting me and my passengers at an increased level of risk by doing so in an aircraft which is not suitably equipt.
For a glider I am sure it would be acceptable to only transpond when in cloud rather than for the full duration of flight with a glider specific code.
Pace
ProfChrisReed
Flarm in its present state is not the answer.
A mode C minimum fitted to an aircraft will at least give a Radar controller the ability to see you and your level rather than not seeing you at all.
I cannot fly a business jet airways which I do without a working transponder. If its U/S I am grounded.
In the same way an aircraft which is not suitably equipt to fly in clouds should not be there.
Its not me expecting you to pay out but flying in cloud you are putting me and my passengers at an increased level of risk by doing so in an aircraft which is not suitably equipt.
For a glider I am sure it would be acceptable to only transpond when in cloud rather than for the full duration of flight with a glider specific code.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th Aug 2008 at 10:19.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the same way an aircraft which is not suitably equipt to fly in clouds should not be there.
Its not me expecting you to pay out but flying in cloud you are putting me and my passengers at an increased level of risk by doing so in an aircraft which is not suitably equipt.
Its not me expecting you to pay out but flying in cloud you are putting me and my passengers at an increased level of risk by doing so in an aircraft which is not suitably equipt.
Gliders have an established system for flying in cloud. They balance the risks as they and their regulators see fit. You are now aware that they might be in cloud, and it is nothing new. What has happened (in reality, or regulatory terms) why this should suddenly change?
If you choose to fly IMC outside CAS you also appreciate there is "a risk" - and maybe that is now higher than before you knew about gliders? So it gets added to your risk factors... but the change is for you - not them
In addition - other posters state that despite lack of a radar service, they still fly IMC in Class G. What use the Xpdr now?I was aware of that risk, hence why I, to the occasional displeasure of NCL ATC, am not happy accepting RAS in IMC to the SW because of the gliders there, and have to get tight vectors to keep in CAS. I'd be happy accepting the risk, but do not feel it appropriate for the Pax...
NoD
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In so far as Europe is concerned is it the case that gliders can legally operate in IMC.
First of all, most of Western Europe, from a certain level (rather low, 1500'-4500') upwards is controlled airspace (class E). Instead of having several frequencies to choose from like in the UK to obtain a FIS, RIS or something else, there is a dedicated frequency for each bit of airspace and it would be rather stupid to not have that selected.
Second, the UK is alone in its idea of aircraft (power and powerless) flying in IMC conditions outside controlled airspace, without a formal IFR flight plan or IR. In the rest of Europe it is more clear-cut. If you want to fly in IMC you have to be on an IFR flightplan, have to have an IR, and have to have an IFR-capable plane.
Now there may be specific exemptions for cloud flying gliders from all this, I don't know. But looking at the overall picture I'd say no, that situation is unique to the UK.
Furthermore, at least in the Netherlands, the requirement for mode S is far more advanced. In fact, we already know the date when the whole of the Netherlands will be a TMZ from 1500' up. That discussion is done and dusted and even gliders will have to comply, with the exception of a few dedicated glider fields and their immediate surroundings. I don't know the situation for other mainland Europe countries, and since my club has all aircraft fitted with mode S now, I don't really care anymore.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
But equally, when I am flying IFR in IMC OCAS, and the radar controller tells me "multiple contacts 12 O'clock, no height information, could be gliders" then I HAVE to renavigate, in IMC, with all the stresses involved in that.
My COMPROMISE would be that IF you want to fly your glider above a certain height or in IMC then you should fit a transpoder. IF I want to fly my aeroplane above a certain height or in IMC then I NEED to havea transpoder?
Fair enough?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoD
.. .. .. because for those other operators in IMC who buy a PCAS or CAS they have a chance to do something about avoiding a glider without reliance on AT.
We seem to have a polarised debate. The gliders say the powered guys should fit our system and the powered guys say no, you should be fitting ours.
A few thoughts:
I guess at any one time there is likely to be more powered traffic en route in IMC than glider traffic,
It would seem FLARM is specifically desgined to cope with the needs of gliders. It has limitations dealing with faster moving targets which are approaching an area where a number of gliders are operating in IMC. Transponders, PCAS and TAS has no such limitations.
As a point of order is their a legal requirement for gliders to not only have but be using FLARM when they enter IMC?
If you choose to fly IMC outside CAS you also appreciate there is "a risk" - and maybe that is now higher than before you knew about gliders? So it gets added to your risk factors... but the change is for you - not them In addition - other posters state that despite lack of a radar service, they still fly IMC in Class G. What use the Xpdr now?
We seem to have a polarised debate. The gliders say the powered guys should fit our system and the powered guys say no, you should be fitting ours.
A few thoughts:
I guess at any one time there is likely to be more powered traffic en route in IMC than glider traffic,
It would seem FLARM is specifically desgined to cope with the needs of gliders. It has limitations dealing with faster moving targets which are approaching an area where a number of gliders are operating in IMC. Transponders, PCAS and TAS has no such limitations.
As a point of order is their a legal requirement for gliders to not only have but be using FLARM when they enter IMC?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi EnglishAl, it sounds like we agree on the principal, it's simply haggling over the numbers and boundaries How about if gliders fly above FL195 then they should have a trasnponder? Until a few years ago 'Open FIR' went up to FL245. Now it has dropped to FL195. On the IMC front, let's try the alternate that if you want to fly in protected IMC then you need to fly within controlled airspace where everybody else is similarly equipped and there's somebody watching over you. Isn't this already available to you providing you have the appropriate equipment ?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. .. .. because for those other operators in IMC who buy a PCAS or CAS they have a chance to do something about avoiding a glider without reliance on AT.
