Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please present a reasoned statistical risk assessment, the cost-benefit analysis follows and the last time it was done the case disappeared.
If you follow your argument no one would fit transponders outside CAS so the argument is nonesense.
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.
Moreover it is another argument that does not make sense.
Either the practice is safe or it is unsafe.
If it is unsafe it should be outlawed. If there are reprecussions of outlawing it that are less than desirable they are never reasons for doing nothing.
I feel the glider community is grasping at straws.
You know, and we know flying in cloud without a transponder and without obeying the rules that everyone else follows is unsafe.
I suspect one reason there hasnt been more debate about this issue is most pilots dont realise there could be a non transponding glider in every cloud
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
When the media see the gaping holes in the regs they will change faster than we want and totally out of our control. Better for the gliding association to take gliding in IMC up to date, to work for an acceptable solution not only in pilot training but in aircraft fit.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 10th Jun 2009 at 10:26.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
For example, where I am based is a certain vintage plane; well known to everybody because it is doing regular flights but even better known for having a really crap radio which drives ATC up the wall, not to mention other pilots who cannot get their calls in because ATC is trying to regain contact with this one as he is heading for the circuit or whatever. I gather he has no electrical system and is using a handheld radio.
If I was him, I would do my bit for the other pilots by sorting out the radio. And he is far from the only one. There are loads of "proper" spamcans around with totally crap radios, which could be fixed with something picked up on US avionics Ebay.
Now, I can easily get 5/5 performance using my Icom A22, and it is trivial to charge the battery on it by taking it home and sticking the charger in it. So why is this pilot having these problems? His avgas bills comfortably exceed the cost of a new radio every week or every month.
A gliding club presumably has a mains supply (and I have a generator 5ft away from me which cost a few hundred quid, which we drag outside the office and start it up when we get a power cut) so battery charging is a non-issue.
One can make a good case, perhaps, for not carrying transponders on the grounds that the midair rate between powered GA and gliders is very low and the equipment is thus not justified - that is one long debate which can be argued for ever. But IMHO the argument against transponders based on power requirements or weight just doesn't wash.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Pprune Radar point out, most people don't seem to know there could be a non-transponding GA in each and every cloud...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The power problems with transponders in gliders are/were:
1) one of the CAA's proposals was that everything should transpond all the time. That clearly is an issue for gliders.
2) the weight issues are that a) some panels are limited as to how much weight they will support (and apparently a transponder tucked out of the way tranponding with just an on/off switch on the panel is not acceptable), and b) finding somewhere safe to fit the additional required batteries can be tricky if there is no room near the CoG.
All complicated of course by EASA.
The route that rod1 and ChrisN are going down is the most likely to provide some kind of acceptable (on power, weight and cost grounds) interoperability.
But given that every year there are AirProx incidents involving transponding CA, under ATC, in CAS, you can be sure that flying will never be 100% safe.
1) one of the CAA's proposals was that everything should transpond all the time. That clearly is an issue for gliders.
2) the weight issues are that a) some panels are limited as to how much weight they will support (and apparently a transponder tucked out of the way tranponding with just an on/off switch on the panel is not acceptable), and b) finding somewhere safe to fit the additional required batteries can be tricky if there is no room near the CoG.
All complicated of course by EASA.
The route that rod1 and ChrisN are going down is the most likely to provide some kind of acceptable (on power, weight and cost grounds) interoperability.
But given that every year there are AirProx incidents involving transponding CA, under ATC, in CAS, you can be sure that flying will never be 100% safe.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Pprune Radar point out, most people don't seem to know there could be a non-transponding GA in each and every cloud...
However, for the same reasons, I see no grounds for any aircraft being in IMC without a transponder, because, in case you have missed the point, I have nothing against gliders.
The route that rod1 and ChrisN are going down is the most likely to provide some kind of acceptable (on power, weight and cost grounds) interoperability.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fair point .. .. however, I suspect very very few GA aircraft that fly in cloud will not have a transponder, whereas it would seem not a single glider will have a transponder.
However, for the same reasons, I see no grounds for any aircraft being in IMC without a transponder, because, in case you have missed the point, I have nothing against gliders.
However, for the same reasons, I see no grounds for any aircraft being in IMC without a transponder, because, in case you have missed the point, I have nothing against gliders.
Hmmm, I am wondering how you think this will work? If you are only carrying PCAS it will become your sole responsibility to avoid the other aircraft coming towards you in cloud. PCAS will not help the radar controller see you and will not help TAS on board the other aircraft to see you either. The aircraft will therefore remain oblvious to your presence. You will be relying on PCAS for seperation. What are you proposing to do if PCAS reports the aircraft 500 feet below and climbing at 2 miles? Of course you are in cloud so you will not be able to visually identify the traffic.
As to PCAS/TAS, does the PCAS owner (rod1 I believe) have any comments?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But given that every year there are AirProx incidents involving transponding CA, under ATC, in CAS, you can be sure that flying will never be 100% safe.
