Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gpn01
It is not the same at all.
Transponders, (and possibly FLARM and PCAS) are one of the areas of aviation safety where you fit the kit to help other pilots as much as to help yourself.
If you want to fly across the English Channel without a liferaft frankly I couldnt care - only you will suffer the potential consequence, however, if you elect to fly around in clouds without a transponder not only do you risk killing yourself you risk killing anyone else you meet whatever measures they take short of your forcing them not to fly at all.
Since gliders and a few others arent prepared in some cases to adopt appropriate measures as far as I am concerned it is they that should stay away from the clouds and leave the majoirty of us to conduct our flights knowing that we accept mutual responsibility for seperation.
It is not the same at all.
Transponders, (and possibly FLARM and PCAS) are one of the areas of aviation safety where you fit the kit to help other pilots as much as to help yourself.
If you want to fly across the English Channel without a liferaft frankly I couldnt care - only you will suffer the potential consequence, however, if you elect to fly around in clouds without a transponder not only do you risk killing yourself you risk killing anyone else you meet whatever measures they take short of your forcing them not to fly at all.
Since gliders and a few others arent prepared in some cases to adopt appropriate measures as far as I am concerned it is they that should stay away from the clouds and leave the majoirty of us to conduct our flights knowing that we accept mutual responsibility for seperation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPN01
Sorry I wasnt clear cost maybe relevant as to what level of risk you decide to expose yourself or others too but it is not relevant as to what is available to you in reducing that risk.
IE someone could theoretically develop an avoidance system which was so technically advanced it made your chances of ever coliliding with someone zero.
That unit may cost more than the aircraft. You decide not to have it on a cost basis and as such increase your risks but cost in itself doesnt effect what technology is capable of and can supply.
Cancer patients may have available certain expensive drugs or treatments which are more likely to extend life for those patients.
Some authority may decide on a cost basis to not supply those drugs or treatments thus increasing your chance of dying earlier but that doesnt stop what is avialble to you.
Pace
Sorry I wasnt clear cost maybe relevant as to what level of risk you decide to expose yourself or others too but it is not relevant as to what is available to you in reducing that risk.
IE someone could theoretically develop an avoidance system which was so technically advanced it made your chances of ever coliliding with someone zero.
That unit may cost more than the aircraft. You decide not to have it on a cost basis and as such increase your risks but cost in itself doesnt effect what technology is capable of and can supply.
Cancer patients may have available certain expensive drugs or treatments which are more likely to extend life for those patients.
Some authority may decide on a cost basis to not supply those drugs or treatments thus increasing your chance of dying earlier but that doesnt stop what is avialble to you.
Pace
Since gliders and a few others arent prepared in some cases to adopt appropriate measures as far as I am concerned it is they that should stay away from the clouds and leave the majoirty of us to conduct our flights knowing that we accept mutual responsibility for seperation.
Glider pilots are taking what are at present legal actions, and legal mehtods of ensuring separation. For a variety of reasons, rehearsed many times before, I can't do it your way, and you are free to do it my way.
Or accept the risk.
Or fly CAS.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fiiter2
It was legal to drive a car without seat belts, but it wasnt sensible.
It was legal MPs claimed certain expenses, but those that elected them thought otherwise. Many have paid the price, many have yet to pay the price.
It is legal to smoke, but it will probably kill you.
Perhaps worth reflecting the wisdom in doing something just because it is legal.
As to your legal methods of seperation here is a thing
- you dont have any.
You dont follow the rules for seperation by height and you dont employ any other approved methods.
You are mavericks - as much as I love a good maverick
It was legal to drive a car without seat belts, but it wasnt sensible.
It was legal MPs claimed certain expenses, but those that elected them thought otherwise. Many have paid the price, many have yet to pay the price.
It is legal to smoke, but it will probably kill you.
Perhaps worth reflecting the wisdom in doing something just because it is legal.
As to your legal methods of seperation here is a thing
- you dont have any.
You dont follow the rules for seperation by height and you dont employ any other approved methods.
You are mavericks - as much as I love a good maverick
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 23rd Jun 2009 at 15:29.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glider pilots are taking what are at present legal actions, and legal mehtods of ensuring separation.
In that way it is better to be doing something proactive yourselves as an organisation where you hold a certain level of control rather than having regulations forced which you dont want.
