Improve Light A/C Separation

[NigelOnDraft]

A quick web search shows (I am sure Glider pilots can back up or contradict):

130.4 MHz Cloud flying and relaying cross-country messages only.

6.12 No glider shall enter cloud within a radius of 5 nautical miles of a gliding site, except from at least 200 feet from below the lowest part of the cloud.
6.13 No glider shall enter cloud unless all its occupants are wearing parachutes and have been instructed in their use.

6.21 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). In IMC conditions outside controlled airspace above 3,000 feet amsl, power aircraft can expect to be flying according to the quadrantal height rule. This requires that aircraft flying
on the magnetic tracks shown below shall maintain their indication shown against these tracks with the altimeter set to 1013.2 millibars:

Less than 90 degrees odd ‘000s of feet (eg FL 90)
90 but less than 180 degrees odd ‘000s + 500 feet (eg FL135)
180 but less than 270 degrees even ‘000s of feet (eg FL 80)
270 but less than 360 degrees even ‘000s + 500 feet (eg FL 125)

From 19,500 feet (FL 195) upwards, different rules apply. (Note: since gliders are always either climbing or descending and never in steady level cruising flight the “quadrantal rule” is irrelevant to them. There are therefore no special rules for IFR flight by gliders outside Controlled Airspace at any height except for minimum height specified in Rule 33 (an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle for 5 nautical miles, unless necessary for taking off / landing, or on a notified route for this purpose, or cleared by a competent authority, or flying at an altitude not exceeding 3,000 feet amsl and clear of cloud and in sight of the surface). Collision avoidance is solely by see-and-avoid and random separation.

In controlled airspace, glider flight in IMC is forbidden without clearance from the appropriate ATC authority, unless specific exemptions are notified.

[NigelOnDraft]

Quote:
To be clear, so can I (and do) in my LAA type?

Not legally.

To be clear I thought the topic was flying around e.g. Humberside... which I can easily do. The original quote I now see did refer to "in clouds" - so I will withdraw "(and do)" since I do not fly the LAA type IMC (of course).

However, for my reference, can say a type cleared for IMC flight (e.g. C152) fly in IMC without a Xpdr, legally, in Class G? I have seen nothing saying it cannot?

NoD

[denhamflyer]

To be clear, so can I (and do) in my LAA type?

Are you saying that your lump of metal up front wont paint on radar? If not then that raises a very interesting point.

The problem with all these entrenched views is that the only solution will be extended controlled airspace. Probably to the point where there is not true G airspace in the congested areas (i.e. london and south, around CVT etc). Fine by me cos Im fully equipped - but not something I would want in general. I dont think the CAA have given up on Mode-S they will just introduce Mode-S vales over large areas - and possibly sooner rather than later.

[Pace]

Nigel

This shows the nonsense and double standards shown by the CAA as there are specific regulations for VFR flight (google those) and gliders are not equipt for IFR flight or their pilots? correct me if I am wrong.

It appears to be one set of rules for one and another for the boys? that is until a glider hits an airline.

One last point homebuilts and PFA aircraft are not supposed to fly IMC whether their pilots hold IMC or instrument ratings but gliders can ? or maybe I have that wrong too :-)

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

I dont want to do the sensationalism thing but this is what happens when a glider and a powered aircraft meet in IMC - and it does and has happened:

Mid-Air Collision of Glider and Jet near Reno: ASG-29 vs. Hawker XP800 (by Jeremy Zawodny)

These were very very lucky and obvioulsy kept their fingers cross after they had collided.

[Fitter2]

Hello Pace

Glider are not equipped for IFR flight (and never have been to my knowledge). Gliders have been equipped for IMC flight for most of the last century. And the ANO, the type certificate, and operational regulations permit this.

Airliners have been traditionally kept safe from collision (although not always successfully) by segregation and control. The result is that enormous areas of the air are sterilised for the exclusive use of IFR aircraft, and strict separation apropriate for the days of poor or non-existent primary radar exists.

If airliners now wish to fly full of passengers in the open FIR, and require other aircraft to fit expensive equipment, then they might consider investing in the safety of their passengers.

And I suspect it will be an airliner hitting a glider rather than the other way round..............

[Fitter2]

Actually Fuji, the collision happened in VMC, open IFR.

