Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to Rod, I was able to fly my glider with his Zaon MRX PCAS unit yesterday for 1 ½ hours, on a local soaring flight from Ridgewell – between the NE end of the Stansted CTA, Haverhill, Sudbury and Bury St Edmunds. For those who don’t know, this is a choke area for GA skirting the Stansted CTA to get from the south east to the midlands etc..
I am impressed. The MRX detected between 10 and 20 transponding aircraft, mostly at ranges of 3-5 miles, and almost all below my height. I could not see any of those, nor would expect to. (Visibility was not very good at long distance below the horizon – it was a bit grey.)
I suspect another of the contacts was a departure from Stansted runway 08, from the rate of change of range and relative height. There was nothing close enough to set it in “Alert” mode until after I landed, which I will come back to.
There was no interference with my Flarm, GPS, or anything else. (I had also repositioned the Flarm GPS aerial for a different reason – Flarm had not been working well in steeply banked turns, and this too was now OK.)
The MRX unit only obscured a very small part of the field of view though my canopy, not in a direction from which collision threats are likely (1 o’clock, below the horizon) in the only place I can accommodate it.
At £399, and easily carried as personal equipment not needing EASA approval, I shall be buying one.
-------------------
After I landed, I got the only alert while it was switched on: 0.5 miles, 1000 feet higher than me on the ground. I was at one end of our airstrip, about ½ mile from the launch point. A GA spamcan of some sort was flying over our winch launch point, in flagrant disregard of Rule 12. Fortunately, a winch launch was not taking place at the time, but my launch had been to 1300 feet, and others went higher. Our site is notified as having launches up to 2000 feet. (Also, we were displaying the required ground signal - not that that CAA requirement is of the slightest use in preventing such incursions).
I did not have it switched on when earlier, a helicopter also flew over the launch cable run at an estimated 600 feet, but I expect it would have alerted that too.
Gliding clubs with winch launching are forever being troubled by incursions such as these. The BGA has written to every GA aerodrome it could find, enclosing a sample of winch cable to show what you can fly into. Most years there seem to be a few airprox reports involving GA doing similar things. Nothing we have tried stops them. And, after all, it was the glider pilots that GA killed in the 1981 incident I wrote about in post 33 of this thread.
What was that expression Pace used? “ . . . we are not prepared to compromise to do anything to make . . . safer Who are the arrogant ones the self centred ones? Us or them?”
I have now recommended that my gliding club considers obtaining a PCAS to alert us before we start a launch, as a fast GA can emerge from over the distant trees during the time between checking all clear /giving the start signal, and completion of a winch launch. We probably need to do more trials to see if it is effective when there is no visual line of sight from launch point to intruder. Other gliding clubs have nearer trees and it might benefit them more, if that works.
---------------------------
In response to a few other points mentioned since I last posted;
Re talking to Trig or anyone else about self-contained low power etc. transponder: I don’t think it has a future with present technology. The CAA got at least one potential manufacturer to build and try a working prototype. I was one of those who was shown a mock-up and visited by the maker to assess viability etc.. I was much later told that trials showed it needed virtually the same power as the ICAO standard to be detected when required by ground-based radar. The mock-up unit I was shown was much bulkier than first intimations, to accommodate batteries and insulation to address issues of temperature mentioned by Jim in post 199. I have been told that the CAA has quietly dropped its hopes for that sort of solution – if anybody knows differently, please tell me.
I still have the hole in my panel for a Trig 2-part unit WHICH I CANNOT FIT BECAUSE EASA/CAA WILL NOT LET ME. (See my post 47.)
Fuji, many if not all new gliders have approved antenna installation schemes. I don’t know if any others, like mine, limit the installation to only certain selected transponders of which Trig is not one. Some have larger battery carrying potential. I have mentioned before that I have made a way of carrying more batteries in my glider, but only because I am not the tallest of pilots. But if the EASA certification for installation exists, and it limits the permitted transponders and does not include Trig, I cannot fit it.
Under the pre-EASA BGA technical regulation (which worked more satisfactorily than CAA regulation applied to most of the rest of GA) and had the necessary flexibility to cope with new developments efficiently, I could have done it. Now, I can’t. So much for the “S” in EASA.
