Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
I can sympathise with what you are saying Pace. After all, until last week I hadn't flown a glider for nearly 20 years, and have done the IMC ... so I'm not just seeing it from the glider viewpoint. However, despite your near miss, I still think that you cannot expect a huge level of controlled separation outside CAS. There are no garauntees after all, and no implication of separation even between transponder equipped IFR craft (Not all TCAS are equal, even if you are so equipped).
I have flown for 20 years and 4000 plus hours without a close glider encounter especially one in IMC.
Maybe a case of lighning not striking twice. I was tempted just to forget it but posted here and put in a report more to highlight the threat.
I am not saying it was the gliders fault or mine but probably a freak situation which happened.
Neither of us took evasive action and it could have equally been another light aircraft. It Just happened to be a Glider.
99% of glider sightings have been under the clouds. I have only ever seen a handful above and feel pretty secure in serious IMC or above clouds.
Would a powered aircraft be allowed to fly in clouds with the equiptment levels of a glider or the instrument training of the glider pilot?
Powered aircraft tend to fly levels to avoid meeting each other and travel in a straight line. Gliders dont and cant ! Could anything be done to improve that situation or do gliders live on grandfather privalages from times long past? its a tricky call.
A RAS does give a certain extra level of protection. The limited hours of Brize now removes a vital service covering a large area of UAS and that has to increase the risk of collision not just with gliders?
Pace
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
From: South Norfolk, England
It's a hard one, and you'd think in this technological age we could come up with something practical, light and cheap to eliminate risk. Unfortunately I don't think TCAS is it! FLARM is good but not perfect. However, I think it's working on the right lines, unlike TCAS that seems heavy and "steam powered" in comparison.
SS
SS
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Pace, Not wanting to be funny, be surely you must understand that there is an element of risk flying IFR OCAS? Your glider may have been close but it still proves that the big sky theory works and for you to have seen it then it can't have been completely IMC!
I am off the view that if I want proper separation when IFR then I fly in the airways. Sometimes this can give a more convoluted routing. There are not that many places where you can't fly airways to and certainly the routing you have described is easily done on the airways albeit at the cost of a little extra time.
You cant have both!!
I am off the view that if I want proper separation when IFR then I fly in the airways. Sometimes this can give a more convoluted routing. There are not that many places where you can't fly airways to and certainly the routing you have described is easily done on the airways albeit at the cost of a little extra time.
You cant have both!!
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
There are not that many places where you can't fly airways to and certainly the routing you have described is easily done on the airways albeit at the cost of a little extra time.
This was a double trip ie I did both there and back in the morning with no problems and most of the trip airways.
The return was all radar headings which ended up sending me in a large oval south west not on my filed route.
I ended up down near compton. To stay airways from there would have required a routing to BCN and then north. Quite a long way especially as I had already made a tour of the UK keeping london control happy.
In future maybe London Mil if Brize are no longer playing
Pace
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Pace
There is an element of risk in all flight at "GA levels".
OCAS, there could be somebody there, and gliders only just show on radar. I have flown close to huge h/a baloons and the Farnborough radar controller saw absolutely zilch. Statistically, the risk is very low - ~ 1 midair a year in the UK and most of them below 1000ft.
ICAS, there could also be somebody there - busting CAS. Let's face it, much GA "navigation" hangs on a shoestring. The risk is just lower but it's still there.
In IMC the risk is very low indeed. No IMC midairs in the UK since at least WW2.
CAT has a very low exposure (just as well, eh?) because they climb at a few thousand fpm and are quickly above the levels at which any stray GA will be found. The exposure from busting GA traffic is mostly on the descent, when on the glideslope.
In VMC, the best protection comes from altitude. At FL100 there is no casual GA, and anybody that high will know what they are doing. I have very very rarely even seen another aircraft on any airways flight, at around my level.
A radar service is worth something but not a lot because a lot of traffic (which I am sure does show up) is unreported.
But you must know all this already.
