Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?
A manufacturer has produced a prototype box which would cost under £1000 if produced in reasonable numbers, is nominally 'portable' and therefore has no installation cost, transmits a low-power 1090-ES signal which activates TCAS in aircraft fitted with TCAS within aprroximately 10 n.m. radius, and displays the position and relative pressure altitude of local transponding aircraft, and local FLARM fitted aircraft if it has a FLARM itself to connect. It could incorporate a built-in FLARM for abot another £500.
A complete solution that would keep everyone happy, you might think?
Unfortunately, EASA and Eurocontrol believe its operation would be totally illegal unless it went through all certification processes, used an IFR certified GPS and had a twentyfold increase in transmitted power to be as visible to ground ATC systems as a Class II Transponder. Approximate price after all that, £10,000 per unit estimated if produced in the same quantity, which is unlikely.
Please remind me what the 'S' in EASA is supposed to stand for.
Would that be a technical solution that the 'glider pilots in cloud are mad' lobby would be happy with? I would fit one. I am less happy to spend £7,000 (current quoted price for fitting a TRIG, including necessary modification paperwork, since the instrument panel would require complete re-engineering) to reduce an extremely low risk. Before the advent of EASA I could have done all the work myself, signed off by a BGA inspector, and I doubt the end result would have been any less professional, cost sub-£2,000.
A complete solution that would keep everyone happy, you might think?
Unfortunately, EASA and Eurocontrol believe its operation would be totally illegal unless it went through all certification processes, used an IFR certified GPS and had a twentyfold increase in transmitted power to be as visible to ground ATC systems as a Class II Transponder. Approximate price after all that, £10,000 per unit estimated if produced in the same quantity, which is unlikely.
Please remind me what the 'S' in EASA is supposed to stand for.
Would that be a technical solution that the 'glider pilots in cloud are mad' lobby would be happy with? I would fit one. I am less happy to spend £7,000 (current quoted price for fitting a TRIG, including necessary modification paperwork, since the instrument panel would require complete re-engineering) to reduce an extremely low risk. Before the advent of EASA I could have done all the work myself, signed off by a BGA inspector, and I doubt the end result would have been any less professional, cost sub-£2,000.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
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
He came onto the local airfield radio, we had a ten second chat and left it at that.
I didnt hold him any more responsable than myself the guy sounded experienced and at the time a miss was as good as a mile so happy to leave it and forget it.
Then I thought about the whole chain of events from being shoved all over the place and unwanted in CAS to the lack of Brize Radar OCAS to the near collision IMC with a Glider. (It could have equally been a non transponding C150) So I filed a CHIRP and posted here for discussion.
Since then I have been asked to take it much further by the authorities which I am reluctant to do.
Maybe a case of be careful what you wish for and at the end of the day we are all one in the Sky.
What would I vote for if I could?
I would make transponders a legal requirement for ALL aircraft in IMC Regrdless of type powered or unpowered. One poster here " FullWings" runs a mode S on a glider. He is an ATP. If he can so can others and must do focuses the mind
I find it madness that aircraft of any type are allowed any where near cloud without a radio. We are not back in the 1930s. Handhelds are plentiful and cheap.
Pace
Pace,
Yes, handheld radios are plentiful and cheap, but unfortunately none of them are EASA approved.
For that you need to shop on ebay or somesuch in order to bid for an old Icom A3 or A22, which were the last handhelds to hold European approval, and which are currently selling, second hand, for more than their original retail price.
jez
Yes, handheld radios are plentiful and cheap, but unfortunately none of them are EASA approved.
For that you need to shop on ebay or somesuch in order to bid for an old Icom A3 or A22, which were the last handhelds to hold European approval, and which are currently selling, second hand, for more than their original retail price.
jez
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
handheld radios are plentiful and cheap, but unfortunately none of them are EASA approved.