------------------------
My conclusion is that what Rod suggested - Flarm + PCAS - is the best “interoperability” we can hope for at present. I can then detect Pace etc. coming. Those power GA who choose to carry Flarm can detect me.
By the way, Flarm in GA would also help avoid non-cloud collisions with gliders – the sort that has actually happened, and of which many more airproxes are reported, and where IMHO, backed up by statistics, by far the greater danger for GA/glider events exists. It would also help GA/GA incidents outside cloud, which are far more common than glider/GA in cloud.
These can be augmented by other voluntary actions where people can and will, including:
- powered GA in cloud to monitor 130.4 in cloud where gliders might be present (not Pace of course, when “ . . . Normally too busy talking on other frequencies”),
- gliders switching from 130.4 if no other gliders are in cloud in the area, and talking to an obvious ATC unit where there is one. (But as I have written before, about the area north of Ridgewell “ . . . how about [GA] should call out on 130.4 to see which gliders are there, rather than expect us to know if GA and/or mil a/c are on Mildenhall/Lakenheath, or Wattisham, or Essex Radar, or London info, or Cambridge, or illegally using 123.45, or non-radio and we need extra-sensory perception. Sauce for the goose . . .”
My further 2p worth. Probably my last on this thread.
Chris N.
I am impressed. The MRX detected between 10 and 20 transponding aircraft, mostly at ranges of 3-5 miles, and almost all below my height. I could not see any of those, nor would expect to. (Visibility was not very good at long distance below the horizon – it was a bit grey.)
I suspect another of the contacts was a departure from Stansted runway 08, from the rate of change of range and relative height. There was nothing close enough to set it in “Alert” mode until after I landed, which I will come back to.
There was no interference with my Flarm, GPS, or anything else. (I had also repositioned the Flarm GPS aerial for a different reason – Flarm had not been working well in steeply banked turns, and this too was now OK.)
The MRX unit only obscured a very small part of the field of view though my canopy, not in a direction from which collision threats are likely (1 o’clock, below the horizon) in the only place I can accommodate it.
At £399, and easily carried as personal equipment not needing EASA approval, I shall be buying one.
-------------------
After I landed, I got the only alert while it was switched on: 0.5 miles, 1000 feet higher than me on the ground. I was at one end of our airstrip, about ½ mile from the launch point. A GA spamcan of some sort was flying over our winch launch point, in flagrant disregard of Rule 12. Fortunately, a winch launch was not taking place at the time, but my launch had been to 1300 feet, and others went higher. Our site is notified as having launches up to 2000 feet. (Also, we were displaying the required ground signal - not that that CAA requirement is of the slightest use in preventing such incursions).
I did not have it switched on when earlier, a helicopter also flew over the launch cable run at an estimated 600 feet, but I expect it would have alerted that too.
Gliding clubs with winch launching are forever being troubled by incursions such as these. The BGA has written to every GA aerodrome it could find, enclosing a sample of winch cable to show what you can fly into. Most years there seem to be a few airprox reports involving GA doing similar things. Nothing we have tried stops them. And, after all, it was the glider pilots that GA killed in the 1981 incident I wrote about in post 33 of this thread.
What was that expression Pace used? “ . . . we are not prepared to compromise to do anything to make . . . safer Who are the arrogant ones the self centred ones? Us or them?”
I have now recommended that my gliding club considers obtaining a PCAS to alert us before we start a launch, as a fast GA can emerge from over the distant trees during the time between checking all clear /giving the start signal, and completion of a winch launch. We probably need to do more trials to see if it is effective when there is no visual line of sight from launch point to intruder. Other gliding clubs have nearer trees and it might benefit them more, if that works.
---------------------------
In response to a few other points mentioned since I last posted;
Re talking to Trig or anyone else about self-contained low power etc. transponder: I don’t think it has a future with present technology. The CAA got at least one potential manufacturer to build and try a working prototype. I was one of those who was shown a mock-up and visited by the maker to assess viability etc.. I was much later told that trials showed it needed virtually the same power as the ICAO standard to be detected when required by ground-based radar. The mock-up unit I was shown was much bulkier than first intimations, to accommodate batteries and insulation to address issues of temperature mentioned by Jim in post 199. I have been told that the CAA has quietly dropped its hopes for that sort of solution – if anybody knows differently, please tell me.