More a good case for limiting aircraft that cannot practically operate 'see-and-be-seen' to controlled airspace.

Perspective depends on which side of the fence you sit.

[gpn01]

Hi Fuji, have to dispue your logic here....

(a) "No one is flying powered in IMC without a transponder. This mean RIS works."

and

(b) "90% of the glider traffic in IMC are crossing their fingers it would seem"

Given that there is (and always has been) the potential for a power IMC pilot to be in the same bit of sky as an IMC glider, using your logic in (a) then this means that (b) works too.

The only difference between (a) and (b) is that in (a) the pilot presumes that there isn't a risk (which is incorrect) whereas the aviator in (b) assumes that there is a risk (which is correct).

[Fuji Abound]

Fitter2

My point was about the outcome of the impact.

Do you think the outcome would have been any more or less pretty in IMC?

You retort that see and avoid should have worked (or would have worked if the aircraft was travelling more slowly) which may be a reasonable point but please remind me how it is going to work in IMC?

If nearly all of you dont have a transponder and 95% (is that correct) dont have FLARM are the vast majority of you relying on good fortune?

gpn01

I know you are relying on the big sky to keep you out of trouble. I agree it does so nearly all the time. But there is the catch. The accepted wisdom is the rest of us think there is a risk and that is why we prefer operating with a RIS and fitting a transponder. Powered aircraft never had transponders and then they had tansponders but didnt get TCAS, now we talk about mode S and ADS-B. These technologies add a further layer of protection - they may not be perfect, but in an enviroment in which you cant see they aint half a comfort.

[Pace]

>Fitter2

My point was about the outcome of the impact.

Do you think the outcome would have been any more or less pretty in IMC?

You retort that see and avoid should have worked (or would have worked if the aircraft was travelling more slowly) which may be a reasonable point but please remind me how it is going to work in IMC?

If nearly all of you dont have a transponder and 95% (is that correct) dont have FLARM are the vast majority of you relying on good fortune<

Fuji

Well said! and I add this extract from the investigation

>I'm led to believe that the ASG-29 had a working transponder on board but that it wasn't currently powered up. If that's the case, it means the glider was virtually invisible to the jet's pilot and co-pilot, not to mention Reno Air Traffic Control. Even if the jet pilots couldn't have visually detected the glider (which is pretty difficult going that fast), their TCAS would have picked up the transponder signal and suggested a safe diversion.

If the glider was not equipped with a transponder, that was a serious oversight. While they're not required (yet?), it's a very good idea to have one if you're flying in busy airspace.<




Pace

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by Fitter2

Actually Fuji, the collision happened in VMC, open IFR.

More a good case for limiting aircraft that cannot practically operate 'see-and-be-seen' to controlled airspace.

Actually the collision was in controlled airspace. Remember, the UK is very rare in having absolutely controlled airspace (class A) adjacent to absolutely uncontrolled (Class G). In the US, like many other countries, most airspace is Class E (IFR is controlled VFR is not). There is a reason a speed limit exists for flights below 10,000 ft (to help see and avoid work). And equally why there is a strong desire from the guys doing 300 knots to have some technical help in avoiding other airspace users.

Originally Posted by Fitter2

Glider are not equipped for IFR flight (and never have been to my knowledge).

What equipment is required for a glider to be legal for IFR? It isn't specifically mentioned in the ANO, but night (which is IFR in the UK is) and doesn't seem to require anything other than a chart and the basic essential information. Even a powered aircraft only needs an altimeter and a turn and slip indicator. (plus a radio, which a glider seems to be specifically exempt from with regard to IFR in Class G). On the other hand, from NoD's extract from the BGA, IMC in a glider is clearly recognised as a high risk activity as everyone needs to wear parachutes!

[flybymike]

An ex gliding instructor chum of mine once commented to me that he regularly flew gliders in IMC with only a turn and slip, ASI, VSI and altimeter.
adding rather laconically on one occasion.."only ever spun out once or twice old boy..."

[englishal]

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 ?

Unfortunately at the moment lots of "airspace" is not available to certain aeroplane types, due to performance reasons, qualification reasons and equipment issues.

Personally I'd be happy with all airspace above say FL100 - FL195 being class D so you need a clearance to enter. Then people could fly from Lands End to to the top of Scotland in a straight line with an ATC clearance, VFR or IFR!

