Improve Light A/C Separation
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin400, what type was it? I can have an educated guess 
. And a stab at the reg!
Cheers
Whirls
. And a stab at the reg!Cheers
Whirls
Robin400,
In this case, I don't think that FLARM would have helped you. As ShyTorque has already pointed out, CAA certification issues essentially preclude the installation of FLARM in G reg PT helicopters. So, even if you had FLARM, you wouldn't have recieved any traffic warning (seeing as FLARM boxes can only talk to other FLARM boxes.)
However, the helicopter would definetely have had a transponder installed (which, hopefully, was transmitting Mode C.) Condsidering that you were in a powered aircraft (I'm guessing some sort of Robin
), then a TAS or TCAS system would've given you a traffic warning.
In this case, I don't think that FLARM would have helped you. As ShyTorque has already pointed out, CAA certification issues essentially preclude the installation of FLARM in G reg PT helicopters. So, even if you had FLARM, you wouldn't have recieved any traffic warning (seeing as FLARM boxes can only talk to other FLARM boxes.)
However, the helicopter would definetely have had a transponder installed (which, hopefully, was transmitting Mode C.) Condsidering that you were in a powered aircraft (I'm guessing some sort of Robin
), then a TAS or TCAS system would've given you a traffic warning.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 80
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the helicopter would definetely have had a transponder installed (which, hopefully, was transmitting Mode C.) Condsidering that you were in a powered aircraft (I'm guessing some sort of Robin 
), then a TAS or TCAS system would've given you a traffic warning.
), then a TAS or TCAS system would've given you a traffic warning.
It is my choice that I fly in G class airspace but you have little option with your type of ops.
Bravo73
I am sure you (or ShyTorque) must be right about certification.
But since the CAA are now merely agents for EASA on certification issues, and many German and Austrian PT (and IMC rated) helicopters, EASA certified, have FLARM fitted I am puzzled why the difference.
I am not saying FLARM is THE answer, but it is a practical option for truly interoperable traffic awareness in the open FIR.
I am sure you (or ShyTorque) must be right about certification.
But since the CAA are now merely agents for EASA on certification issues, and many German and Austrian PT (and IMC rated) helicopters, EASA certified, have FLARM fitted I am puzzled why the difference.
I am not saying FLARM is THE answer, but it is a practical option for truly interoperable traffic awareness in the open FIR.
Fitter2,
I hope that you're right about the EASA certification. It would be great to have a low cost traffic alerting system fitted to all of the company aircraft.
But you seem to forget FLARM's (current) major achilles heel - it needs another FLARM box to 'talk' to. As another poster has already pointed out, until there is 'critical mass' and the majority of aircraft have FLARM fitted, then the system is of limited use. This isn't realistically going to happen unless it is mandated.
Which takes us back to transponders. You don't need me to tell you that the majority of (powered) aircraft already have these fitted. So it is reasonable to suggest that any traffic alerting system should use this current 'infrastructure' (for want of a better word.)
Also, do you accept my previous point that position reports given by aircraft wrt to VFR features are useless to other aircraft that are currently IMC?
I hope that you're right about the EASA certification. It would be great to have a low cost traffic alerting system fitted to all of the company aircraft.
But you seem to forget FLARM's (current) major achilles heel - it needs another FLARM box to 'talk' to. As another poster has already pointed out, until there is 'critical mass' and the majority of aircraft have FLARM fitted, then the system is of limited use. This isn't realistically going to happen unless it is mandated.
Which takes us back to transponders. You don't need me to tell you that the majority of (powered) aircraft already have these fitted. So it is reasonable to suggest that any traffic alerting system should use this current 'infrastructure' (for want of a better word.)
Also, do you accept my previous point that position reports given by aircraft wrt to VFR features are useless to other aircraft that are currently IMC?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirligig is right about the apparent selfishness of this debate, though maybe wrong to be surprised about it. As I pointed out earlier, we all do a cost-benefit analysis, however imperfect, and use that to decide what we will do to avoid collision risks.