I still have the hole in my panel for a Trig 2-part unit WHICH I CANNOT FIT BECAUSE EASA/CAA WILL NOT LET ME. (See my post 47.)
Fuji, many if not all new gliders have approved antenna installation schemes. I don’t know if any others, like mine, limit the installation to only certain selected transponders of which Trig is not one. Some have larger battery carrying potential. I have mentioned before that I have made a way of carrying more batteries in my glider, but only because I am not the tallest of pilots. But if the EASA certification for installation exists, and it limits the permitted transponders and does not include Trig, I cannot fit it.
Under the pre-EASA BGA technical regulation (which worked more satisfactorily than CAA regulation applied to most of the rest of GA) and had the necessary flexibility to cope with new developments efficiently, I could have done it. Now, I can’t. So much for the “S” in EASA.
------------------------
My conclusion is that what Rod suggested - Flarm + PCAS - is the best “interoperability” we can hope for at present. I can then detect Pace etc. coming. Those power GA who choose to carry Flarm can detect me.
By the way, Flarm in GA would also help avoid non-cloud collisions with gliders – the sort that has actually happened, and of which many more airproxes are reported, and where IMHO, backed up by statistics, by far the greater danger for GA/glider events exists. It would also help GA/GA incidents outside cloud, which are far more common than glider/GA in cloud.
These can be augmented by other voluntary actions where people can and will, including:
- powered GA in cloud to monitor 130.4 in cloud where gliders might be present (not Pace of course, when “ . . . Normally too busy talking on other frequencies”),
- gliders switching from 130.4 if no other gliders are in cloud in the area, and talking to an obvious ATC unit where there is one. (But as I have written before, about the area north of Ridgewell “ . . . how about [GA] should call out on 130.4 to see which gliders are there, rather than expect us to know if GA and/or mil a/c are on Mildenhall/Lakenheath, or Wattisham, or Essex Radar, or London info, or Cambridge, or illegally using 123.45, or non-radio and we need extra-sensory perception. Sauce for the goose . . .”
My further 2p worth. Probably my last on this thread.
Chris N.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chrisN, thanks for that long & informative post.
As to the title of this thread: "Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?"
I guess the correct reply is that it always has been. Gliders have been allowed to fly in clouds for many, many years and so has GA without a transponder. I was rather shocked when I did my Bronze paper that the only requirements for cloud flying were to wear a parachute and make a call on 130.4 if I had a radio! I did rather expect taking some training to be required rather than just a good idea... Maybe that goes back to the days of speed-limit airbrakes which my glider most certainly doesn't have.
Had a quick look at the Zaon, wouldn't it be good to be able to combine it with Flarm (in one Flarm-sized box) to reduce the cockpit complications?
As to the title of this thread: "Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?"
I guess the correct reply is that it always has been. Gliders have been allowed to fly in clouds for many, many years and so has GA without a transponder. I was rather shocked when I did my Bronze paper that the only requirements for cloud flying were to wear a parachute and make a call on 130.4 if I had a radio! I did rather expect taking some training to be required rather than just a good idea... Maybe that goes back to the days of speed-limit airbrakes which my glider most certainly doesn't have.
Had a quick look at the Zaon, wouldn't it be good to be able to combine it with Flarm (in one Flarm-sized box) to reduce the cockpit complications?
Pace,
It doesn't fill me with delight, either. I'm sometimes the pilot in the other glider, who has made his calls on 130.4. IMC descents from mountain wave apart, most cloudflying in the UK is into active cumulus, usually from the base. There may be only one thermal core going into the cloud and it not unusual for the lower glider to catch up the one already there. That's put so many constraints on the positions of both machines that the risk of getting too close is getting pretty high.
Batteries. Lots of batteries! About 60Ah worth combined with a set of solar panels on the fuselage.
That Zaon gismo looks the business... I wonder if it will fit?
The thought of a Glider flying without even a radio in cloud is horrific.