There is an element of risk in all flight at "GA levels".
OCAS, there could be somebody there, and gliders only just show on radar. I have flown close to huge h/a baloons and the Farnborough radar controller saw absolutely zilch. Statistically, the risk is very low - ~ 1 midair a year in the UK and most of them below 1000ft.
ICAS, there could also be somebody there - busting CAS. Let's face it, much GA "navigation" hangs on a shoestring. The risk is just lower but it's still there.
In IMC the risk is very low indeed. No IMC midairs in the UK since at least WW2.
CAT has a very low exposure (just as well, eh?) because they climb at a few thousand fpm and are quickly above the levels at which any stray GA will be found. The exposure from busting GA traffic is mostly on the descent, when on the glideslope.
In VMC, the best protection comes from altitude. At FL100 there is no casual GA, and anybody that high will know what they are doing. I have very very rarely even seen another aircraft on any airways flight, at around my level.
A radar service is worth something but not a lot because a lot of traffic (which I am sure does show up) is unreported.
But you must know all this already.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
10540
Yes there is an element of risk in flying but as in all risky occupations we try to elimate those risks as far as possible.
Ie it doesnt matter whether you race cars, scuba dive or whatever there is a risk.
Scuba dive you dive with a buddy, you follow rules you have computers to calculate your nitrogen levels, you have two regulators should one fail etc.
Racing you have special fuel tanks, flameproof clothes, roll bars etc.
Aircraft dont fly too well if they hit each other and so we try to use all thats available to us to avoid that.
I was always taught that whatever you do thats risky to always have an "out" another plan if something goes wrong another door to take.
If you do anything without that out its Russian roulette.
I came very close to hitting a glider. The Gods were kind the trigger I pulled didnt hold the live bullit but it made me aware.
Of course we take risks many of us here including me fly in nearly all weather at all times of year and the reason I bothered to post this was to share my experience in this flight with others hopefully and statistically it will never happen again.
Pace
Yes there is an element of risk in flying but as in all risky occupations we try to elimate those risks as far as possible.
Ie it doesnt matter whether you race cars, scuba dive or whatever there is a risk.
Scuba dive you dive with a buddy, you follow rules you have computers to calculate your nitrogen levels, you have two regulators should one fail etc.
Racing you have special fuel tanks, flameproof clothes, roll bars etc.
Aircraft dont fly too well if they hit each other and so we try to use all thats available to us to avoid that.
I was always taught that whatever you do thats risky to always have an "out" another plan if something goes wrong another door to take.
If you do anything without that out its Russian roulette.
I came very close to hitting a glider. The Gods were kind the trigger I pulled didnt hold the live bullit but it made me aware.
Of course we take risks many of us here including me fly in nearly all weather at all times of year and the reason I bothered to post this was to share my experience in this flight with others hopefully and statistically it will never happen again.
Pace
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
From: Maders UK
I have to agree with Fuji here.
Mandatory (mode C) transponder carriage for all traffic in IMC would definitely be a step forwards as far as maintaining separation is concerned.
It would be entirely fair for people to fly into cloud with no transponder if their only risk was collision with another non-transponding aircraft.
More than a little selfish to wipe out somebody who had invested in additional safety equipment I think.
For those of us who believe that while travelling in objects closing at several hundred miles per hour in poor viz it is good to maintain separation then there is TCAS.
Having flown with TCAS for a few years now I am convinced it has improved flight safety for me.
The one thing that is very annoying is when traffic is transponding mode A with no altitude and you get a spurious traffic alert (as I did yesterday over Filton in IMC) which looks a bit like this
yellow dot. Believe me, there is nothing that makes you look outside the cockpit (and into the murk) more than hearing "traffic...traffic".
Low airway routings are simply not practical in the UK on any of the routes I regularly fly.
Coverage of IFR traffic OCAS is poor - I have also been dumped and told to "freecall XXXX" - no problem if VFR, but in proper IMC it is unwelcome extra workload.