To put it simply, who in this discussion has installed any non-mandatory equipment in their aircraft which:
(a) benefits other airspace users more than it benefits them; and
(b) cost more than they reckon to be the benefit to them?
My guess would be exactly none, though I'm prepared to be corrected.
To put it simply, who in this discussion has installed any non-mandatory equipment in their aircraft which:
(a) benefits other airspace users more than it benefits them; and
(b) cost more than they reckon to be the benefit to them?
My guess would be exactly none, though I'm prepared to be corrected.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost benefit is interesting. Assuming about 30k aircraft in the UK needing to install kit (LAAs, Micros, Gliders, and some Spam cans) and a rough £2500 cost (assuming a new unit, certified, and allowing for some aircraft to have considerable cost beyond basic) and say £100/year in inspections and maintenance costs ...
That gives an investment of £75 million pounds plus a running cost of £3m pa. And for that, the investor has to rely on the person he is going to have a collision with having invested further money in some additional technology, or being able to get a radar service (the existence of which doesn't appear to have prevented the recent Coventry collision) - So by no means a 100% reduction in risk. Based on past history of midairs they rarely involve aicraft fitted with TCAS or even Skywatch). At the apocryphal £1m/life, this doesn't seem to be a great investment proposal.
On the other hand, if everyone did have a transponder, then a lot of people would spring for some kind of proximity detector. And even better, if these transponders were allowed to radiate a GPS position (without being a major mod with the administrative cost associated with that!), then we would have a very slick system.
That gives an investment of £75 million pounds plus a running cost of £3m pa. And for that, the investor has to rely on the person he is going to have a collision with having invested further money in some additional technology, or being able to get a radar service (the existence of which doesn't appear to have prevented the recent Coventry collision) - So by no means a 100% reduction in risk. Based on past history of midairs they rarely involve aicraft fitted with TCAS or even Skywatch). At the apocryphal £1m/life, this doesn't seem to be a great investment proposal.
On the other hand, if everyone did have a transponder, then a lot of people would spring for some kind of proximity detector. And even better, if these transponders were allowed to radiate a GPS position (without being a major mod with the administrative cost associated with that!), then we would have a very slick system.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,580
Received 437 Likes
on
230 Posts
Robin 400, I take it that you reported your Oulton Park Airprox because you should have if you believe the safety of your flight was compromised. That's what the system is for, not to allocate blame but to educate and hopefully increase future awareness.
It's an area I very seldom operate in and I have never done an airday at Oulton Park, and never landed there. If you read the context of my posts, my concerns are mainly about gliders flying in cloud - but you were presumably VFR / VMC in the VFR corridor, or close to it ?
I concur with B73, FLARM wouldn't alert you to the presence of helicopters but a TCAS equipped helicopter might have seen your transponder, which is a very good reason to use it with Mode C at all times, in accordance with CAA guidelines on the matter.
Rod1,
Rod, I agree that your chances of hitting an airliner is very small (so's mine, I also have TAS and Mode S transponder to assist lookout) BUT you operate in exactly the same band of airspace as VFR low level military turbo-props (Tucanos) flying at 240 kts, Police helicopters operating from the hover up to 140 kts anywhere in Class G and 160 kt corporate helicopters, such as the one I operate, flying to and from similar fields, small strips and back gardens, in worse weather conditions than you are allowed. From your comments above, I think you must be unaware that the great majority of the first two categories of aircraft I specifically mentioned, if not all of them, also have TCAS or TAS fitted and an increasingly large proportion of corporate twin helis have it fitted as standard from the factory.