I accept what you say above but as you know the country is media driven. If the Media decide you should not be there your gone ( Not just aviation
Just imagine that the Media got hold of the fact that the nice shiny A320 taking 200 pax on their holidays was operating OCAS flying through clouds with NO Radar cover and NO ability to see other aircraft.
In those clouds were Gliders with pilots not trained to IFR standards, not even talking to anyone as they cant afford a handheld. With no nav kit and more than anything NO TRANSPONDER.
The Airline would say that they have TICAS but would not pick up gliders without a transponder with at least Mode C.
Forget a collision or Airprox just a media programme called "threat in the clouds" would be enough. It would not be the A320 that would be stopped from flying in OCAS. Either the OCAS would become CAS overnight or others would be banned from cloud.
The MEDIA would say why is this allowed? How come a fun pilot is allowed to risk the lives of 200 people?
They would have a field day. Remember what happened with the gun laws
Then when your sport is in tatters you would say why didnt we do something when we could now we cannot at least you would have an arguement at present you dont. The media would make a meal out of you.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 10th Jun 2009 at 12:06.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- a number of cases of powered/powered mid-airs (all in VMC), even a twin and a single taking each other down, both speaking to the same radar controller! - This accounts for about 10-15% of the powered fatalities each year - so probably worth doing something about
- a number of cases of glider/glider (some cloud flying I believe) - which FLARM will help address.
- 3 recent cases of glider/power of which 2 of the three powered aircraft recovered successfully to an on airport landing - parachutes minimise the impact to gliders but we don't have a good plan for this one.
- for glider/power in IMC, let me check?? it appears to have never yet happened.
I think anyone doing an objective risk assessment would focus legislation, training, equipment, and systems on - the event that has never happened??
While it makes me uncomfortable to know there are gliders in cloud without a transponder, it makes me more uncomfortable to know there could be powered aircraft without transponders, or there could be fast jet activity when I have just been told 'basic service only due to controller workload' or that I could be T-boned on an ILS by traffic also being worked by the controller.
I think the comments about them 'gliders' not following the same rules for IFR are a red herring.
The IFR (OCAS) have almost no use in providing separation. The only aspect is the quadrantal rule (which only applies where almost no one is flying - so big sky is most effective). The remainder of the rules are about avoiding the ground (and I bet there are no glider ops with ceilings less than 1000 ft - so that one is covered).
The rest of the 'Fly to IFR standards' is only for two reasons - one to comply with ATC instruction - which in this cases is totally irrelevant as it is OCAS and the service is declining towards nil, or to keep the shiny side up and I think the intrinsic performance difference is such that glider pilots are adequately served by their current training. After all they are hardly likely to call up Farnborough for an SRA are they!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After all they are hardly likely to call up Farnborough for an SRA are they!
With your glide ratio you would happily lock on to an ILS if the going got tuff.Pace
Last edited by Pace; 10th Jun 2009 at 12:37.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm curious about these cases. Were any of the power aircraft tugs?
To add to mm_flynn's answer to:
Would be: work out how probable such an event is and balance the immediate and collateral effects against the cost of trying to prevent it.
The airline industry/regulators do this all the time. Think about ETOPS criteria - at some point you have to define an acceptable level of risk and engineer/certify systems to that level. If it costs 10x as much to produce, say, an engine which is 20% more reliable, then it's not worth bothering with. Maybe it would on a spacecraft, where ultimate reliability is at a premium.
If deeply technical subjects such as these become influenced by the popular press or public sentiment, then we all become much worse off. If the perception of risk in aviation became more important than risk itself then it will be a sad day when that happens.
In 2007, there were nearly 900 *reported* airspace infringements, mostly GA. There is a risk that one (or more) of those could have resulted in a fully-laden 747 coming down over a densely populated area. Should we not eliminate this risk, whatever its level? That would mean the end of GA (and probably a lot of CA). We'd have much safer skies, wouldn't we? Anything is worth pursuing if it increases safety, isn't it...?
By all means please explain the cost analysis of a six seater twin and a two seater glider colliding in IMC with 8 people dead and some collateral damage in the area below.
The airline industry/regulators do this all the time. Think about ETOPS criteria - at some point you have to define an acceptable level of risk and engineer/certify systems to that level. If it costs 10x as much to produce, say, an engine which is 20% more reliable, then it's not worth bothering with. Maybe it would on a spacecraft, where ultimate reliability is at a premium.
If deeply technical subjects such as these become influenced by the popular press or public sentiment, then we all become much worse off. If the perception of risk in aviation became more important than risk itself then it will be a sad day when that happens.
In 2007, there were nearly 900 *reported* airspace infringements, mostly GA. There is a risk that one (or more) of those could have resulted in a fully-laden 747 coming down over a densely populated area. Should we not eliminate this risk, whatever its level? That would mean the end of GA (and probably a lot of CA). We'd have much safer skies, wouldn't we? Anything is worth pursuing if it increases safety, isn't it...?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just imagine that the Media got hold of the fact that the nice shiny A320 taking 200 pax on their holidays was operating OCAS flying through clouds with NO Radar cover and NO ability to see other aircraft.
