Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm not a pilot but.
In relation to the postings of Gliders in IMC outside Controlled Airspace, I'm not a pilot but because of my location - 3.5 NM and a fraction ( 100 ? m) to the left of the centre line from the westerly approach to EGSC - I regularly see gliders soaring, usually at weekends,on the centreline - I think above the heights that the singles and twins piston's operate (2000 ft plus - guessing) but reachable by the Lears and C130's etc on climb out, that use the airfield. Sunday last being a case in point. Just a fleeting glint of a glider's wing at mid day amongst the cumulus - and seconds later, a Lear whistles overhead climbing energeticly . I know that the professionals dispise contributions like this - i.e specific instances of types times and noted weather needed etc. But is there a case for the NOTAM'ing of designated blocks outside controlled airspace, for use by gliders only, at given periods of notice etc. Yes I do know a glider pilot - Who operated from a club ( Husbands Bosworth) vertically constrained by CAS. OK performance issues abound for each specific airfield and combination of users but its just an outsiders idea. Is it too restrictive ? - And yes you cannot predict the weather.
CAT III
CAT III
Last edited by Guest 112233; 16th Jun 2009 at 16:56. Reason: NOTAM'd to avoid
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat III, the gliders may have been monitoring, or even talking to, Cambridge. On Sunday, I thermalled my way out to the west, crossing the extended centreline well out, didn’t circle near it, and just monitored. On the way back, I needed to use a thermal about 5 miles SW along, and about 100m north of, their centreline, from about 3500 to 5000 feet. I called them, stayed in contact until well east of them (over your house? I left their frequency just east of the A11, near Six Mile Bottom). We thanked each other. No problem.
Both ways, I heard Cambridge warning their power traffic of gliders in the area – as they invariably do.
Chris N.
Both ways, I heard Cambridge warning their power traffic of gliders in the area – as they invariably do.
Chris N.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,604
Received 465 Likes
on
246 Posts
Nice to know we can all work together to help minimise the risks of the open FIR.
On Sunday I needed to obtain an airspace crossing. I listened to the controlling radar unit before making the call. ATC had another aircraft talking on frequency, just leaving the airspace. Even before calling for a traffic service, from that conversation, I was able to determine that he was coming head on at a similar altitude, but still about ten miles away.
As soon as I realised this, I descended and was able to make some separation. Even better, he had a transponder with mode C and I aquired him on TCAS then visually. I doubt he even realised we were there because he left the frequency before I was able to get a call in.
Transponder plus mode C and talking to ATC. Excellent. The other aircraft was a GLIDER.
On Sunday I needed to obtain an airspace crossing. I listened to the controlling radar unit before making the call. ATC had another aircraft talking on frequency, just leaving the airspace. Even before calling for a traffic service, from that conversation, I was able to determine that he was coming head on at a similar altitude, but still about ten miles away.
As soon as I realised this, I descended and was able to make some separation. Even better, he had a transponder with mode C and I aquired him on TCAS then visually. I doubt he even realised we were there because he left the frequency before I was able to get a call in.
Transponder plus mode C and talking to ATC. Excellent. The other aircraft was a GLIDER.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So, in this extensive coverage, what did he or she suggest you should do to avoid colliding with them in clouds?"
I will try to dig out the notes, but from memory;
Gliders fly in places you consider to be IFR only, including in cloud (IMC).
The types of cloud you were likely to find them in or near.
Some specific stuff about wave.
The cloud bit he thought was not much of a problem, as he considred the risk very low that you would hit one, he was more concerned about close to cloud above 3000 ft.
He recommended flying above the “lift level” if possible.
He also recommended that if I was going to fly in IMC, get a RIS, or it was Russian roulette. (This was not glider specific).
Prior to taking up power I had flown gliders, but not in cloud, as I was not “signed off“ for it.
Rod1
I will try to dig out the notes, but from memory;
Gliders fly in places you consider to be IFR only, including in cloud (IMC).
The types of cloud you were likely to find them in or near.
Some specific stuff about wave.
The cloud bit he thought was not much of a problem, as he considred the risk very low that you would hit one, he was more concerned about close to cloud above 3000 ft.
He recommended flying above the “lift level” if possible.
He also recommended that if I was going to fly in IMC, get a RIS, or it was Russian roulette. (This was not glider specific).
Prior to taking up power I had flown gliders, but not in cloud, as I was not “signed off“ for it.