The last I have heard is that the "CAA approval", on the old Icom models etc, means that the Radiocommunications Agency has delegated the approval of the product as a transmitter/receiver on the aviation bands to the CAA. (No doubt, the CAA then delegates the actual testing to some 3rd party RF lab because they won't have an RF testing lab in-house). This CAA "approval" prevents the sale of radios which have features which the CAA doesn't like e.g. recording of ATC communications.
In practice, the above approval is unenforceable, except possibly to the extent of preventing somebody selling these items overtly in the UK.
This is not the same as an airworthiness approval for equipment permanently installed in a plane. You don't need this approval for a portable / removable item. You can just use any VHF transceiver as a removable item. This approval is enforceable because when you take the plane in for its Annual, the installation will be readily visible and they (in theory) won't sign the release to service. In practice, this goes on all the time.
This confusion supports the higher prices (over the much nicer radios on the US market) of these "CAA approved" products in the GA marketplace.
A transponder is something else. There aren't any portable models I know of, so it has to be a certified installation (if the airframe requires certification). You can buy a nice KT76C Mode C unit for a lot less than you might expect (even brand new) but somebody has to install it.
A Mode S unit is rather more. The GTX330 is cheaper than the KT73 but you can't buy them mail order from the USA; it is about £2k plus the antenna.
When you look at the prices of Mode C units from the USA, you can see there is no market for a £1000 unit. Nobody would want to install it anyway - where is the dealer margin? This whole avionics business is lubricated 99% by dealer margins. Only a tiny % of owners have the contacts to get something installed by a friend who has the authority to sign it off; these are free to source their own stuff from the USA.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately it is all too easy to make EASA / CAA the scape goat however if the glider community where to make a formal submission to both / either recognising the issue and proposing a workable solution then I for one would have a great deal more symphathy.
Often it is better to take the high ground, at least being cynical you can always point out the gliding community tried, it took the initiative, it was the regulators that were not up to the job.
Often it is better to take the high ground, at least being cynical you can always point out the gliding community tried, it took the initiative, it was the regulators that were not up to the job.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO
“A transponder is something else. There aren't any portable models I know of, so it has to be a certified installation”
Not sure what you are getting at, but installations on LAA and some BMAA aircraft are not “certified”.
“Only a tiny % of owners have the contacts to get something installed by a friend who has the authority to sign it off; these are free to source their own stuff from the USA.”
There are about 1000 such LAA installations in the UK, and a number of BMAA equivalents. I installed my own and have helped two people with “low” electric aircraft install second hand items for “occasional” use. Such installations can be signed off by an LAA inspector at little or no cost. Almost all Gliding installations would need to be fully certified and backed by the manufacturer which adds another hurdle and considerable cost.
Pace
“I find it madness that aircraft of any type are allowed any where near cloud without a radio. We are not back in the 1930s. Handhelds are plentiful and cheap.”
No comment on “near cloud”, but it is not possible to make a Handheld work in some aircraft, particularly if it is fitted with S4 mags. I tried for over a year in my Nipper and gave up.
Rod1
“A transponder is something else. There aren't any portable models I know of, so it has to be a certified installation”
Not sure what you are getting at, but installations on LAA and some BMAA aircraft are not “certified”.
“Only a tiny % of owners have the contacts to get something installed by a friend who has the authority to sign it off; these are free to source their own stuff from the USA.”
There are about 1000 such LAA installations in the UK, and a number of BMAA equivalents. I installed my own and have helped two people with “low” electric aircraft install second hand items for “occasional” use. Such installations can be signed off by an LAA inspector at little or no cost. Almost all Gliding installations would need to be fully certified and backed by the manufacturer which adds another hurdle and considerable cost.
Pace
“I find it madness that aircraft of any type are allowed any where near cloud without a radio. We are not back in the 1930s. Handhelds are plentiful and cheap.”
No comment on “near cloud”, but it is not possible to make a Handheld work in some aircraft, particularly if it is fitted with S4 mags. I tried for over a year in my Nipper and gave up.