SB
Mandatory (mode C) transponder carriage for all traffic in IMC would definitely be a step forwards as far as maintaining separation is concerned.
It would be entirely fair for people to fly into cloud with no transponder if their only risk was collision with another non-transponding aircraft.
More than a little selfish to wipe out somebody who had invested in additional safety equipment I think.
For those of us who believe that while travelling in objects closing at several hundred miles per hour in poor viz it is good to maintain separation then there is TCAS.
Having flown with TCAS for a few years now I am convinced it has improved flight safety for me.
The one thing that is very annoying is when traffic is transponding mode A with no altitude and you get a spurious traffic alert (as I did yesterday over Filton in IMC) which looks a bit like this
yellow dot. Believe me, there is nothing that makes you look outside the cockpit (and into the murk) more than hearing "traffic...traffic".Low airway routings are simply not practical in the UK on any of the routes I regularly fly.
Coverage of IFR traffic OCAS is poor - I have also been dumped and told to "freecall XXXX" - no problem if VFR, but in proper IMC it is unwelcome extra workload.
SB
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
From: In a thriving maritime community
A radar service is worth something but not a lot because a lot of traffic (which I am sure does show up) is unreported.
could you explain what you mean by that ? To me it sounds like you are suggesting that a radar controller would not report unknown traffic observed in the vicinity of an aircraft that is receiving a radar service ?
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I don't know how this happens, but it happens quite a lot.
Maybe some planes are not so visible on radar?
I don't think the controller has an absolute obligation to call out every traffic within X miles. This is not like a radar controller doing an approach service who can get the sack if separation is lost.
Maybe some planes are not so visible on radar?
I don't think the controller has an absolute obligation to call out every traffic within X miles. This is not like a radar controller doing an approach service who can get the sack if separation is lost.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Pace, Not wanting to be funny, be surely you must understand that there is an element of risk flying IFR OCAS? Your glider may have been close but it still proves that the big sky theory works and for you to have seen it then it can't have been completely IMC!
Bose – most unlike you, you seem confused. Either the big sky works or there is an element of risk? You have to make your mind up.
Look it is simple really.
We all know the evidence would suggest you can fly in IMC for a whole lifetime without TAS or TS and never have a collision.
However, just like the lottery ad says – one day, it could be youuuu.
Should we expect people to pay to eliminate and almost non existent risk?
That is the conundrum.
Many young men pay life assurance premiums. The risk of them dying young men is very small, but they feel it is worth while insurance.
For me the added cost to my flying of fitting a transponder is small – mode C being fine. With the current generation of compact transponders I am convinced they could be fitted to many gliders if they wished to do so. I accept that FLARM is ideally suited to gliders who realistically could not fit TAS and characteristically fly in close proximity to each other.
However if you share airspace where visual rules no longer work and therefore the only mechanism for avoiding each other is to keep your fingers crossed is it so unreasonable that I should expect you to fit the same technology that the rest of us use in these conditions.
You have an alternative – don’t fly in or near cloud unless you have a transponder because it could be youuuu and the thought of an entirely avoidable mid air horrify me.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
I don't know how this happens, but it happens quite a lot.
Perhaps I have been very unlucky, but as I have said before I have had three near misses. In reality if I had done nothing the first would have undoubtedly missed me (althoung interestingly that one was in CAS and was the subject of Controller error, and an apology which I was happy not to take further), the second was OCAS and again I suspect would have been a miss (I wasnt the flying pilot, but the pilot never saw the aircraft until after we had taken avoiding action), but the third did unnerve me.
The other twin passed directly under me with minimal vertical seperation - I would guess no more than 50 feet. Unsurprisngly it all happened so quickly, it was almost surreal. However I found myself contemplating the reprecussions of even two light twins meeting at 200 knots. I still cant fully visualise how horrifying would be the moment of impact never mind the debri below.
I accept not relevant to this discussion as the instant above was in VMC, but the reuslt in IMC would be equally horrifying - and in both cases you would probably know very little about it!