You have gone a long way to making your own Glider as cloud friendly as possible I wish that was the case with all who want to fly IMC. How do you power your own Mode S?
That Zaon gismo looks the business... I wonder if it will fit?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That Zaon gismo looks the business... I wonder if it will fit?
Blimey! Where on earth do you put them all? I suspect (and haven't tried) that I might get another two safely fitted in mine, making the grand total of 28 Ah. Or prehaps you fly an electric Antares...
Your panel is rather full?
I think it might fit on top of the coaming next to the FLARM without obstructing any view out.
I'm intrigued to find out how glider pilots maintain attitude in clouds. Presumably they don't have enough battery power to run a gyro for an AI?
There is a magnetic compass, made by Bohli. It's gimballed on three axes and can be used as a blind-flying reference. If you're pretty good at that sort of thing... Cool not to need any power, though.
Quite a few of us have fitted one of these (They do an even cheaper D-6 now) as it it's less than a new mechanical one and only about 1,000x better. Can leave it on all day, too.
I learnt to fly gliders in cloud by trial and error using a T&S when I was 16. On my own. I had read the book on how to do it, just in case you think I was being irresponsible at that age. I only came out upside-down once, too.
Last edited by FullWings; 7th Jun 2009 at 20:52.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a glider attitude=speed, therefore if you maintain the attitude you maintain the speed. The corollory is if you maintain the speed then the attitude is being maintained also.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gpn01
In a glider attitude=speed, therefore if you maintain the attitude you maintain the speed. The corollary is if you maintain the speed then the attitude is being maintained also.
Originally Posted by FullWings
Quite a few of us have fitted one of these (They do an even cheaper D-6 now) as it it's less than a new mechanical one and only about 1,000x better. Can leave it on all day, too.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm intrigued to find out how glider pilots maintain attitude in clouds. Presumably they don't have enough battery power to run a gyro for an AI?
So what instrumentation do I have for IMC in my glider: ASI, Altimeter, VSI(2), OAT, T&S, Horizon, compass, radio, alternate pitot and backup batteries.
How does that work, when changing direction to ride the updraft in a cloud?
If you don't follow that, ask any pilot taught limited panel instrument flying the old fashioned way.
I recommend a book called 'Pilot's Summer' (ISBN 1-902914-12-0) a 'diary' of the Central Flying School instructors' course in the 1930s.
Soay,
The nominal power consumption is 8W, i.e. < 700mA from a 12V battery. That means you could run it continuously for 10hrs from an 8AH gel cell, which is the most-used power source in gliders. There are other instruments to feed, though. As another poster has pointed out, it is unusual to spend more than an hour IMC on any particular flight. The D-10 will provide an attitude reference within seconds of turning it on, so you only use it when you need it.
The older sort of horizons needed an inverter to run, so you had the losses in that as well as the high current drain when erecting the thing in the first place.
A transponder is a bit of a variable feast in that you have a fixed power drain plus how much it's being interrogated. In a busy bit of sky with lots of ground SSRs and TCAS units on the go, the old duty cycle can creep upwards. Also, if they become mandatory, you'll have to have it on all the time...
When thermalling 'partial panel' in gliders, you're trying to a) keep the airspeed within sensible limits and b) make your turning radius as small as possible to stay in the lift. You don't have any direct indication of attitude relative to your required datum so you have to derive it from turn rate and airspeed trends. The absolute pitch attitude is not important as you're not trying to maintain an altitude.
Turn rate steady, airspeed reducing: reduce pitch. Turn rate steady, airspeed increasing: increase pitch. Turn rate reducing, airspeed reducing: reduce pitch, increase bank, etc. It's a constant series of small corrections (hopefully!), seeing what effect the last correction had before continuing with the next, made more difficult if it's not a smooth thermal.
T&Ss fitted to gliders are generally tweaked to be much less sensitive as a rate one turn is useless. Rate 5-10 is more like it in a thermalling turn. When I climb in cloud on a horizon I use between 30 & 60 degrees of bank, depending on the thermal structure. Less on partial panel.
In following your link, I see that "Key safety features include an optional Li-ion backup battery which will keep the instrument running for 2 hours in the event of a power bus failure". Doesn't sound very suitable for a glider, particularly if it's so difficult to provide the power for a transponder.