Rod1
LAA and BMAA aircraft operate in an EASA country, but outside the EASA Airworthiness system.
Gliders (other than Annex 2, mainly vintage types) come within the EASA system, therefore are subject to regulation designed around Airbus etc, with the predictable paperwork bureaucracy and costs.
Installation of a Transponder in a glider requires a full mod. scheme; the CAA do not approve any new scheme for other than Mode S Transponders.
During the Mode S 'consultation' the gliding movement worked very hard to propose better and more approriate technical solutions than the blanket compulsory fitment of Mode S being pushed by the CAA working group. The efforts are ongoing - nobody will be able to say if it becomes necessary that the movement were not pro-actively involved in proposing practical solutions that would make a much more positive contribution to flight safety for all.
Gliders (other than Annex 2, mainly vintage types) come within the EASA system, therefore are subject to regulation designed around Airbus etc, with the predictable paperwork bureaucracy and costs.
Installation of a Transponder in a glider requires a full mod. scheme; the CAA do not approve any new scheme for other than Mode S Transponders.
During the Mode S 'consultation' the gliding movement worked very hard to propose better and more approriate technical solutions than the blanket compulsory fitment of Mode S being pushed by the CAA working group. The efforts are ongoing - nobody will be able to say if it becomes necessary that the movement were not pro-actively involved in proposing practical solutions that would make a much more positive contribution to flight safety for all.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backing up what Fitter2 says the CAA was very complimentary about the BGA with regard to the Mode S consultations. The CAA tried really hard to force mode s on gliders and was finally convinced it was not technically feasible. This took several years of endless meetings. This conclusion was only reached about a year ago. I doubt that the CAA will revisit this for a very long time!
The “low” electric aircraft I have helped fit transponders to have also been a very limited success, as the units appear to use much more power in practice than expected. A small wind generator charging a battery which runs a transponder and a hand held radio will not keep up with just the transponder demand. Ok if you are transiting a zone for 20min, but of very little use outside that. The impact on useful load and performance was also not as predicted. Such a solution will not work on a glider without turning it into a brick.
Rod1
The “low” electric aircraft I have helped fit transponders to have also been a very limited success, as the units appear to use much more power in practice than expected. A small wind generator charging a battery which runs a transponder and a hand held radio will not keep up with just the transponder demand. Ok if you are transiting a zone for 20min, but of very little use outside that. The impact on useful load and performance was also not as predicted. Such a solution will not work on a glider without turning it into a brick.
Rod1
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[stirring] The Powered IMC fraternity seem to think that it's OK for them to demand that owners of aircraft currently not required to carry transponders should fork out to fit them.
They do not seem to be forthcoming with any ideas to charge for radar services in IMC in order to provide funding to reverse the current trend of a reduction in availability of primary radar. A case of "I demand something be done providing I'm not the one paying for it"?
The pilots of gliders getting sucked into a cloud from below at low speed and equipped with parachutes are responsible for their decision to enter cloud rather than pull out the airbrakes.
The pilots of powered aircraft boring holes through cloud are similarly responsible for their decision.
If you are flying IMC OCAS on an IMC rating perhaps you should be considering that the original purpose of the IMC was as a get out of jail card and not as a sort of mini-IR. Yes it gives you privileges, but how you exercise those privileges is a matter for your own judgement. Unless you are receiving a deconfliction service I find it difficult to understand how you can be adequately discharging your responsibility to maintain separation from something you can't see (which leaves us back with Big Sky Theory).
If of course you have an IR and an Airways equipped aircraft then file a flight plan and stay in Class A.[/stirring]
Having lobbed that into the discussion pool I'll go home and have my tea.
They do not seem to be forthcoming with any ideas to charge for radar services in IMC in order to provide funding to reverse the current trend of a reduction in availability of primary radar. A case of "I demand something be done providing I'm not the one paying for it"?