Please do keep your transponder and mode C on if fitted, it most definitely helps keep all of us mutually safe in Class G. If I get an aircraft return on TCAS, it is most often well in advance of the human visual range (sometimes up to 25nms in ideal conditions) and I will do what I can to avoid you, often doing so without you even having been aware of my presence.
mmflyn,
In the case of the recent Coventry accident, from the details already in the public domain, I think it is more likely that aircraft did NOT have a radar service at the time of the collision, but we'll have to read the AAIB report.
It's an area I very seldom operate in and I have never done an airday at Oulton Park, and never landed there. If you read the context of my posts, my concerns are mainly about gliders flying in cloud - but you were presumably VFR / VMC in the VFR corridor, or close to it ?
I concur with B73, FLARM wouldn't alert you to the presence of helicopters but a TCAS equipped helicopter might have seen your transponder, which is a very good reason to use it with Mode C at all times, in accordance with CAA guidelines on the matter.
Rod1,
I fly an LAA aircraft into strips and small licensed airfields (all over the UK plus some of Europe). The chances of me colliding with an airliner are billions to one (I stay clear of ILS’s etc). The fractions of 1% of the traffic I am likely to hit that have ACAS are probably flying IFR. Likelihood of collision billions to one.
Please do keep your transponder and mode C on if fitted, it most definitely helps keep all of us mutually safe in Class G. If I get an aircraft return on TCAS, it is most often well in advance of the human visual range (sometimes up to 25nms in ideal conditions) and I will do what I can to avoid you, often doing so without you even having been aware of my presence.
mmflyn,
In the case of the recent Coventry accident, from the details already in the public domain, I think it is more likely that aircraft did NOT have a radar service at the time of the collision, but we'll have to read the AAIB report.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 30th Aug 2008 at 20:33.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
You are not getting this.
“BUT you operate in exactly the same band of airspace as VFR low level military turbo-props (Tucanos) flying at 240 kts”
I get it, Tucanos, big, scary, dangerous, but they do not fly on Saturdays, so we can forget them and 99% of the rest of the RAF. If we were to consider them then we stay above 2500 feet, which I do anyway if I can, 3000 - 7000 ft is my preferred band.
“Police helicopters operating from the hover up to 140 kts anywhere in Class G”
How many in the whole of the UK? Not much of a risk is it compared with the 100 + locally based non-transponder machines around my area.
“such as the one I operate, flying to and from similar fields, small strips and back gardens, in worse weather conditions than you are allowed.”
So I will be on the ground tinkering and not bumping into you.
The chances of me having a mid air are quite small. Most of this threat is low level on take off and landing from my strip. I have modified my procedures to increase my lookout and I will invest in kit which will help this problem, but it MUST detect the majority, which is 80% not transponder equipped (in my case) and likely to remain so.
Outside of this the threat is not sufficient to worry, beyond continuing to improve my lookout. My mode C will remain switched on and I will keep adjusting the accuracy as required (remember it is an uncertified installation), but will I spend a years maintenance on a second hand unit if it fails, probably not. Would I support FLARM for everybody, yes, it is the only currently available tec, which can be fitted to the aircraft that are a threat to me.
A comment was made that the majority of powered aircraft have transponders. If we are talking aircraft which are fitted with a single piston engine, then this is not the case. The BMAA and LAA fleets alone equal the c of a SEP fleet and is growing fast, SEP c of a numbers are falling.
Rod1
You are not getting this.
“BUT you operate in exactly the same band of airspace as VFR low level military turbo-props (Tucanos) flying at 240 kts”
I get it, Tucanos, big, scary, dangerous, but they do not fly on Saturdays, so we can forget them and 99% of the rest of the RAF. If we were to consider them then we stay above 2500 feet, which I do anyway if I can, 3000 - 7000 ft is my preferred band.
“Police helicopters operating from the hover up to 140 kts anywhere in Class G”
How many in the whole of the UK? Not much of a risk is it compared with the 100 + locally based non-transponder machines around my area.
“such as the one I operate, flying to and from similar fields, small strips and back gardens, in worse weather conditions than you are allowed.”