The older sort of horizons needed an inverter to run, so you had the losses in that as well as the high current drain when erecting the thing in the first place.
A transponder is a bit of a variable feast in that you have a fixed power drain plus how much it's being interrogated. In a busy bit of sky with lots of ground SSRs and TCAS units on the go, the old duty cycle can creep upwards. Also, if they become mandatory, you'll have to have it on all the time...
How does that work, when changing direction to ride the updraft in a cloud?
Turn rate steady, airspeed reducing: reduce pitch. Turn rate steady, airspeed increasing: increase pitch. Turn rate reducing, airspeed reducing: reduce pitch, increase bank, etc. It's a constant series of small corrections (hopefully!), seeing what effect the last correction had before continuing with the next, made more difficult if it's not a smooth thermal.
T&Ss fitted to gliders are generally tweaked to be much less sensitive as a rate one turn is useless. Rate 5-10 is more like it in a thermalling turn. When I climb in cloud on a horizon I use between 30 & 60 degrees of bank, depending on the thermal structure. Less on partial panel.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In spite of my original scepticism about Pace's report, having read the whole of this thread - a mammoth read! - I must side with his basic view that it isn't safe to fly through clouds OCAS if gliders can be flying around in cloud with no transponders.
OK, the non-commercial operator can elect not to fly, or to stay in good VMC, but some of us fly for a living and basically fly all over the place: airways sometimes, OCAS on others, and it is beginning to scare me that the next time I go through a cloud I might hit a glider.
That glider will not be flying for business purposes (except maybe for a leisure business.) It is flying for pleasure, and I very much admire the skill of some glider pilots and don't want to be a miserable basxtard, but I do not think it is safe, and I would like to see it stopped.
I suspect that more flights are conducted OCAS for business purposes than for pleasure on weekdays. That includes owner-pilots flying to meetings etc. Maybe a start could be that gliders not be allowed to fly IMC during the week, but could at weekends. At least then we'd be able to weigh up the risk better.
I know there will be howls of derision from glider pilots, and I really do understand and sympathise with them, but the fact is, one single-seat glider, with the pilot having a parachute to help him get safely to the ground in the event of a mid-air, could collide with an 8 seat aircraft from which no one would survive.
Really when the risk is properly assessed, it is obvious that something should be done to protect the powered aircraft. It is bizarre that a glider can be at any level at any time in IMC; a legacy of the past that should be dealt with.
RB
OK, the non-commercial operator can elect not to fly, or to stay in good VMC, but some of us fly for a living and basically fly all over the place: airways sometimes, OCAS on others, and it is beginning to scare me that the next time I go through a cloud I might hit a glider.
That glider will not be flying for business purposes (except maybe for a leisure business.) It is flying for pleasure, and I very much admire the skill of some glider pilots and don't want to be a miserable basxtard, but I do not think it is safe, and I would like to see it stopped.
I suspect that more flights are conducted OCAS for business purposes than for pleasure on weekdays. That includes owner-pilots flying to meetings etc. Maybe a start could be that gliders not be allowed to fly IMC during the week, but could at weekends. At least then we'd be able to weigh up the risk better.
I know there will be howls of derision from glider pilots, and I really do understand and sympathise with them, but the fact is, one single-seat glider, with the pilot having a parachute to help him get safely to the ground in the event of a mid-air, could collide with an 8 seat aircraft from which no one would survive.
Really when the risk is properly assessed, it is obvious that something should be done to protect the powered aircraft. It is bizarre that a glider can be at any level at any time in IMC; a legacy of the past that should be dealt with.
RB
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a BF Goodrich 504-0111-926 28V electric horizon (model # 1100-28LK(5F)) right here on the bench in front of me. At 24.00V it is drawing 406mA. One could double that for a 12V model.
A 2kg lead acid battery (10Ah) would run that for 10+ hours.
A GTX330 Mode S transponder draws a similar current.
So I don't think there is any problem powering this stuff. You need to only eat at Macdonalds for a few weeks to put on the same weight, and within the wide variation of pilot weights
all this is meaningless anyway.