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: UK
I commence my general remarks with a preamble: I am a glider pilot, I am not opposed to transponders for gliders under all circumstances, but I believe that they should be a voluntarily fit at present. They cannot be mandatory. The reasons are well rehearsed and I won’t repeat them in this post. But an anecdote, for those tempted to think they are a panacea: when flying between Cambridge and Suffolk in the Lakenheath area, I heard the pilot of a transponder-equipped aircraft near Bury St Edmunds making repeated efforts for his squawk to be seen, and Lakenheath could see nothing of him, on either primary or secondary radar. So please don’t think that having a transponder automatically makes you visible to air traffic control. Like any other machine, they are not 100% reliable.
We could go on all day about differences in philosophy as to what is acceptable risk, and what is not, in somebody else's chosen field of aviation. I have long given up any hope of convincing power pilots about aspects of gliding that they don't involve themselves in. In the end, however, I do believe that the statistics are a fair reflection of the relative dangers. In the past four decades, I know of only two glider collisions in cloud, and probably two more, both fatal, at or close to cloud base when radio for separation was not being used. By contrast, instances of powered aircraft hitting the ground, and/or each other, are rather more numerous. I know where I think our dangers, and yours, seem to be greater.
It seems, however, to be a feature of the human condition to fear more a risk with elements beyond our own control than those we think we can avoid by our superior expertise.
What kills most in the power GA world? CFIT and loss of control in IMC?
This is from the CAA Safety Sense leaflet- Airmanship:
a. There is an average of one fatal GA accident a month in the United Kingdom.
b. The main fatal accident causes during the last 20 years have been:
• continued flight into bad weather, including impact with high ground and loss of control in IMC
• loss of control in visual met conditions, including stall/spin
• low aerobatics and low flying
• mid-air collisions (sometimes each pilot knew the other was there)
• runway too short for the aircraft’s weight or performance
• colliding with obstacles, perhaps being too low on the approach
What are people here most worried about? Collision with gliders.
I have seen two sorts of data. 1 – actual fatal collisions, glider-glider and glider-power. The former outnumber the latter by about 10 to 1. 2 – airprox data for GA/glider incidents. The vast majority are within or close to the gliding site circuit.
I don’t have data for power/power collisions (does anybody else?), but I believe there are more than the four power-glider collisions in the last 40 years, all in VMC:
----------------------
8 March 1981. (AAIB report 7/81). Blanik/PA28. The PA28 was doing an Overhead Join onto Cranwell Main. It flew into the glider which was being launched. 2 glider pilots killed.
--------------------
1984: A Rockwell Commander flew straight into the back of a glider flying straight, between thermals, that it caught up. The glider pilot was killed. The Rockwell and occupants survived. The only case I know of in the UK where it was not near a gliding club.
-------------------------------------
(Dunno the date, but years ago) Over Farnborough airfield between a glider from the Farnborough gliding club and a light aircraft from Blackbushe. The Astir pilot baled out and landed safely on the airfield. The power pilot flew back to Blackbushe with his pupil instead .
----------------------------------
May 1996 Grumman.
A Grumman light single flew into a Ka13 from behind, sliced the outboard couple of feet off the Ka13's wing tip with its' rudder. The Ka13 landed safely at its nearby base (Haddenham), the Grumman went into a spiral dive and struck the ground very steeply at about 200 knots, the single occupant was killed.
The collision happened in the open FIR, in good visibility, well clear of cloud. From the heading of the Grumman it seemed quite likely it was tracking towards a nearby VOR.
---------------------------------
(I have omitted one or two collisions between gliders and tugs operating from the same gliding site – they were nothing to do with IMC, and nothing to do with general GA/glider collision risks. I know of one that was fatal.)
Glider/power collisions in IMC are zero so far, for at least two probable reasons, IMHO.
One is the much rehearsed “big sky, little bullet”, as mentioned by others.