So I will be on the ground tinkering and not bumping into you.
The chances of me having a mid air are quite small. Most of this threat is low level on take off and landing from my strip. I have modified my procedures to increase my lookout and I will invest in kit which will help this problem, but it MUST detect the majority, which is 80% not transponder equipped (in my case) and likely to remain so.
Outside of this the threat is not sufficient to worry, beyond continuing to improve my lookout. My mode C will remain switched on and I will keep adjusting the accuracy as required (remember it is an uncertified installation), but will I spend a years maintenance on a second hand unit if it fails, probably not. Would I support FLARM for everybody, yes, it is the only currently available tec, which can be fitted to the aircraft that are a threat to me.
A comment was made that the majority of powered aircraft have transponders. If we are talking aircraft which are fitted with a single piston engine, then this is not the case. The BMAA and LAA fleets alone equal the c of a SEP fleet and is growing fast, SEP c of a numbers are falling.
Rod1
A comment was made that the majority of powered aircraft have transponders. If we are talking aircraft which are fitted with a single piston engine, then this is not the case. The BMAA and LAA fleets alone equal the c of a SEP fleet and is growing fast, SEP c of a numbers are falling.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get it, Tucanos, big, scary, dangerous, but they do not fly on Saturdays, so we can forget them and 99% of the rest of the RAF. If we were to consider them then we stay above 2500 feet, which I do anyway if I can, 3000 - 7000 ft is my preferred band.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,580
Received 437 Likes
on
230 Posts
Rod1,
I think I do. What I hoped to imply was that other aircraft do fly in all weathers. Corporate helicopters and others don't just fly in bad weather during the week, obviously many customers / owners use them extensively at weekends.
It's quite easy to inadvertently under-estimate the number of aircraft in the air if relying on theories, hopes and lookout alone. Even the best eyesight and lookout technique in the best VMC conditions is far from infallible although some seem unwilling to believe this. One of the boffins from the Institute of Aviation Medicine used to travel around RAF bases in the 1980s and 90s giving an excellent presentation dedicated to the subject; it was sobering. Ten years of using ACAS systems (TCAS 1 and TAS in my case) has confirmed to me everything he said about the design limitations of human eyes in an aviation environment.
Electronic devices also have their limitations, so could never be used in isolation. A mandatory common system would help; it seems we aren't likely to get one in the short term, so we ought to do all else we can to educate ourselves and fly with consideration of the requirements of other airspace users.
You are not getting this
It's quite easy to inadvertently under-estimate the number of aircraft in the air if relying on theories, hopes and lookout alone. Even the best eyesight and lookout technique in the best VMC conditions is far from infallible although some seem unwilling to believe this. One of the boffins from the Institute of Aviation Medicine used to travel around RAF bases in the 1980s and 90s giving an excellent presentation dedicated to the subject; it was sobering. Ten years of using ACAS systems (TCAS 1 and TAS in my case) has confirmed to me everything he said about the design limitations of human eyes in an aviation environment.
Electronic devices also have their limitations, so could never be used in isolation. A mandatory common system would help; it seems we aren't likely to get one in the short term, so we ought to do all else we can to educate ourselves and fly with consideration of the requirements of other airspace users.
Englishal:
Are the turbo-props etc. you fly IFR eqipped (and with IFR qualified crew), but choose to fly VFR in the open FIR?
If so, is that for economic or convenience?
Are the turbo-props etc. you fly IFR eqipped (and with IFR qualified crew), but choose to fly VFR in the open FIR?
If so, is that for economic or convenience?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Englishal but maybe I can help. Sometimes i position a Citation low level VFR around the London area below 2500 feet.
Sometimes we fly IFR rules out of controlled airspace and then have to descend VFR to the airport. This is usually to save time and hence money on short trips of less than 100 nm where its not practical to fly airways or going across the country W to E or E to W using military corridors.