The problem, presumably, is how to charge the battery. Taking it out and putting it on charge is the obvious way. On a sunny day, a solar panel would top it off in the day but that is a ~£200 panel.
Funnily enough I carry a flexible roll-up solar panel on long trips abroad; if I flatten the battery by leaving the avionics master on, I could recharge it with that in a day or so, enough to start the engine.
Then there are generators, etc. None of this stuff is rocket science.
A 2kg lead acid battery (10Ah) would run that for 10+ hours.
A GTX330 Mode S transponder draws a similar current.
So I don't think there is any problem powering this stuff. You need to only eat at Macdonalds for a few weeks to put on the same weight, and within the wide variation of pilot weights
all this is meaningless anyway.The problem, presumably, is how to charge the battery. Taking it out and putting it on charge is the obvious way. On a sunny day, a solar panel would top it off in the day but that is a ~£200 panel.
Funnily enough I carry a flexible roll-up solar panel on long trips abroad; if I flatten the battery by leaving the avionics master on, I could recharge it with that in a day or so, enough to start the engine.
Then there are generators, etc. None of this stuff is rocket science.
Last edited by IO540; 10th Jun 2009 at 07:49.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
I was hoping you would be along - it is good to have an expert.
I hinted rather strongly earlier that I was unconvinced by the claims that transponders (particularly the low power variants such as the Trig) could not be adequately powered in a glider. I also dont see why the battery (or unit) could not be taken home at the end of the day to be recharged and even a spare charged battery kept in the boot.
Then there is the claim that these transponders do not work about 15,000 feet. Well I wonder how many gliders operate above 15,000 in cloud? A few, and perhaps that is a risk we must live with.
The glider argument is not convincing - for those who would claim there is no technological solution I would have expected sound evidence that a transponder cannot be powered.
Riverboat - you have nailed it, it really is time to for the CAA or EASA to act, gliders in IMC not transponding and not following any of the conventions for flight in cloud is an accident waiting to happen.
I hate the thought of the lawyers getting involved, but it does make me wonder if there was an accident an action might be brought against our regulatory authority.
I was hoping you would be along - it is good to have an expert.
I hinted rather strongly earlier that I was unconvinced by the claims that transponders (particularly the low power variants such as the Trig) could not be adequately powered in a glider. I also dont see why the battery (or unit) could not be taken home at the end of the day to be recharged and even a spare charged battery kept in the boot.
Then there is the claim that these transponders do not work about 15,000 feet. Well I wonder how many gliders operate above 15,000 in cloud? A few, and perhaps that is a risk we must live with.
The glider argument is not convincing - for those who would claim there is no technological solution I would have expected sound evidence that a transponder cannot be powered.
Riverboat - you have nailed it, it really is time to for the CAA or EASA to act, gliders in IMC not transponding and not following any of the conventions for flight in cloud is an accident waiting to happen.
I hate the thought of the lawyers getting involved, but it does make me wonder if there was an accident an action might be brought against our regulatory authority.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Riverboat
Really when the risk is properly assessed, it is obvious that something should be done to protect the powered aircraft. It is bizarre that a glider can be at any level at any time in IMC; a legacy of the past that should be dealt with.
There are technically possible solutions; the change of regulation to EASA plus the interpretation of their rules by the CAA has increased the potential cost by a factor of 3 to 5 or more.
Possibly more of a concern is the experience of places where transponders have been fitted to gliders, where they are required then to switch them off to avoid unwanted traffic warnings/advisories created by their normal mode of operation (see the Schipol update). It would be sensible to do a proper traffic effects study, (as well as a sensible statistical safety case) rather than the knee-jerk response of those who insist their perception of risk should override reasoned arguments to the contrary.
I am equally unimpressed by arguments 'you are doing this for fun, and I am doing it for a living, so my needs override yours'.
Please present a reasoned statistical risk assessment, the cost-benefit analysis follows and the last time it was done the case disappeared.
If you want to pay for me to fit a Mode s transponder to make you feel happy, be my guest.
Other lower cost technical solutions proposed (which would interact with TCAS and lower level traffic awareness systems) ahve been rejected out of hand by the CAA Mode S lobby.