The other is that glider IMC flights are relatively few, and those few are almost all in summer cumulus (and of course only in Class G), not continuous stratus etc. which is what I suspect most often causes power to be in IMC.
With glider cloud flying at least we have a procedure that is usually sufficient to ensure that there are not two gliders in the same cloud at the same height at the same time. My personal opinion is that it is probably more effective than, e.g., the see and avoid manoeuvres, which aerobatic pilots (power and gliding), to name just one field, indulge in prior to such exercises.
Gliders that cloud fly normally call out on 130.4. It is not a legal requirement, but most conform. Power pilots could listen out on that, but I believe most don't. That is their choice. As I have written before, “ . . . if [power GA] wishes to fly in cloud . . . when gliders may be in cloud (i.e. on days of separated summer cumulus, not in stratus which we can’t get into), I recommend listening out on 130.4 before entering such cumulus clouds. Of course, you don't have to do, but in my view it would be advisable in those circumstances.”
Power in IFR in class G is taking that risk. They also take the risk of colliding with each other - there is no one frequency that all power without exception will be using in class G IMC, and there may be some non-radio power anyway (just as some cloud-flying gliders may be non-radio). That's how things developed here, and there is no significant accident rate from these causes - unlike VMC/VFR where there are more frequent collisions between G/G (about 1 fatal every year), G/P (one every 10 years) and P/P (something in between?).
If you are still reading this long missive, thanks for your patience. Finally, may I point out that the present discussion arose from a “miss” between two aircraft both entitled to be where they were. Last time I got involved in such a thread, about the perceived need by power pilots for gliders to carry transponders and/or not to fly in cloud anyway, was triggered by a collision between two powered aircraft, in VMC, at low level, and both in touch with ATC. It is typical that powered aircraft collide most often with each other and very rarely with gliders.
So, where are the real risks? I know what I think.
Best wishes for your safe flying – Chris N.
[edit - spelling corrected]
We could go on all day about differences in philosophy as to what is acceptable risk, and what is not, in somebody else's chosen field of aviation. I have long given up any hope of convincing power pilots about aspects of gliding that they don't involve themselves in. In the end, however, I do believe that the statistics are a fair reflection of the relative dangers. In the past four decades, I know of only two glider collisions in cloud, and probably two more, both fatal, at or close to cloud base when radio for separation was not being used. By contrast, instances of powered aircraft hitting the ground, and/or each other, are rather more numerous. I know where I think our dangers, and yours, seem to be greater.
It seems, however, to be a feature of the human condition to fear more a risk with elements beyond our own control than those we think we can avoid by our superior expertise.
What kills most in the power GA world? CFIT and loss of control in IMC?
This is from the CAA Safety Sense leaflet- Airmanship:
a. There is an average of one fatal GA accident a month in the United Kingdom.
b. The main fatal accident causes during the last 20 years have been:
• continued flight into bad weather, including impact with high ground and loss of control in IMC
• loss of control in visual met conditions, including stall/spin
• low aerobatics and low flying
• mid-air collisions (sometimes each pilot knew the other was there)
• runway too short for the aircraft’s weight or performance
• colliding with obstacles, perhaps being too low on the approach
What are people here most worried about? Collision with gliders.
I have seen two sorts of data. 1 – actual fatal collisions, glider-glider and glider-power. The former outnumber the latter by about 10 to 1. 2 – airprox data for GA/glider incidents. The vast majority are within or close to the gliding site circuit.
I don’t have data for power/power collisions (does anybody else?), but I believe there are more than the four power-glider collisions in the last 40 years, all in VMC:
----------------------
8 March 1981. (AAIB report 7/81). Blanik/PA28. The PA28 was doing an Overhead Join onto Cranwell Main. It flew into the glider which was being launched. 2 glider pilots killed.
--------------------
1984: A Rockwell Commander flew straight into the back of a glider flying straight, between thermals, that it caught up. The glider pilot was killed. The Rockwell and occupants survived. The only case I know of in the UK where it was not near a gliding club.