Rod1
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cloud bit he thought was not much of a problem, as he considred the risk very low that you would hit one, he was more concerned about close to cloud above 3000 ft.
From this you surmised that standards may have slipped?
Sounds like a bit of a chancer to me
From this you surmised that standards may have slipped?
Sounds like a bit of a chancer to me
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is vital that pilots in cloud are IMC aware and also have a deep understanding of others and their operations in cloud.
At present I think FLARM is the only practical solution to many gliders and small LAA/BMMA types. Even an old luddite like me is starting to think I might invest in one! It's all very well saying a TRIG for example, takes up a small panel space, but you forget depth! It certainly would not have fitted in my T31m! Same with an old mode C. Go take a look at a few older gliders (the ones best suited to cloud flying, though rarely do these days) or single seat LAA types ... then tell me where you'd fit a transponder (let alone power one, or prevent it frying your b@lls!).
It's a shame more pilots don't try to make a point of understanding more about other forms of aviation. This is especially true of "professional" pilots. Beats me how you (not aimed at anyone) can call yourself an aviation professional, with such a blinkered outlook on aviation as a whole. I have spent almost my entire career in agriculture working with cows. However, my college training was in general agriculture, and I have always kept reasonably up to date with the other agricultural disciplines from livestock to cropping. Why should aviation professionals be different? I find it sad that many PPL's have a more rounded view of general aviation than their CPL and ATPL brothers and sisters!
SS
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Humble Reply
Thanks ChrisN - The uneducated Mk 1 Eye ball - I don't have access to an Aeronautical map / Air Band Recv Etc - Thank you for the reply - It helps educate all those silent watchers of this Forum (and Skies ) - Its the obvious lack of warning due to performance differences, that both parties have (the Lears & King Airs Etc would posess TCAS Etc) that bothered me.
CAT III
CAT III
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well now you know a bit about glider operations in cloud you forfill your above statement. Did you before? even with your full IR (I assume you are CPL IR at least) Perhaps the training establishments need to make the message clearer?
The normal see and avoid principles do not exist in cloud so what seperation is there.
In no other form of aviation would the practices enjoyed by glider pilots in cloud be allowed by the CAA.
What makes you better or more privalaged than the rest of us? and what gives you the rights to put others lives at risk?
Pace
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,604
Received 465 Likes
on
246 Posts
What makes you better or more privalaged than the rest of us? and what gives you the rights to put others lives at risk?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really think pocession of parachute makes a glider pilot that reckless? It certainly wouldn't make any difference to any decision I made about cloud flying! I still wouldn't rate chances of surviving a collision with another aircraft just because I had one. I know they have saved lives, but really? Wing or tail hit maybe ... but anywhere else and the collision would probably kill you anyway. You must really think glider pilots are morons! 
I still don't hear any constructive suggestions from ST or Pace. All you can say is just "ban ban ban!"
SS
I still don't hear any constructive suggestions from ST or Pace. All you can say is just "ban ban ban!"
SS
SS
Actually, the beauty of the TT31 (for those who want to fit one) is the two-box construction - the panel depth for the control unit is less than virtually any other instrument (and I assume there is room for an altimeter and ASI - there was in the back seat of the T31 gliders I used to instruct in). The box containing the rest of the electronic gubbins can be put anywhere in the airframe. (You used to be able to park a Winter Barograph behind the back seat of RAFGSA ones, and that's much bulkier). You may even have the odd few hundred milliAmps available to power it.
But Mode S only helps against TCAS equipped aircraft, no present or foreseeable ATC system could cope with separation OCAS last Sunday given the traffic levels.
FLARM on the other hand ................
At present I think FLARM is the only practical solution to many gliders and small LAA/BMMA types. Even an old luddite like me is starting to think I might invest in one! It's all very well saying a TRIG for example, takes up a small panel space, but you forget depth! It certainly would not have fitted in my T31m!
But Mode S only helps against TCAS equipped aircraft, no present or foreseeable ATC system could cope with separation OCAS last Sunday given the traffic levels.
FLARM on the other hand ................
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fitter, I think you mean TT21, not TT31. I agree that it would easily fit into any aircraft - power would still be an issue.
Anyway, surely one step forward would be to get overwhelming agreement that conspicuity needs to be improved. Once we have got over that hurdle.............