Possibly more of a concern is the experience of places where transponders have been fitted to gliders, where they are required then to switch them off to avoid unwanted traffic warnings/advisories created by their normal mode of operation (see the Schipol update). It would be sensible to do a proper traffic effects study, (as well as a sensible statistical safety case) rather than the knee-jerk response of those who insist their perception of risk should override reasoned arguments to the contrary.
I am equally unimpressed by arguments 'you are doing this for fun, and I am doing it for a living, so my needs override yours'.
Please present a reasoned statistical risk assessment, the cost-benefit analysis follows and the last time it was done the case disappeared.
If you want to pay for me to fit a Mode s transponder to make you feel happy, be my guest.
Other lower cost technical solutions proposed (which would interact with TCAS and lower level traffic awareness systems) ahve been rejected out of hand by the CAA Mode S lobby.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please go back and read the comments made by PpruneRadar:
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ml#post4978211
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ml#post4978839
Maybe not, but until it's mandated, there are people who can and do operate without transponders in IMC. Maybe not the majority but they do exist.
Just to be 100% clear, there is no RAS for any traffic in the UK. It's a Traffic Service or a Deconfliction Service, and has been for a few months.
The bottom line - the current situation is that flying in clouds always has the potential for finding someone in there you are not expecting. It might be a glider, it could be power.
I await the next stage of the Flarm / PCAS cross-over trial with interest.
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ml#post4978211
Powered aircraft can also operate in cloud without a transponder 
But be careful what you wish for, since maybe EASA will ask the UK to go down the route of many other countries and remove the right to the freedoms to fly in Class G in IMC. More Controlled Airspace and more rules would be inevitable, i.e IMC flights would be operating under IFR and therefore an ATC clearance would be required
But be careful what you wish for, since maybe EASA will ask the UK to go down the route of many other countries and remove the right to the freedoms to fly in Class G in IMC. More Controlled Airspace and more rules would be inevitable, i.e IMC flights would be operating under IFR and therefore an ATC clearance would be required
I dont think that is a practice widely used and would be frowned upon by most IMCR/IR pilots.
I do not know many IMCR/IR pilots who would oppose compulsory Transponders for powered aircraft in IMC.
I do not know many IMCR/IR pilots who would oppose compulsory Transponders for powered aircraft in IMC.
As a Heavy Iron pilot you also know that many destinations are OCAS and with NO RAS even for A320 737s etc
I await the next stage of the Flarm / PCAS cross-over trial with interest.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am equally unimpressed by arguments 'you are doing this for fun, and I am doing it for a living, so my needs override yours'.
Please present a reasoned statistical risk assessment, the cost-benefit analysis follows and the last time it was done the case disappeared.
If you want to pay for me to fit a Mode s transponder to make you feel happy, be my guest.
Please present a reasoned statistical risk assessment, the cost-benefit analysis follows and the last time it was done the case disappeared.
If you want to pay for me to fit a Mode s transponder to make you feel happy, be my guest.
Doing it for fun or for a living is irrelevant but one rule for some another for others is not.
Taking your arguemnt any pilot of a homebuilt or microlight should say to the CAA, "stuff your IMCR requirements and the costs it will take for me to get one I am flying IMC just like the glider guys."
He should fly his homebuilt or microlight in IMC regardless of what is or is not fitted for IMC flight and tell the CAA
"gliders are allowed so why not me"? what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
These excemptions were in place decades ago when the only nav equiptment was VOR or NDB, when RNAV was to be dreamed for when DECCA was the future.
Now we have all manner of advanced avionics fitted to aircraft like the Cirrus.
Ticas is becoming more and more standard fit and most aircraft have transponders of one kind or another.
Couple that lot with the governement cutting military budgets and a steady decline in radar services OCAS and living in the past technology of 40 50 years ago is not on.
Finllly I am sure we would all love someone to pay for our aviation! If you want to be a CPL or ATPL you will have to find a heck of a lot more dough than fitting a transponder.
Wait for the day there is a collision and the media catch onto the cowboy regs the CAA have in place for IMC flight OCAS and the rules will change faster than you can launch your glider.
Pace