Typically you may fly at FL150/160 etc with someone like London Military and then descend with a lower level RS descending to keep below controlled airspace.
Often you may fly out of a smallish airfield where you climb and may travel some distance before entering the airways system and are then reliant on a radar service or leave an airway and descend out of controlled airspace to the destination airfield.
Usually when they realise that you are a Citation the radar service keeps a special eye on you as you are a lot faster.
But it is a worry in those situations and a non transponding glider in IMC would be a big concern. We have TCAS and radar controllers will usually pick up transponding aircraft but may miss non transponding aircraft or put them down to clutter.
That is why I say that if you are not equipt to be in cloud and carry equiptment to minimise the risk to the rest of us you should not be there as the MK1 eyeball is of no use in cloud.
I would love to know why the glider regulations stipulate a parachute in cloud ? Is this incase they collide with another aircraft or the pilots are not competant at instrument flying and may loose control? It is madness.
In the same way as you can not enter the airways sytem with a U/S transponder you should not be allowed to fly in cloud without a fully serviceable transponder. If we cannot eyeball eachother its russian roulette.
It will probably take a glider taking out a 737 before the CAA change their double standards
Pace
Sometimes we fly IFR rules out of controlled airspace and then have to descend VFR to the airport. This is usually to save time and hence money on short trips of less than 100 nm where its not practical to fly airways or going across the country W to E or E to W using military corridors.
Typically you may fly at FL150/160 etc with someone like London Military and then descend with a lower level RS descending to keep below controlled airspace.
Often you may fly out of a smallish airfield where you climb and may travel some distance before entering the airways system and are then reliant on a radar service or leave an airway and descend out of controlled airspace to the destination airfield.
Usually when they realise that you are a Citation the radar service keeps a special eye on you as you are a lot faster.
But it is a worry in those situations and a non transponding glider in IMC would be a big concern. We have TCAS and radar controllers will usually pick up transponding aircraft but may miss non transponding aircraft or put them down to clutter.
That is why I say that if you are not equipt to be in cloud and carry equiptment to minimise the risk to the rest of us you should not be there as the MK1 eyeball is of no use in cloud.
I would love to know why the glider regulations stipulate a parachute in cloud ? Is this incase they collide with another aircraft or the pilots are not competant at instrument flying and may loose control? It is madness.
In the same way as you can not enter the airways sytem with a U/S transponder you should not be allowed to fly in cloud without a fully serviceable transponder. If we cannot eyeball eachother its russian roulette.
It will probably take a glider taking out a 737 before the CAA change their double standards
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 31st Aug 2008 at 21:09.
If we are to use the word 'madness', then I would suggest that to fly a fast aircraft outside controlled airspace to save money (as you claim is common) when IFR flight under segregation and control is available is equally worthy of that epithet.
A 737 full of passengers cutting corners through uncontrolled airspace to save money when using the airways sytem designed to ensure its safety, and then having a mid-air with anything legally entitled to be present would lay itself open to lawsuits that could bankrupt the company.
There are no double standards. There are separate standards for flight in controlled airspace, and flight outside controlled airspace.
Once again, the thread started about a different demonstrable risk with tragic results in VMC. Have you any suggestions to reduce that risk?
A 737 full of passengers cutting corners through uncontrolled airspace to save money when using the airways sytem designed to ensure its safety, and then having a mid-air with anything legally entitled to be present would lay itself open to lawsuits that could bankrupt the company.
There are no double standards. There are separate standards for flight in controlled airspace, and flight outside controlled airspace.
Once again, the thread started about a different demonstrable risk with tragic results in VMC. Have you any suggestions to reduce that risk?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is why I say that if you are not equipt to be in cloud and carry equiptment to minimise the risk to the rest of us you should not be there as the MK1 eyeball is of no use in cloud.
I would love to know why the glider regulations stipulate a parachute in cloud ? Is this incase they collide with another aircraft or the pilots are not competant at instrument flying and may loose control? It is madness.