The pilots of gliders getting sucked into a cloud from below at low speed and equipped with parachutes are responsible for their decision to enter cloud rather than pull out the airbrakes.
The pilots of powered aircraft boring holes through cloud are similarly responsible for their decision.
If you are flying IMC OCAS on an IMC rating perhaps you should be considering that the original purpose of the IMC was as a get out of jail card and not as a sort of mini-IR. Yes it gives you privileges, but how you exercise those privileges is a matter for your own judgement. Unless you are receiving a deconfliction service I find it difficult to understand how you can be adequately discharging your responsibility to maintain separation from something you can't see (which leaves us back with Big Sky Theory).
If of course you have an IR and an Airways equipped aircraft then file a flight plan and stay in Class A.[/stirring]
Having lobbed that into the discussion pool I'll go home and have my tea.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[stirring] The Powered IMC fraternity seem to think that it's OK for them to demand that owners of aircraft currently not required to carry transponders should fork out to fit them.
They do not seem to be forthcoming with any ideas to charge for radar services in IMC in order to provide funding to reverse the current trend of a reduction in availability of primary radar. A case of "I demand something be done providing I'm not the one paying for it"?
The pilots of gliders getting sucked into a cloud from below at low speed and equipped with parachutes are responsible for their decision to enter cloud rather than pull out the airbrakes.
The pilots of powered aircraft boring holes through cloud are similarly responsible for their decision.
The pilots of powered aircraft boring holes through cloud are similarly responsible for their decision.
If you are flying IMC OCAS on an IMC rating perhaps you should be considering that the original purpose of the IMC was as a get out of jail card and not as a sort of mini-IR. Yes it gives you privileges, but how you exercise those privileges is a matter for your own judgement. Unless you are receiving a deconfliction service I find it difficult to understand how you can be adequately discharging your responsibility to maintain separation from something you can't see (which leaves us back with Big Sky Theory).
If of course you have an IR and an Airways equipped aircraft then file a flight plan and stay in Class A.[/stirring]
Then yes me and others will be able to stay in CAS but that wouldnt please me or anyone else in this discussion.
Having lobbed that into the discussion pool I'll go home and have my tea.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tea very pleasant thanks
Sounds like the comment of someone who's not familiar with gliding training. One of the reasons I don't glide nowadays was the persistent habit of instructors pulling cable breaks, running out of height in the circuit, slow (or fast) launches and the tug losing power on an aerotow. All deliberately done as a test of a person they didn't know. VERY safety conscious but also frustrating.
Re the bit about being sucked into the bottom of cloud. It's reasonably well known that those nice puffy cumulus couds result from water vapour condensing out due to adiabatic cooling and they therefore sit on a column of rising air. I'm no great shakes as a glider pilot but I've had to pull the brakes out as the horizon started to disappear, pushing the stick forward being insufficient. Being an inveterate coward I assure you that there was not the slightest thing dodgy about the weather at the time.
At least IMCR pilots have a structured training of sorts Glider pilots do not.
Re the bit about being sucked into the bottom of cloud. It's reasonably well known that those nice puffy cumulus couds result from water vapour condensing out due to adiabatic cooling and they therefore sit on a column of rising air. I'm no great shakes as a glider pilot but I've had to pull the brakes out as the horizon started to disappear, pushing the stick forward being insufficient. Being an inveterate coward I assure you that there was not the slightest thing dodgy about the weather at the time.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike - whenever this debate comes forward you seem to forget that 49% of NATS is owned by the tax payer, 100% of the military is owned by the tax payer and GA pays duty on Avgas and VAT on all other services (unles involved with commercial ops).
Now let me see, oh yes CAT pays no duty on Avtur, pays exactly the same en route charges as GA and pays no VAT on any of its inputs.
I suspect GA contributes rather a lot for the paltry services it receives.