Anyway, surely one step forward would be to get overwhelming agreement that conspicuity needs to be improved. Once we have got over that hurdle.............
cgb
Thanks, slip of dyslexic fingers when discussing a T31 aircraft fit while eating breakfast. Multi-tasking not my strong point? TT21 it is, of course.
Conspicuity is all very well, but experiment shows how difficult spotting a low-angular movement target is even when you know the approximate direction. Even high-brightness strobes do not improve this, they only confirm something you have spotted is an aircraft. Dark colours are in general better than light ones, fluorescent marking had no measurable impovement on conspicuity.
Electronic aids to conspicuity are capable of making a significant contribution, which is why over 12,000 FLARM units have been sold in Europe.
The obstacles and cost multiplication created by the regulatory authorities is unfortunate, I assume it is the product of a mindset which regards regulation as more important than outcome.
Thanks, slip of dyslexic fingers when discussing a T31 aircraft fit while eating breakfast. Multi-tasking not my strong point? TT21 it is, of course.
Conspicuity is all very well, but experiment shows how difficult spotting a low-angular movement target is even when you know the approximate direction. Even high-brightness strobes do not improve this, they only confirm something you have spotted is an aircraft. Dark colours are in general better than light ones, fluorescent marking had no measurable impovement on conspicuity.
Electronic aids to conspicuity are capable of making a significant contribution, which is why over 12,000 FLARM units have been sold in Europe.
The obstacles and cost multiplication created by the regulatory authorities is unfortunate, I assume it is the product of a mindset which regards regulation as more important than outcome.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting thread.
Started by a bit of a surprise and with the usual forum attitude of 'I don't like it so it should be banned'.
Very early on there was mention of commercial AOC operation which Pace stated was irrelevant. Nice try would be my professional assessment.
As a direct result of this thread Pace should inform his charters / customers that if he is dropped out of CAS then the risks of collision will be several orders of magnitude more likely. In other words the customers should be warned that the odds of htting another aircraft (any type) move from being almost neglible to the 'are you feeling lucky punk' level. Now for pretty obvious reasons Pace or his employers may not be very keen on making this annoucement.
So of course banning non-transponding traffic would help Pace - but only until another threat is identified. So rather than operating in an unknown environment where Pace represents a threat to his fare paying passengers and other traffic operating legally under the present rules the blindingly obvious answer is that Pace only operates within CAS. The existing rules are designed to support that and much of this thread would be irrelevent if Pace operated within them.
This thread is a classic example of 'he who shouts loudest is right'. Flying IFR out of CAS is a lottery. When I passed Air Law the glider issue was mentioned - I recall it but nothing more - I don't have an IMC or IR so it has little impact. However once you accept payment for services rended you do have a duty of care to those people.
Operating IFR outside CAS when other aircraft can legally operate there without any contact or electronic conspicuity represents a risk which paying passengers should not be exposed to. So if IFR traffic does not operate outside CAS then the issue very largely 'goes away'. May be that is the short term answer the rules are intended that CAT operates within CAS - that is why VFR traffic is excluded and IFR equipment requirements are what they are.
The same issue exists with locations like the norht east coast where CAT operates direct to locations like Aberdeen direct and not via Class A. So welcome to the world Pace - being 'dumped' out of CAs is not acceptable for fare paying passengers - the question is what is the answer? Sterilising Class G so charter operators can use it is not the answer.
Started by a bit of a surprise and with the usual forum attitude of 'I don't like it so it should be banned'.
Very early on there was mention of commercial AOC operation which Pace stated was irrelevant. Nice try would be my professional assessment.
As a direct result of this thread Pace should inform his charters / customers that if he is dropped out of CAS then the risks of collision will be several orders of magnitude more likely. In other words the customers should be warned that the odds of htting another aircraft (any type) move from being almost neglible to the 'are you feeling lucky punk' level. Now for pretty obvious reasons Pace or his employers may not be very keen on making this annoucement.
So of course banning non-transponding traffic would help Pace - but only until another threat is identified. So rather than operating in an unknown environment where Pace represents a threat to his fare paying passengers and other traffic operating legally under the present rules the blindingly obvious answer is that Pace only operates within CAS. The existing rules are designed to support that and much of this thread would be irrelevent if Pace operated within them.
This thread is a classic example of 'he who shouts loudest is right'. Flying IFR out of CAS is a lottery. When I passed Air Law the glider issue was mentioned - I recall it but nothing more - I don't have an IMC or IR so it has little impact. However once you accept payment for services rended you do have a duty of care to those people.