-------------------------------------
(Dunno the date, but years ago) Over Farnborough airfield between a glider from the Farnborough gliding club and a light aircraft from Blackbushe. The Astir pilot baled out and landed safely on the airfield. The power pilot flew back to Blackbushe with his pupil instead .
----------------------------------
May 1996 Grumman.
A Grumman light single flew into a Ka13 from behind, sliced the outboard couple of feet off the Ka13's wing tip with its' rudder. The Ka13 landed safely at its nearby base (Haddenham), the Grumman went into a spiral dive and struck the ground very steeply at about 200 knots, the single occupant was killed.
The collision happened in the open FIR, in good visibility, well clear of cloud. From the heading of the Grumman it seemed quite likely it was tracking towards a nearby VOR.
---------------------------------
(I have omitted one or two collisions between gliders and tugs operating from the same gliding site – they were nothing to do with IMC, and nothing to do with general GA/glider collision risks. I know of one that was fatal.)
Glider/power collisions in IMC are zero so far, for at least two probable reasons, IMHO.
One is the much rehearsed “big sky, little bullet”, as mentioned by others.
The other is that glider IMC flights are relatively few, and those few are almost all in summer cumulus (and of course only in Class G), not continuous stratus etc. which is what I suspect most often causes power to be in IMC.
With glider cloud flying at least we have a procedure that is usually sufficient to ensure that there are not two gliders in the same cloud at the same height at the same time. My personal opinion is that it is probably more effective than, e.g., the see and avoid manoeuvres, which aerobatic pilots (power and gliding), to name just one field, indulge in prior to such exercises.
Gliders that cloud fly normally call out on 130.4. It is not a legal requirement, but most conform. Power pilots could listen out on that, but I believe most don't. That is their choice. As I have written before, “ . . . if [power GA] wishes to fly in cloud . . . when gliders may be in cloud (i.e. on days of separated summer cumulus, not in stratus which we can’t get into), I recommend listening out on 130.4 before entering such cumulus clouds. Of course, you don't have to do, but in my view it would be advisable in those circumstances.”
Power in IFR in class G is taking that risk. They also take the risk of colliding with each other - there is no one frequency that all power without exception will be using in class G IMC, and there may be some non-radio power anyway (just as some cloud-flying gliders may be non-radio). That's how things developed here, and there is no significant accident rate from these causes - unlike VMC/VFR where there are more frequent collisions between G/G (about 1 fatal every year), G/P (one every 10 years) and P/P (something in between?).
If you are still reading this long missive, thanks for your patience. Finally, may I point out that the present discussion arose from a “miss” between two aircraft both entitled to be where they were. Last time I got involved in such a thread, about the perceived need by power pilots for gliders to carry transponders and/or not to fly in cloud anyway, was triggered by a collision between two powered aircraft, in VMC, at low level, and both in touch with ATC. It is typical that powered aircraft collide most often with each other and very rarely with gliders.
So, where are the real risks? I know what I think.
Best wishes for your safe flying – Chris N.
[edit - spelling corrected]
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,115
Likes: 1,091
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
To expect all IFR/IMC flights to use CAS is completely unrealistic and such a suggestion presumably comes from non instrument rated pilots.
IFR helicopters are routinely required to operate in IMC in transit of Class G. Most helicopter flights begin and terminate outside controlled airspace and often there is no CAS to utilise. I try to transit CAS where able, as I see a control service as an additional help to maintaining separation from other traffic. However, it doesn't always guarantee separation from gliders who can and will operate inside CAS without talking to the controlling ATC unit.
IFR helicopters are routinely required to operate in IMC in transit of Class G. Most helicopter flights begin and terminate outside controlled airspace and often there is no CAS to utilise. I try to transit CAS where able, as I see a control service as an additional help to maintaining separation from other traffic. However, it doesn't always guarantee separation from gliders who can and will operate inside CAS without talking to the controlling ATC unit.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: UK
ST, I understand why you feel strongly about this, but I do ask you to keep a sense of perspective. Yes, I expect a few gliders sometimes infringe CAS without speaking to ATC.