I would love to know why the glider regulations stipulate a parachute in cloud ? Is this incase they collide with another aircraft or the pilots are not competant at instrument flying and may loose control? It is madness.
(on the other hand, the glider community seems to persistently ignore the fact that there are lots of high speed aircraft (particularly above 10000 feet) that have no possibility of avoiding an aircraft visually acquired at say a mile - that in most countries other than the UK ARE in controlled airspace, which is managed effectively the same as the UK Class G airspace above 10k and do have just as much right to be there - Do the math on a 350 knot closure - target spotted at 1 mile, 5 seconds to decide climb or descent and crank in a 2 G climb or zero G push over - and you get a bit more than 300 ft separation, 10 seconds to see it, think about the pax in a zero g push and all you have is glider spar sticking out of your window)
I am not a glider pilot (other than one enjoyable weekend), but I believe the parachute requirement can only exist due to the rellatively high risk of an unrecoverable loss of control. This can occur due to
1 - Airframe damange recovering from an unsual attitude
2 - Airframe damage due to a collision
3 - Being unable to recover from an unusual attitude.
Given the minimal attitude kit for a glider to be 'IMC' capable, there must be a reasonable number of loss of control incidents. The relatively slow speed and easy ability to detect uncoordinated flight, I suspect allows a much higher degree of recovery from typically fatal spam can IMC loss of control incidents - however, not such a high level that they don't peridoically (in the words of another poster) spin out the bottom of cloud - hence the need for the chute.
I suspect as well they have a high collision risk with each other (consistent with the statistics) due to several operating in cloud in close proximity (but at low speed).
I would love to see a practical and economic collision avoidance system and totally believe in the fallibility of the Mark I eyeball, but if we count up the number of helicopter and powered aircraft fatalities involving a glider in IMC it is going to be a number less than 1 - there are other areas worthy of the attention - like why we can't see each other in the circuit, like in the last year why operating in IMC seems to be a problem for both helos and fixed wing.
Last edited by mm_flynn; 31st Aug 2008 at 21:38.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fitter2
You obviously dont know what you are talking about! fly in a 737 on holiday out of humberside or inverness and your holiday jet is out of controlled airspace on a RAS service until it reaches the airway. And there are plenty of airports like those that handle heavies.
Or even worse fly RyanAir out of Londonderry in northern Ireland and I will leave it to you to guess why?
So I am sure Easyjet and RyanAir will be in for being sued
Pace
You obviously dont know what you are talking about! fly in a 737 on holiday out of humberside or inverness and your holiday jet is out of controlled airspace on a RAS service until it reaches the airway. And there are plenty of airports like those that handle heavies.
Or even worse fly RyanAir out of Londonderry in northern Ireland and I will leave it to you to guess why?
So I am sure Easyjet and RyanAir will be in for being sued
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 31st Aug 2008 at 22:24.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have given some thought to this since I dropped out the discussion because the discussion seemed to have run its course.
Run its course it may, but two aspects nag me.
The fact of the matter is there are two collision avoidance systems in use which are not compatible. All other factors aside that makes no sense. An analogy. There was a time when bumpers on cars all varied in height. It made no sense. We saw fit to standardise the height so that most would line up with each other and have a chance of doing the job they were designed for. Just common sense.
Aviation is deadly serious about safety, and yet we perpetuate a system with this inherent incompatibility.
FLARM, transponders and TAS are incompatible.
Now it will appear that because I am from the powered fraternity I am biassed towards transponders - and perhaps I am. However I have to take into account the existing infra structure that supports transponders - I have nothing against FLARM in principle, but I cannot ignore that it is a system unlikely to be adopted by a European wide regulatory authority that is on a path to more widely mandate the use of transponders.