As to your earlier question re flarm.
If the gliding community come up with a standard which is used across the board amongst your members and there is anything we can do on our side regarding fitting equiptment then of course I would recommend that to my owners.
and legal mehtods of ensuring separation
Pace
That is the problem you dont have any method of ensuring seperation.
Gliders wishing to enter cloud call on 130.4MHz, giving call sign and position in relation to a prominent feature on the 1:500,000 chart. Subsequent height calls if other aircraft are present to maintain at leat 500ft height separation. Call clear of cloud.
FLARM provides an additional aid to traffic awareness. A substantial majority of gliders in Europe, and many helicopters (because of the additional obstacle warning facility) and light aircraft fit FLARM. In UK fitment in the proportion of cross country gliders is significant, it is over 50% at the club where I fly.
It would make sense to address the problem of VFR collisions between light aircraft, which undoubtedly do occur before worrying about an event that has never happened. Possibly if that resulted in a more general acceptance of the value of FLARM then you might undergo a conversion?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fitter 2 and Cats 5
No irony intended - I would fly through cloud on a straight course and at a specific level. When in the clouds I would be IMC so hence the radar service. In the southeast we are often below 2500feet. Many of my flights are training sorties where we actually benefit from flying in actual IMC conditions so I am often searching for the nearest and often any bit of cloud in order to make the training conditions more realistic.
I would not route around every large buildup and I would not change levels either (sorry if you don't like that but that is the truth)
Not sure why you think that I was being ironic ?? If you are in there somewhere thermalling thinking that everyone else is remaining VMC you are mistaken.
Isn't that what this whole thread is about ?
No irony intended - I would fly through cloud on a straight course and at a specific level. When in the clouds I would be IMC so hence the radar service. In the southeast we are often below 2500feet. Many of my flights are training sorties where we actually benefit from flying in actual IMC conditions so I am often searching for the nearest and often any bit of cloud in order to make the training conditions more realistic.
I would not route around every large buildup and I would not change levels either (sorry if you don't like that but that is the truth)
Not sure why you think that I was being ironic ?? If you are in there somewhere thermalling thinking that everyone else is remaining VMC you are mistaken.
Isn't that what this whole thread is about ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gliders wishing to enter cloud call on 130.4MHz, giving call sign and position in relation to a prominent feature on the 1:500,000 chart. Subsequent height calls if other aircraft are present to maintain at leat 500ft height separation. Call clear of cloud.
130.4 is one thing I have picked up through this thread and will give it a go where its practical
Your seperation procedures are not what I would call seperation procedures and seem to be directed at yourselves and not other aircraft.
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this thread is now going in circles. Chris and I are both writing articles, but we will have little to report on this for some weeks. I will briefly report back when I have flown with FLARM, but that may not be till the weekend.
Rod1
Rod1
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as you're fully aware that a radar 'service' does not mean that there aren't any non-transponding aircraft in the same cloud and that the radar controller can't actually see if there's anything else in the cloud either.....
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPN01
Sorry I wasnt clear cost maybe relevant as to what level of risk you decide to expose yourself or others too but it is not relevant as to what is available to you in reducing that risk.
IE someone could theoretically develop an avoidance system which was so technically advanced it made your chances of ever coliliding with someone zero.
That unit may cost more than the aircraft. You decide not to have it on a cost basis and as such increase your risks but cost in itself doesnt effect what technology is capable of and can supply.
Cancer patients may have available certain expensive drugs or treatments which are more likely to extend life for those patients.
Some authority may decide on a cost basis to not supply those drugs or treatments thus increasing your chance of dying earlier but that doesnt stop what is avialble to you.
Pace
Sorry I wasnt clear cost maybe relevant as to what level of risk you decide to expose yourself or others too but it is not relevant as to what is available to you in reducing that risk.
IE someone could theoretically develop an avoidance system which was so technically advanced it made your chances of ever coliliding with someone zero.
That unit may cost more than the aircraft. You decide not to have it on a cost basis and as such increase your risks but cost in itself doesnt effect what technology is capable of and can supply.
Cancer patients may have available certain expensive drugs or treatments which are more likely to extend life for those patients.