But not nearly as many as GA power pilots. Of 106 recorded infringements of Stansted CAS in 2008, none of those identified was a glider, two were balloons, and the rest were power or “unknown”. My conversations with NATS suggests that no “unknowns” in this case were gliders.
Do you have any countervailing statistics?
Regards – Chris N.
But not nearly as many as GA power pilots. Of 106 recorded infringements of Stansted CAS in 2008, none of those identified was a glider, two were balloons, and the rest were power or “unknown”. My conversations with NATS suggests that no “unknowns” in this case were gliders.
Do you have any countervailing statistics?
Regards – Chris N.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Like any other machine, they are not 100% reliable.
We could go on all day about differences in philosophy as to what is acceptable risk, and what is not, in somebody else's chosen field of aviation.
What kills most in the power GA world? CFIT and loss of control in IMC?
So, where are the real risks? I know what I think.
See and avoid in VMC has a chance - I can accept gliding in VMC without transponders. In IMC see and avoid has no chance.
I think it is totally selfish to be flying in IMC and do absolutely nothing to avoid collision other than keep your fingers crossed. Be in no doubt, if you are gliding in IMC without a transponder that is exactly what you are doing.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
From: Maders UK
Thanks Chris,
To be fair I have seen a fair few TCAS returns from gliders while flying in the vicinity of gliding sites - all mode A though - none seem to have altitude encoding for some reason.
Are any figures available re: number of gliders with transponders fitted already?
So, could I request that while you're fitting the rest of the UK gliding fleet with mode-C transponders you also have every glider painted in dyno-rod dayglo orange please?
I agree that a degree of natural separation may be provided by most power pilots intentionally dodging the buildups of fair weather cumulus on a good gliding day (you glider guys are welcome to the bumps!)
"Gliders that cloud fly normally call out on 130.4. I recommend listening out on 130.4 before entering such cumulus clouds. Of course, you don't have to do, but in my view it would be advisable in those circumstances.”
Listening out on box 2 would be pretty impracticable. I know this would give a general alert (provided they were transmitting) but how would we know which cloud to avoid? - "I'm in the anvil shaped one 2 miles west of Stoke Poges" wouldn't be a great deal of use.
The sky is there for all of us to enjoy - not being visible to others is a bit like driving fast down a country lane at night with no lights on, if you wipe yourself out then that was down to a choice you made - if you have a head-on collision with somebody who had their headlights switched on and wipe them out then that is "causing death by dangerous driving".
Looking at the cases you cited the gliding fraternity usually come off worse from the various minglings of aluminium and fibreglass - so there is definitely an incentive there for you guys.
I am of the opinion that the more one flies in lower airspace, the more likely that the risk of a midair becomes. Having been up to London a couple of times in the last month the airspace under the LTMA seems to have become significantly busier all of a sudden. It is amazing how quickly the traffic density decreases once you are 30-40 miles out.
Q. how do you know which cloud (or bit of sky) is "hot" and which is not?
A. TCAS and a transponder (imperfect but the best we have at present)
SB
To be fair I have seen a fair few TCAS returns from gliders while flying in the vicinity of gliding sites - all mode A though - none seem to have altitude encoding for some reason.
Are any figures available re: number of gliders with transponders fitted already?
So, could I request that while you're fitting the rest of the UK gliding fleet with mode-C transponders you also have every glider painted in dyno-rod dayglo orange please?
I agree that a degree of natural separation may be provided by most power pilots intentionally dodging the buildups of fair weather cumulus on a good gliding day (you glider guys are welcome to the bumps!)"Gliders that cloud fly normally call out on 130.4. I recommend listening out on 130.4 before entering such cumulus clouds. Of course, you don't have to do, but in my view it would be advisable in those circumstances.”