As for gliders, if you are getting personal, I suppose they pay even less than CAT, so perhaps a duty on gliders would fund the cost of the rest of us buying FLARM.
Now let me see, oh yes CAT pays no duty on Avtur, pays exactly the same en route charges as GA and pays no VAT on any of its inputs.
I suspect GA contributes rather a lot for the paltry services it receives.
As for gliders, if you are getting personal, I suppose they pay even less than CAT, so perhaps a duty on gliders would fund the cost of the rest of us buying FLARM.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One wonders why glider pilots always have to have parachutes if they are going to fly into cloud. Is it because years ago the CAA./Min of CA or whatever decided that it was risky for gliders to be flying in cloud? If so, was collision with another glider considered a possibility?
Would glider pilots be quite so keen to fly into cloud if they did not have parachutes? Would some of them get a bit nervous, as I am getting, about flying into cloud OCAS? If I collide with a glider I am dead.The glider pilot has a chance.
Now I can see that there is an absurdity to this argument and of course I am not suggesting that gliders should not have parachutes, but I am suggesting that an element of a glider pilots bravado might be reinforced by the fact he/she has a parachute in the case of a collision.
Another point I'd like to make is that actually gliders are very difficult to see even in VMC, and I am definitely going to fit an ACAS to my light twin. Please could gliders have functioning transponders so that my ACAS can "see" them?
RB
Would glider pilots be quite so keen to fly into cloud if they did not have parachutes? Would some of them get a bit nervous, as I am getting, about flying into cloud OCAS? If I collide with a glider I am dead.The glider pilot has a chance.
Now I can see that there is an absurdity to this argument and of course I am not suggesting that gliders should not have parachutes, but I am suggesting that an element of a glider pilots bravado might be reinforced by the fact he/she has a parachute in the case of a collision.
Another point I'd like to make is that actually gliders are very difficult to see even in VMC, and I am definitely going to fit an ACAS to my light twin. Please could gliders have functioning transponders so that my ACAS can "see" them?
RB
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone I know that flies gliders firstly views cloud flying with horror*, and secondly views having to use their parachute with horror, although I do know someone that had to jump after a collision - in good visibility, near the launch site. Wearing a parachute (if possible) is a BGA thing, nothing to do with the CAA or any other body, and I've not been associated with gliding for long enough to know the background.
Mostly parachutes are expensive cossetted cushions - most of us don't fit most gliders without wearing one. I certainly don't - I would have to have a huge nest of Dynafoam without mine.
Do you think there's a chance that having a transponders and/or receiving an ATC service give a false sense of security?
*one guy I know is heavily into sports jumping, but I doubt he views jumping from a glider with any more enthusiasm than I do.
Mostly parachutes are expensive cossetted cushions - most of us don't fit most gliders without wearing one. I certainly don't - I would have to have a huge nest of Dynafoam without mine.
Do you think there's a chance that having a transponders and/or receiving an ATC service give a false sense of security?
*one guy I know is heavily into sports jumping, but I doubt he views jumping from a glider with any more enthusiasm than I do.
Another point I'd like to make is that actually gliders are very difficult to see even in VMC, and I am definitely going to fit an ACAS to my light twin. Please could gliders have functioning transponders so that my ACAS can "see" them?
Re parachutes, the rationale is that gliders naturally fly in close proximity groups, and the risk is much more from VMC collision than in cloud; there has not been a single glider/glider cloud collision since the 130.4 call when entering cloud in a glider was introduced. Plus, as has been pointed out, the seating is all designed for parachute wearing pilots.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
If this was a commercial, IFR flight, it would be verging on the criminal for London Control to just dump you at FL100 in the South of England without some belief that you would be able to navigate safely to your destination. Did you ask them, or subsequently London Information, for the details of a unit that could offer you a Deconfliction Service? As a commercial pilot you will have been sent a copy of the CAA's CD "New Air Traffic Services Outside Controlled Airspace" (I assume you hold a JAA CPL?).