FLARM, PCAS whatever, I thought we'd agreed that these systems are designed / intended to acquire visual acquisition, not to avoid traffic on... so what use IMC (if you choose to operate outside the design specs, then fine, but that can hardly be the basis for a mandatory action). The only ACAS I am aware of for IMC is full TCAS via RA?
It would seem FLARM is specifically desgined to cope with the needs of gliders
Or maybe the lighter / slower end of GA as well...
As a point of order is their a legal requirement for gliders to not only have but be using FLARM when they enter IMC?
NoD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>How can you say a glider is not suitably equipped to fly in cloud without a Xpdr? What regulatory requirement is there for you to say "it is not suitably equipped"?<
NigelOnDraft
Excuse my ignorance here but there are regulations for VFR and IFR flight. The VFR are to keep clear of clouds with a vertical and horizontal seperation as published.
Do you fly quadrantle rules in cloud?
Are your gliders equipt as regulated for IFR flight? I thought you had a very basic instrument panel?
The UK has an IMC rating which is not acknowleged outside of the UK which does allow you to fly in cloud. Do glider pilots hold valid UK IMC ratings otherwise there appears to be some serious rule breaking by glider pilots or stupidity by the CAA and double standards.
I hold an instrument rating but I am sure if I had no instrument rating or IMC rating and was caught cloud flying in IMC the CAA would soon jump on me.
I fly business jets and twin props. The business jets are equipt with TCAS.
At least I stand a chance of seeing you if you are transponding.
What you are saying is "I am a glider pilot so I have my own rules. If you hit me so be it I should be able to do what I want".
I am not saying that Gliders should not be able to fly in clouds but the pilots should at least have the basic level of instrument flying and the minimum level of equiptment that we have to carry to minimise risk no matter how small you see that risk.
Pace
NigelOnDraft
Excuse my ignorance here but there are regulations for VFR and IFR flight. The VFR are to keep clear of clouds with a vertical and horizontal seperation as published.
Do you fly quadrantle rules in cloud?
Are your gliders equipt as regulated for IFR flight? I thought you had a very basic instrument panel?
The UK has an IMC rating which is not acknowleged outside of the UK which does allow you to fly in cloud. Do glider pilots hold valid UK IMC ratings otherwise there appears to be some serious rule breaking by glider pilots or stupidity by the CAA and double standards.
I hold an instrument rating but I am sure if I had no instrument rating or IMC rating and was caught cloud flying in IMC the CAA would soon jump on me.
I fly business jets and twin props. The business jets are equipt with TCAS.
At least I stand a chance of seeing you if you are transponding.
What you are saying is "I am a glider pilot so I have my own rules. If you hit me so be it I should be able to do what I want".
I am not saying that Gliders should not be able to fly in clouds but the pilots should at least have the basic level of instrument flying and the minimum level of equiptment that we have to carry to minimise risk no matter how small you see that risk.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th Aug 2008 at 11:42.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>Hi EnglishAl, it sounds like we agree on the principal, it's simply haggling over the numbers and boundaries How about if gliders fly above FL195 then they should have a trasnponder? Until a few years ago 'Open FIR' went up to FL245. Now it has dropped to FL195. On the IMC front, let's try the alternate that if you want to fly in protected IMC then you need to fly within controlled airspace where everybody else is similarly equipped and there's somebody watching over you. Isn't this already available to you providing you have the appropriate equipment ?<
NO GPN01
Take Easy Jet out of inverness or fly out of Humberside in an A320 and until you climb into the airway you are flying on a RAS and in your passenger jet carrying 150 people relying on radar to keep you clear of other aircraft in clouds.
Mr Glider can fly in that space with no transponder and may not even be seen by radar. Go figure?
Pace
NO GPN01
Take Easy Jet out of inverness or fly out of Humberside in an A320 and until you climb into the airway you are flying on a RAS and in your passenger jet carrying 150 people relying on radar to keep you clear of other aircraft in clouds.
Mr Glider can fly in that space with no transponder and may not even be seen by radar. Go figure?
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you are saying is "I am a glider pilot so I have my own rules. If you hit me so be it I should be able to do what I want".
)However, I think you are correct Gliders have their own rules... and therefore your statement appears correct if they are abiding by them? Seems they can largely also fly up to FL195 sans Xpdr... (?)
My CAA CAS piece of paper shows no radio, ATC clearance (and presumably Xpdr) required in F/G in IFR... so if they are "qualified" under whatever mechanism a glider pilot needs to fly in IMC..?
NoD
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLARM, PCAS whatever, I thought we'd agreed that these systems are designed / intended to acquire visual acquisition, not to avoid traffic on... so what use IMC (if you choose to operate outside the design specs, then fine, but that can hardly be the basis for a mandatory action). The only ACAS I am aware of for IMC is full TCAS via RA?
1. Cross your fingers, and hope,
2. Use PCAS, TAS or TCAS
If I am in IMC without a RIS I'll take 2 please.
I do not believe FLARM has any acknowledgement / basis / requirement in law... and since it was noted above, only ~10% of UK gliders have it even now... I doubt it is even recommended.. and again, does it have much use in IMC anyway?
No one is flying powered in IMC without a transponder. This mean RIS works, and TAS almost certainly works even without a RIS.
However, 90% of the glider traffic in IMC are crossing their fingers it would seem - not only is that unacceptable but I think it is irresponsible.
The risk of flying in IMC is high enough already, I dont see that we should turn it into a complete lottery because 90% of gliders cant be bothered to do anything.