Some authority may decide on a cost basis to not supply those drugs or treatments thus increasing your chance of dying earlier but that doesnt stop what is avialble to you.
Pace
Part of the problem seems to be a determination by the CAA that any solution involves ground based radar/control - which appears to facilitate only the ability to police and charge for useage as opposed to provide a safer sky. Add to this that interoperability is managed by the CAA, Air Traffic is managed by NATS and aircraft licensing is now managed by EASA, is it any wonder that pilots from the different spheres of aviation become somewhat entrenched!
Last edited by gpn01; 23rd Jun 2009 at 19:23.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The more I read this thread, the more I think that gliders should be banned from cloud flying.
The question about the Cu cloudbase at 4,000' showed a total lack of understanding of powered flying.
Without info about the cloud tops and the convective activity, it is ridiculous to expect a sensible answer - the penetration experience could be merely bumpy through to life threatening.
I look at the cost benefit analysis...... cost of banning gliders from clouds - not a lot, benefit, mitigation of potential air to air and with CAT often flying OCAS, protecting the lives of many (who pay taxes) against the lives of a few selfish individuals who use cost as an argument to avoid installing Tx.
You are the weakest link ......... goodbye.....
The question about the Cu cloudbase at 4,000' showed a total lack of understanding of powered flying.
Without info about the cloud tops and the convective activity, it is ridiculous to expect a sensible answer - the penetration experience could be merely bumpy through to life threatening.
I look at the cost benefit analysis...... cost of banning gliders from clouds - not a lot, benefit, mitigation of potential air to air and with CAT often flying OCAS, protecting the lives of many (who pay taxes) against the lives of a few selfish individuals who use cost as an argument to avoid installing Tx.
You are the weakest link ......... goodbye.....
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I look at the cost benefit analysis...... cost of banning gliders from clouds - not a lot, benefit, mitigation of potential air to air and with CAT often flying OCAS, protecting the lives of many (who pay taxes) against the lives of a few selfish individuals who use cost as an argument to avoid installing Tx.
You are the weakest link ......... goodbye.....
You are the weakest link ......... goodbye.....
There seems to be a vastly disproportionate obsession with the risk of hitting gliders in IMC - at the expense of the 2-3 yearly occasion of power/power collision in VMC and the overall risk of the whole OCAS system in the UK as high speed traffic OCAS increases and Radar Service decreases.
Let ChrisN and Rod1 get on with their articles. If they are writing about the Gizmo I think, and it actually delivers on its price point and functionality - when it is available, I will fit it and then have a view everyone else flying should be made to install either FLARM or an altitude encoding transponder - because I have equally bruised faith in Radar Services and the Mk I eyeball!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys I think that you have missed the point a little bit regarding ensuring a radar service if IMC.....The fact is that if everybody established contact and spoke to ATC the risk could be better managed....I also agree that this thread is going round in circles and has been useful in confirming and highlighting a serious safety concern..... so until the low cost technology is proven we have probably taken this debate as far as it needs to go right now
Naturally go around the blobs of CU as passenegers dont appreciate bashing their heads.
Usually i will try and fly above cloud as it is smoother above cloud. If airspace dictates the level /height then its See and avoid.
Usually i will try and fly above cloud as it is smoother above cloud. If airspace dictates the level /height then its See and avoid.
Below radar
I would fly through cloud on a straight course and at a specific level. When in the clouds I would be IMC so hence the radar service. In the southeast we are often below 2500feet. Many of my flights are training sorties where we actually benefit from flying in actual IMC conditions so I am often searching for the nearest and often any bit of cloud in order to make the training conditions more realistic
The question about the Cu cloudbase at 4,000' showed a total lack of understanding of powered flying.
Without info about the cloud tops and the convective activity, it is ridiculous to expect a sensible answer - the penetration experience could be merely bumpy through to life threatening
Without info about the cloud tops and the convective activity, it is ridiculous to expect a sensible answer - the penetration experience could be merely bumpy through to life threatening
Final 3 Greens, poor answer! You appear to have missed the point that the threat is not how bumpy the ride will be but that you would be needlessly robing yourself of a clear view of the sky ahead. Many of the people you are sharing this thread with have not only flown gliders but have 10,000hrs + in aeroplanes and have flown 80,000kg twins in class "G" so perhaps understand power flying better than you think. We do it for real, not for training. Personally when flying heavy twins in class "G" I fly round the cu to retain forward view and that allows me to pick up military "pop up" traffic before radar calls it. That is what pilots should be trained to do. Hiding in cloud and hoping a controller will solve the problem is a poor technique.