To quote from the manual, "Pilots should be aware that Basic Service is not appropriate for flight in IMC......." London Information can only offer you a Basic Service so why did you continue with it? It is not up to them to offer you alternatives unless you request them to. At that level and in that part of the UK, if you were unable to receive anything but a Basic Service you should have told London Control about your flight conditions and asked to remain with them. It appears to me from the information that you have given that the glider incident was a likely consequence of the course of action that you chose to pursue.
AP
If this was a commercial, IFR flight, it would be verging on the criminal for London Control to just dump you at FL100 in the South of England without some belief that you would be able to navigate safely to your destination. Did you ask them, or subsequently London Information, for the details of a unit that could offer you a Deconfliction Service? As a commercial pilot you will have been sent a copy of the CAA's CD "New Air Traffic Services Outside Controlled Airspace" (I assume you hold a JAA CPL?).
To quote from the manual, "Pilots should be aware that Basic Service is not appropriate for flight in IMC......." London Information can only offer you a Basic Service so why did you continue with it? It is not up to them to offer you alternatives unless you request them to. At that level and in that part of the UK, if you were unable to receive anything but a Basic Service you should have told London Control about your flight conditions and asked to remain with them. It appears to me from the information that you have given that the glider incident was a likely consequence of the course of action that you chose to pursue.
AP
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To quote from the manual, "Pilots should be aware that Basic Service is not appropriate for flight in IMC......."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AP
By the comments made when I complained of the routing I think even the London Controller was puzzled and dropped me out of CAS near CPT with instructions to go direct and contact London Info.
Had I been in cloud at FL100 there is no way I would have accepted a basic service. Fact was i was on top of an overcast so VMC on top. The fact that it was VMC on top and looked to stay that way and also that any traffic at that sort of level would be sparse I accepted a basic service.
Had I been in cloud or looked likely to be in cloud ahead I would prob have requested London Military with hindsight and will do in future.
I would recommend OCAS that we all fly higher and insist on LM. That still leaves problems in the descent OCAS especially at ranges which are on the border of a Radar Service.
I am surprised at your comments that you were not surprised with the Air Prox with the glider.
It had been determined here that such an encounter is very rare.
My operations in OCAS are typical of most operations OCAS CAT. For your info this was not a CAT flight but a corporate aircraft flight.
Having said that with the changes in military radar times there are many destinations which CAT use which are dependant on the Military for LARS
CAT often operate OCAS so this is now becoming a real problem.
Pace
By the comments made when I complained of the routing I think even the London Controller was puzzled and dropped me out of CAS near CPT with instructions to go direct and contact London Info.
Had I been in cloud at FL100 there is no way I would have accepted a basic service. Fact was i was on top of an overcast so VMC on top. The fact that it was VMC on top and looked to stay that way and also that any traffic at that sort of level would be sparse I accepted a basic service.
Had I been in cloud or looked likely to be in cloud ahead I would prob have requested London Military with hindsight and will do in future.
I would recommend OCAS that we all fly higher and insist on LM. That still leaves problems in the descent OCAS especially at ranges which are on the border of a Radar Service.
I am surprised at your comments that you were not surprised with the Air Prox with the glider.
It had been determined here that such an encounter is very rare.
My operations in OCAS are typical of most operations OCAS CAT. For your info this was not a CAT flight but a corporate aircraft flight.
Having said that with the changes in military radar times there are many destinations which CAT use which are dependant on the Military for LARS
CAT often operate OCAS so this is now becoming a real problem.
Pace
I read it as a backside covering job so that, should an accident happen they can dump any responsibility.
Already, when new GA 'choke points' are created, and it is pointed out that the collision risk OCAS is increased, the response is 'this is not our responsibilty'.
If not theirs, then whose?
Already, when new GA 'choke points' are created, and it is pointed out that the collision risk OCAS is increased, the response is 'this is not our responsibilty'.
If not theirs, then whose?