The second aspect that nags me, is the value of insisting all flying machines carry transponders. On the one hand the evidence is persuasive that the risk of collision is tiny. I cant think of any other safety initiative where the cost woild justify the lives potentially saved to a lesser extent.
However, I also cannot ignore the individuals responsibility. It is horrific to imagine being involved in a mid air particularly in cases were you have been the lucky one to survive and others die. I guess most of us would be left questioning whether we had done enough to avoid the collision. The cost of a mode C transponder is a few hundreds of pounds, the cost of a PCAS unit is even less if you want to be active in collision avoidance on your own account. This is relatively little for us as individuals to pay in order to take another step towards being satisfied we have taken every measure we reasonably can. In short the individual cost is insignificant compared with the results of a collision. It is the individual component that defies the simple cost return analysis.
We each talk about our rights - our freedom. We want to be free to glide without being under anyone’s control, we want to be free to route point to point without being directed around the circumference because that is the only way AT can accommodate us, we want to be free to access airports outside of CAS. In short we each want these freedoms for different reasons and we each believe we are entitled. However, with freedom comes responsibility. Responsibility to demonstrate we can manage the risk. That’s one reason why I will always try and get a RIS outside CAS, that is another reason why I will fly in IMC only if I really must and then for the shortest possible time, it’s a reason for investing in a CAS and mode S and it’s a reason for working hard on my look out so I maintain the best look out I can. Having done all of these things I cant manage the risk of running into a glider in IMC because I have no way of knowing it is there. I cant manage it because it would seem even if I had FLARM, most gliders don’t, and even if I listened out on glider frequencies the fact that a glider had entered IMC based on a point on my route of 300 nm with which I might not be familiar and then without any assurance of operating at a predetermined height the information would be of very little help to me. In fact if I could relate the information to my position, the information is effectively telling me even though I have as much right to be in the same airspace it is me that should b”“”&^ off because that airspace has been sterilised, it has been declared purple, because the captain of a glider says so.
In short I am uncomfortable because it seems to me a whole load of reasons are being given by those who want privileges unique from other users of the airspace, and worse, by users who believe that it is everyone else who should stay clear of the patch of sky they decide to occupy, without their being prepared to modify the way they go about their business one iota.
Sorry chaps, but it is for those reasons that I feel your case does not stack up. I respect your freedom as much as I hope you respect mine. However, I don’t respect your freedom to do absolutely nothing that would be effective in avoiding your colliding with me, or giving me the chance to avoid colliding with you.
You can of course do one very simple thing. Buy a PCAS. It weighs about as much as a matchbox. It runs for around 8 hours on two AA batteries. It will stay put with simple attachment through at least 6G of aeros (that is the most I have tried at any rate) and best of all it will cost you a couple of hundred quid and you don’t need to fit a transponder. At least you are talking my language - its not perfect but you will have a good chance of getting out of my way even if I have no idea you are there.
Tell me why you wouldn’t buy one of these? Please tell me why you wouldnt get all your mates to do so, and even mandate the carriage voluntarily for IMC ops? I’d really like you to take one small, simple and cheap step to talk my language.
(I hope I am correct that PCAS does not require a transponder on the aircraft to which it is fitted - being able to rely on its own in built altimiter - I must re read the manual).
Run its course it may, but two aspects nag me.
The fact of the matter is there are two collision avoidance systems in use which are not compatible. All other factors aside that makes no sense. An analogy. There was a time when bumpers on cars all varied in height. It made no sense. We saw fit to standardise the height so that most would line up with each other and have a chance of doing the job they were designed for. Just common sense.
Aviation is deadly serious about safety, and yet we perpetuate a system with this inherent incompatibility.
FLARM, transponders and TAS are incompatible.
Now it will appear that because I am from the powered fraternity I am biassed towards transponders - and perhaps I am. However I have to take into account the existing infra structure that supports transponders - I have nothing against FLARM in principle, but I cannot ignore that it is a system unlikely to be adopted by a European wide regulatory authority that is on a path to more widely mandate the use of transponders.