Listening out on box 2 would be pretty impracticable. I know this would give a general alert (provided they were transmitting) but how would we know which cloud to avoid? - "I'm in the anvil shaped one 2 miles west of Stoke Poges" wouldn't be a great deal of use.
The sky is there for all of us to enjoy - not being visible to others is a bit like driving fast down a country lane at night with no lights on, if you wipe yourself out then that was down to a choice you made - if you have a head-on collision with somebody who had their headlights switched on and wipe them out then that is "causing death by dangerous driving".
Looking at the cases you cited the gliding fraternity usually come off worse from the various minglings of aluminium and fibreglass - so there is definitely an incentive there for you guys.
I am of the opinion that the more one flies in lower airspace, the more likely that the risk of a midair becomes. Having been up to London a couple of times in the last month the airspace under the LTMA seems to have become significantly busier all of a sudden. It is amazing how quickly the traffic density decreases once you are 30-40 miles out.
Q. how do you know which cloud (or bit of sky) is "hot" and which is not?
A. TCAS and a transponder (imperfect but the best we have at present)
SB
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,115
Likes: 1,091
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
ChrisN, Please just read again what I wrote here, not what you might have thought I might have written. I don't want to discuss again here what we have gone over in the past.
I posted here in response to the original concern about the lack of a LARS service, which increasingly affects all types of aircraft in Class G airspace.
I'm definitely not anti gliders and after thirty two years of flying for a living I feel I am fully aware of the level of risk they pose to me. As I'm sure I told you before, I began my flying in gliders some thirty eight years ago and I may well go back to it one day. The only thing I'm truly anti is a mid air collision. I fulfil my obligations regarding see and avoid to the best of my ability and have no issue in that respect or the rules of the air. I just can't help being irritated by the blinkered attitude of "We'll fly where we like, how we like, you must avoid us - and we've got parachutes, you haven't" brigade. Four 500mph helicopter rotor blades through the cockpit wouldn't leave a glider pilot, or any other, unscathed.
Powered aircraft very often do appear on someone's radar or if no radar service is available, they do also appear on TCAS. Of course they do enter CAS when not authorised, but we can see them far better than we can see gliders.
Gliders most often don't apear on radar and their pilots do routinely enter CAS, deliberately or not. I encountered a glider orbitting right on the centreline of a major UK airport only about three weeks ago, ATC were unaware of it inside the airspace and the routing they gave us was straight towards it. Another airport, Doncaster has recently published a NOTAM about gliders not being on frequency and in CAS but unknown to ATC.
The possibility of aircraft being required to operate without a useful radar service in the UK's open FIR in cloud is increasing as ATC units offer less of a service.
I posted here in response to the original concern about the lack of a LARS service, which increasingly affects all types of aircraft in Class G airspace.
I'm definitely not anti gliders and after thirty two years of flying for a living I feel I am fully aware of the level of risk they pose to me. As I'm sure I told you before, I began my flying in gliders some thirty eight years ago and I may well go back to it one day. The only thing I'm truly anti is a mid air collision. I fulfil my obligations regarding see and avoid to the best of my ability and have no issue in that respect or the rules of the air. I just can't help being irritated by the blinkered attitude of "We'll fly where we like, how we like, you must avoid us - and we've got parachutes, you haven't" brigade. Four 500mph helicopter rotor blades through the cockpit wouldn't leave a glider pilot, or any other, unscathed.
Powered aircraft very often do appear on someone's radar or if no radar service is available, they do also appear on TCAS. Of course they do enter CAS when not authorised, but we can see them far better than we can see gliders.
Gliders most often don't apear on radar and their pilots do routinely enter CAS, deliberately or not. I encountered a glider orbitting right on the centreline of a major UK airport only about three weeks ago, ATC were unaware of it inside the airspace and the routing they gave us was straight towards it. Another airport, Doncaster has recently published a NOTAM about gliders not being on frequency and in CAS but unknown to ATC.
The possibility of aircraft being required to operate without a useful radar service in the UK's open FIR in cloud is increasing as ATC units offer less of a service.