In those clouds were Gliders with pilots not trained to IFR standards, not even talking to anyone as they cant afford a handheld. With no nav kit and more than anything NO TRANSPONDER.
In those clouds were Gliders with pilots not trained to IFR standards, not even talking to anyone as they cant afford a handheld. With no nav kit and more than anything NO TRANSPONDER.
Gliders have been allowed to fly IMC OCAS ever since I learned to fly in 1974 and no doubt for a long time before that. Why do IMC rated pilots see this as something surprising or new? If they have been properly trained they should be fully aware of it and behave accordingly. Launching into the murk assuming that SSR or anything else that depends on transponder returns will see anything you might come across in cloud OCAS shows a lack of knowledge and airmanship.
Pilots flying IMC OCAS should be fully aware of the conditions pertaining to the airspace they are in, i.e. that transponder carriage is not mandatory. They can mitigate the risk by obtaining a deconfliction service from a radar unit that has primary radar coverage. If they are unable to do so but choose to go ahead anyway then Big Sky Theory is all that they have on their side. That's a matter of airmanship and the judgement of the pilot.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The orgiinal thread is titled "Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?". I'd suggest that no, it isn't NOW dangerous. It always has been. It's simply that many people weren't sufficiently aware of the potential risks that they're exposing themselves to when flying OCAS. It always worries me when threads such as this kick up on PPRUNE because it tends to take the same sort of route.... surprise expressed, risks highlighted, opinions polarised, options evaluated (oh, and the option is normally for the other guy to do something), whinging about the risk to big shiny airlners flying OCAS (yet no-one questions why theyr'e doing it when it's to save them money), complaints of "they can do it so I should be allowed to", pointing out how legislation will change in the future and finally a general calming down as people maintain their viewpoint as being right.
So, a few suggestions:
We ALL need to work together on coming up with amicable solutions that are commensurate to the risk
We ALL need to improve pilots awareness of the risks involved - why on earth aren't people told about the IMC differences between glider and power as part of their PPL?
We ALL need to properly weigh up the risks for everything we do
We ALL need to get along...otherwise we'll end up with a totalitarian CAS covering the entire country
So, a few suggestions:
We ALL need to work together on coming up with amicable solutions that are commensurate to the risk
We ALL need to improve pilots awareness of the risks involved - why on earth aren't people told about the IMC differences between glider and power as part of their PPL?
We ALL need to properly weigh up the risks for everything we do
We ALL need to get along...otherwise we'll end up with a totalitarian CAS covering the entire country
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OCAS with no primary radar cover is unlikely to be viewed by the CAA as safe.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike - as I commented elsewhere you are indeed correct a pilot should make safety assessment before he launches into the murk.
Lets see how that could work.
Launching from Liverpool recently at the very late hour of 18-00 I was aware Brize had closed, Birmingham aside no service was available. Pace found the same. If I didnt like the thought of meeting something in the murk then of course I could have abandonded the flight - but why should I, or I could have crossed my fingers and hoped, which is what I did.
Lets see how that could work.
Launching from Liverpool recently at the very late hour of 18-00 I was aware Brize had closed, Birmingham aside no service was available. Pace found the same. If I didnt like the thought of meeting something in the murk then of course I could have abandonded the flight - but why should I, or I could have crossed my fingers and hoped, which is what I did.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However statistics are on your side - the number of power/power collisions in IMC are very low and the number of power/glider ones seems to be zero.
Last edited by cats_five; 10th Jun 2009 at 13:53.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is definitely a risk in the UK style IMC OCAS with the haphazard structure, radar service, and equipment requirements. However, the glider element which has consumed so much of this thread is a minor part of the risk. there are all sorts of things one can hit and all sorts of possible lack of service. It took me years and years to get comfortable with this state of affairs. In the US, IFR OCAS without a flight plan and being in contact with a controller would be deemed reckless endangerment. However, it does seem to work, no one yet has had a collision OCAS in IMC.
FF -----
My comment on the three was not original research it was taken from earlier in the thread and the details posted say the powered aircraft were not tugs and it was only the coincidence of time and space that the gliders and powered had in common.
FF -----
My comment on the three was not original research it was taken from earlier in the thread and the details posted say the powered aircraft were not tugs and it was only the coincidence of time and space that the gliders and powered had in common.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cats, I listed the 4 (not 3) GA-power/glider VMC collisions in post 33, of which 3 were fatal killing 4 people. All but one near gliding sites. I excluded tugs. (I know of one tug/glider collision, also VMC, which was fatal, not relevant to Pace’s point when he raised this thread – though it is relevant to Flarm.) Pm or email me if you want to discuss more.
Chris N.
Chris N.