[Fuji Abound]

Even a powered aircraft only needs an altimeter and a turn and slip indicator.

Not so.

There are two layers - the ANO specifies the equipment required in UK airspace, but the aircraft must also be operated in accord with the POH and the aircraft manufacturers limitations.

There is nothing in the ANO to prevent you doing 6G aeros in a Warrior but you had better watch out if you do - fortunately the POH specifically prohibits such activity.

Most manufacturers will not certify an aircraft for IMC operations unless it fulfills their quipage specifications. For example consider the DA40 range which comprises aircraft with three avionics fit, day VFR, day VFR night in VMC and IFR.

I dont know what the average glider POH says - is a glider specifically approved by its manufacturer for operations in IMC, or are the manufacturers silent on the matter, or do pilots ignore the POH and operate illegally?

There is one further layer - perhaps the most important - it is called common sense.

It is for that reason that I think you would be mad to fly cross country in IMC in a glider without some means of telling other airspace users you are there, in the same way you would be just as mad with an IR and an aircraft appropriately equipped to fly an ILS to minima cold turkey. Of course every so often someone tries - trouble is you only get one chance to get it wrong. They usually kill themselves.

[Fitter2]

Hello Fuji

For the majority of gliders currently in production (including mine) there is a required equipment fit for VMC flight, and an additional minimum equipment list for IMC flight.

Nothing illegal proving the ANO or equivalent of the country of operation permits it.

My aircraft is operated in accordance with the POH. Foolish not to, really.

[Fitter2]

However, it has been pointed out by another PPruner that the thread started regarding a collision in VMC between two powered aircraft. Both allegedly talking to the tower of the same airfield. A real, unfortunately demonstrated risk.

Before starting a fight about what others who's modus operandi is clearly not understood, why not address the serious issue - or start another thread?

[Fuji Abound]

Fiiter2

Interesting.

What is the minimium fit for IMC?

[Fitter2]

In addition to ASI, Altimeter and Compass

Turn and slip indicator (approved type in the specified equipment list) or attitude indicator (again a list of approved make/models is specified).

However, I would not enter cloud in a modern high performance glider with only a T&S, although I have several hours in lower performance gliders with only T&S as a gyro.

I am comfortable with a current generation EFIS such as Dynon D10A, but the type certificate requires me to use an AH - RCA26AK-3 for example (which doesn't do as good a job, and doesn't have an interbnal standby supply - such is certification).

[IO540]

I like flying VMC on top. Exactly zero chance, I would think, of meeting a glider there - no updraughts.

One is extremely unlikely to encounter any other traffic there, for that matter.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

I dont know what the average glider POH says - is a glider specifically approved by its manufacturer for operations in IMC...

I doubt any airframe manufacturer certifies their aircraft for flight in IMC. For flight under IFR yes, but for flying near a cloud??? (depending on the airspace)

Not withstanding the technicality, your point is correct. However, it does seem fairly common for gliders to soar in clouds (after all there is good lift there) so I would be very surprised if glider POHs in general prohibited cloud flying, or require anything more than a modest set of gyros.

Back to the point.

I think people have shown-

• There is a significant risk of glider/glider collision (and FLARM seems a good product to address this)
• There is good evidence that there is a powered/powered risk at low levels and in the circuit (and with recent incidents, even radios and ATC don't eliminate this risk), In addition the range of powered aircraft involved is quite large from Microlights to Fast Jets - but almost always under 1500 feet.
• There is some evidence of Glider/Power collision risk at altitude and the current approach to equipage and rules doesn't address this with anything other than big sky (think about the time you have to make a manoeuvre and how violent that manoeuvre is if you see a target at 1 mile closing at 300-350 knots).
• There is unfortunately compelling evidence that even with the best technology available, CAT can still hit each other enroute- so at the GA level this isn't ever going to be a risk free game.
• Most of the text has been about collision risk in IMC - and this just doesn't seem to happen (probably because there are a lot less aircraft flying in IMC than VMC)

My conclusion is the powered guys have a set of challenges that need answers and the glider guys do - but at low level those answers are probably different. It is at high altitude, mixing with high speed aircraft where the glider/power conversation is relevant - and due to airspace, that doesn't really seem to happen in the UK. Unless IMC traffic density increases a lot, we probably have a lot of better things to worry about than a glider/power collision in IMC at 2500 feet.