Operating IFR outside CAS when other aircraft can legally operate there without any contact or electronic conspicuity represents a risk which paying passengers should not be exposed to. So if IFR traffic does not operate outside CAS then the issue very largely 'goes away'. May be that is the short term answer the rules are intended that CAT operates within CAS - that is why VFR traffic is excluded and IFR equipment requirements are what they are.
The same issue exists with locations like the norht east coast where CAT operates direct to locations like Aberdeen direct and not via Class A. So welcome to the world Pace - being 'dumped' out of CAs is not acceptable for fare paying passengers - the question is what is the answer? Sterilising Class G so charter operators can use it is not the answer.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gasax
I have to say I think you have totally missed the point.
This really has very little to do with CAT or sterilising class G.
Anyone is entitled to use class G.
This includes GA, both VFR and IMC, gliders, both VFR and IMC, CAT, both VFR and IMC and everyone else VFR.
The risk to everyone is the same. Gliders are just as much at risk of a collision in IMC with other gliders unless they agree on a common protocol.
The problem is we cant agree on a common protocol - that is what makes IMC dangerous for everyone.
Sterilsing class G of CAT would make no difference what so ever.
I have to say I think you have totally missed the point.
This really has very little to do with CAT or sterilising class G.
Anyone is entitled to use class G.
This includes GA, both VFR and IMC, gliders, both VFR and IMC, CAT, both VFR and IMC and everyone else VFR.
The risk to everyone is the same. Gliders are just as much at risk of a collision in IMC with other gliders unless they agree on a common protocol.
The problem is we cant agree on a common protocol - that is what makes IMC dangerous for everyone.
Sterilsing class G of CAT would make no difference what so ever.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operating IFR outside CAS when other aircraft can legally operate there without any contact or electronic conspicuity represents a risk which paying passengers should not be exposed to. So if IFR traffic does not operate outside CAS then the issue very largely 'goes away'. May be that is the short term answer the rules are intended that CAT operates within CAS - that is why VFR traffic is excluded and IFR equipment requirements are what they are.
Fine, your arguement is sound but getting CAT to operate only in CAS would mean carving up masses of open airspace and converting it to CAS which would not go down with me or anyone else .) Hence these long discussions
pace
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,604
Received 465 Likes
on
246 Posts
Shortstripper, you claim:
Incorrect. Ban what? Although you may disagree with my opinions, I have never said "ban" anything (I didn't think Pace had either). This is a total fabrication on your part.
You appear to have a personal axe to grind. You already accused me of something else earlier in this thread, which I responded to, giving valid reasons. You failed to answer further and now you fabricate another accusation.
Produce some evidence to backup your statement that I wish to ban anyone from flying in free airspace, or have ever used the word. You will find none on my part. Use the search engine. As far as I can see, although I've been active on this forum for fourteen years, I don't recall using the word in any thread whatsoever.
I still don't hear any constructive suggestions from ST or Pace. All you can say is just "ban ban ban!"
You appear to have a personal axe to grind. You already accused me of something else earlier in this thread, which I responded to, giving valid reasons. You failed to answer further and now you fabricate another accusation.
Produce some evidence to backup your statement that I wish to ban anyone from flying in free airspace, or have ever used the word. You will find none on my part. Use the search engine. As far as I can see, although I've been active on this forum for fourteen years, I don't recall using the word in any thread whatsoever.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holding overhead Cambridge today at 4000 other traffic below in the hold at 3000 heard the following pilot report on freq from an aircraft cleared to leave the hold and follow ILS
"Approach for your info there is a glider very close to your overhead"
response
"Thanks for that information we are not in communication"
Sounds like at best = poor airmanship at worst = extremely negligent and selfish
"Approach for your info there is a glider very close to your overhead"
response
"Thanks for that information we are not in communication"
Sounds like at best = poor airmanship at worst = extremely negligent and selfish
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holding overhead Cambridge today at 4000 other traffic below in the hold at 3000 heard the following pilot report on freq from an aircraft cleared to leave the hold and follow ILS
"Approach for your info there is a glider very close to your overhead"
response
"Thanks for that information we are not in communication"
Sounds like at best = poor airmanship at worst = extremely negligent and selfish
"Approach for your info there is a glider very close to your overhead"
response
"Thanks for that information we are not in communication"
Sounds like at best = poor airmanship at worst = extremely negligent and selfish