The second aspect that nags me, is the value of insisting all flying machines carry transponders. On the one hand the evidence is persuasive that the risk of collision is tiny. I cant think of any other safety initiative where the cost woild justify the lives potentially saved to a lesser extent.
However, I also cannot ignore the individuals responsibility. It is horrific to imagine being involved in a mid air particularly in cases were you have been the lucky one to survive and others die. I guess most of us would be left questioning whether we had done enough to avoid the collision. The cost of a mode C transponder is a few hundreds of pounds, the cost of a PCAS unit is even less if you want to be active in collision avoidance on your own account. This is relatively little for us as individuals to pay in order to take another step towards being satisfied we have taken every measure we reasonably can. In short the individual cost is insignificant compared with the results of a collision. It is the individual component that defies the simple cost return analysis.
We each talk about our rights - our freedom. We want to be free to glide without being under anyone’s control, we want to be free to route point to point without being directed around the circumference because that is the only way AT can accommodate us, we want to be free to access airports outside of CAS. In short we each want these freedoms for different reasons and we each believe we are entitled. However, with freedom comes responsibility. Responsibility to demonstrate we can manage the risk. That’s one reason why I will always try and get a RIS outside CAS, that is another reason why I will fly in IMC only if I really must and then for the shortest possible time, it’s a reason for investing in a CAS and mode S and it’s a reason for working hard on my look out so I maintain the best look out I can. Having done all of these things I cant manage the risk of running into a glider in IMC because I have no way of knowing it is there. I cant manage it because it would seem even if I had FLARM, most gliders don’t, and even if I listened out on glider frequencies the fact that a glider had entered IMC based on a point on my route of 300 nm with which I might not be familiar and then without any assurance of operating at a predetermined height the information would be of very little help to me. In fact if I could relate the information to my position, the information is effectively telling me even though I have as much right to be in the same airspace it is me that should b”“”&^ off because that airspace has been sterilised, it has been declared purple, because the captain of a glider says so.
In short I am uncomfortable because it seems to me a whole load of reasons are being given by those who want privileges unique from other users of the airspace, and worse, by users who believe that it is everyone else who should stay clear of the patch of sky they decide to occupy, without their being prepared to modify the way they go about their business one iota.
Sorry chaps, but it is for those reasons that I feel your case does not stack up. I respect your freedom as much as I hope you respect mine. However, I don’t respect your freedom to do absolutely nothing that would be effective in avoiding your colliding with me, or giving me the chance to avoid colliding with you.
You can of course do one very simple thing. Buy a PCAS. It weighs about as much as a matchbox. It runs for around 8 hours on two AA batteries. It will stay put with simple attachment through at least 6G of aeros (that is the most I have tried at any rate) and best of all it will cost you a couple of hundred quid and you don’t need to fit a transponder. At least you are talking my language - its not perfect but you will have a good chance of getting out of my way even if I have no idea you are there.
Tell me why you wouldn’t buy one of these? Please tell me why you wouldnt get all your mates to do so, and even mandate the carriage voluntarily for IMC ops? I’d really like you to take one small, simple and cheap step to talk my language.
(I hope I am correct that PCAS does not require a transponder on the aircraft to which it is fitted - being able to rely on its own in built altimiter - I must re read the manual).
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 31st Aug 2008 at 22:36.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Fuji, if PCAS provides an adequate compromise for all airspace participants then why isn't the CAA recommending its use instead of Mode-S ? If it really is low power, small, easy to use and within a reasonable price range then I agree it would be a good candidate for everybody to adopt. The only immediate thing that springs to mind is whether it contains flight vector calculations that take into consideration how each type of airspace user flies (thinking simply that in my glider it's rare for me to fly straight and level for any longer than about ten seconds as I'm constantly climbing, descending and changing heading). Would certainly be interested to understand more though.