The above quotes show that there is separation between sensible pilots as gliders are normally in the isulated cu and good power pilots go round those. Glider pilots seldom fly in low stratus. This makes things safer than might first appear to the less aware members of the flying community
b b
Guest
Posts: n/a
No Bad Bear, it wasn't a bad answer, it just didn't match your pre-determined and narrow focus answer.
My point was that one could not even consider penetrating a cloud without understanding the potential wx hazards within. In other words, it was a non question, the only reasonable answer was in VMC and therefore I repeat that the way the question was written demonstrated a lack of understanding of powered flying, even ifi t was written by an experienced pilot.
One of my professional jobs is writing and auditing test questions, so whilst I defer to your superior knowledge of flying, take it from an expert that your question was poorly framed.
My point was that one could not even consider penetrating a cloud without understanding the potential wx hazards within. In other words, it was a non question, the only reasonable answer was in VMC and therefore I repeat that the way the question was written demonstrated a lack of understanding of powered flying, even ifi t was written by an experienced pilot.
One of my professional jobs is writing and auditing test questions, so whilst I defer to your superior knowledge of flying, take it from an expert that your question was poorly framed.
3 greens
OK try this one - the cost to the world of banning you from doing many things you might consider reasonable is negligible. You would object strongly unless there was a demonstrable case (and probably even then). The perceived risk you see is not supported by calculation based on available statistics. The selfish are arguably those who demand others spend large sums of money rather than listening out on 130.4 on COM2. (Ignoring the obstructive nature of EASA that wouldn't in many case, including mine, permit Mode S fitment anyway). If you can't do the simple risk mitigation suggested, you shouldn't be in cloud OCAS. Why not enter into sensible dialogue, instead of parrotting ban, ban, ban.
I look at the cost benefit analysis...... cost of banning gliders from clouds - not a lot, benefit, mitigation of potential air to air and with CAT often flying OCAS, protecting the lives of many (who pay taxes) against the lives of a few selfish individuals who use cost as an argument to avoid installing Tx.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK try this one - the cost to the world of banning you from doing many things you might consider reasonable is negligible.
Logically, the same rules about competence on instruments etc whould apply to all.
So to stick your head in the sand and defend the status quo is not, IMHO, the best way to protect a minority activity. (Minority as in the % of the population who engage.)
Pace makes the point eloquently.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad Bear
I also agree that you appear to have a rather narrow focus but also a self important attitude.
You carry on routing around every cumulus cloud if you like but that is not always the most sensible or cost effective thing to do (rather appears to be trying to keep every flight VFR when you are IFR ??)
Base of radar here is 1500ft by the way
Thread now running out of puff as the main points have been adequately made
I for one now realise that Glider pilots may well be lurking in the next cloud with no wish to communicate so will be more cautious !! Still think the situation sucks and there will be an accident at some point.
I also agree that you appear to have a rather narrow focus but also a self important attitude.
You carry on routing around every cumulus cloud if you like but that is not always the most sensible or cost effective thing to do (rather appears to be trying to keep every flight VFR when you are IFR ??)
Base of radar here is 1500ft by the way
Thread now running out of puff as the main points have been adequately made
I for one now realise that Glider pilots may well be lurking in the next cloud with no wish to communicate so will be more cautious !! Still think the situation sucks and there will be an accident at some point.
You might indeed not get the current rules approved today, but it is what it is. The whole of human endavour is littered with 'grandfather' rights of various kinds. Lots of people live in houses which would never get planning permission today. There are lots of A roads which are well below the standard they would be built to today (indeed the last single carriageway one, the A830, was only upgraded last year), ditto lots of junctions which don't meet modern standards. Tobacco is a legal drug. And so on and so on and so on.
Rules can (sometimes) be changed but it takes a long, long time so in the interim sounding off about them isn't going to do anything except generate hot air.
Rules can (sometimes) be changed but it takes a long, long time so in the interim sounding off about them isn't going to do anything except generate hot air.