Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
What % of glider pilots go into IMC?
Most stay under clouds but this one dispelled the theory of only dipping in and out of isolated cumulus lumps.
The cloud tops were FL90 and overcast with multiple layers below and a fair amount of mountain wave.
I think it is a fair comment to state that all aircraft flying in cloud regardless of type must be transponder equipt to mode C
Gliders have certain unique characteristics
Poor Radar returns
usually white and difficult to see
inability to maintain seperation levels in cloud
tend to stay orbiting in one area ie a fairly static target rather than a fast moving one
Minimal equiptment
Surely it must be the more experienced glider pilots in the expensive high performance gliders who need to be in clouds or at higher levels and they should like the rest of us have to meet the cost of having a transponder.
We all have a responsability to each other especially now as we appear to be more alone in IMC outside CAS. It is not just GA that operate in that airspace.
Hitting another aircraft may as one poster put it be equivalent of having the odds of winning the lottery. But then someone does win the lottery and I hope its not an airline.
Pace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,549
Likes: 63
From: UK
It's also something that looks as if it may well change under EASA pilot licencing - there will have to be specific training to do it.
Last edited by cats_five; 27th May 2009 at 10:30.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
From: Europe
Pace - Totally agree with your view on this, A midair will kill power and glider pilot without discrimination ! there are some purists who don't wan't to give up the right to fly imc in a glider and not carry a radio or talk to anyone ("no electric's dear boy !") - the glider equivelant of "skinny dipping"...or maybe they are just not aware of the danger they place themselves in when they fly IMC (although I doubt it because they must be experienced hands to be able to do that).
Common sense must dictate that skinny dipping whilst fun and exhilirating is also daft and potentially wreckless to self and others.
I have flown power and piston but both should be fun without threat of death due to others intransigence.
stay out of cloud or get a transponder / radar service
Common sense must dictate that skinny dipping whilst fun and exhilirating is also daft and potentially wreckless to self and others.
I have flown power and piston but both should be fun without threat of death due to others intransigence.
stay out of cloud or get a transponder / radar service
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: UK
I am replying mostly out of courtesy to those posing questions. I realise that some will be unmoved by anything I write.
SB, I know of no data re gliders with transponders. Very few, growing very slowly. No idea why some with only A, guess maybe they got some cheap ones discarded by power GA upgrading.
Can’t paint plastic gliders dayglo or anything else, except very limited areas – wingtips and top of fin, and only when permitted – sun heat softens the structure if it gets absorbed, and it is banned by certification.
Gliders in cloud are rare. Only a few days each year make it worth trying, and few of us do it even then. On the few occasions I cloud fly in East Anglia, I am often the only one. We don’t/can’t when ST and others mostly have to fly IMC, because under overcast conditions there is no lift to get us up there.
If you have a spare moment, monitor 103.4 – you will hear lots of chat, but almost none about being in cloud – so no gliders are up in them then. If/when we do, calls entering cloud should be with reference to distance and bearing from places marked on 1:500,000 chart, and they will rarely be in other than isolated cu when you can go round with power if it really worries you.
Pace, wave is different – yes, gliders can climb close to cloud in wave. Not usually in cloud, however, in my experience, except by mistake when it unexpectedly forms around one. I can’t comment usefully on what you saw.
IO, I don’t know the percentage, but from observation, listening out, and talking to others, I guess very low. I do 50-100 flights each year, about 50-60 hours typically in total, and probably only 20-40 minutes in cloud in that time. And I do more than most. Nobody else in my club (say 40 solo pilots) flies in cloud at all.
CGB, strobes of sufficient power are even more power hungry than transponders. I wish we had them, but know of no approved mods., and the technology is against it as a useful aid.
ST, I did read what you wrote. I understand why you fly IMC in class G. I do not think I will ever be there when you have to. I did not address LARS because it is a well known issue about which I can do nothing.
I do not defend anyone using CAS without ATC contact. I call ATC, and some others do. I don’t know figures. I do know that such data as exists indicates that gliders are not the main problem. I wish gliders were none of the problem. The BGA and its people like me never, ever, condone it. (Some are simply mistakes, just as some power infringements are. We are all human.) We try to educate pilots, and brief accordingly. I and others have helped trace known infringers and take action. Beyond that, I know no more of how to fix that, than I can fix all those power pilots like one who told me he “cloud dances” near a gliding club, and didn’t know gliders could go into cloud.
Chris N.
SB, I know of no data re gliders with transponders. Very few, growing very slowly. No idea why some with only A, guess maybe they got some cheap ones discarded by power GA upgrading.
Can’t paint plastic gliders dayglo or anything else, except very limited areas – wingtips and top of fin, and only when permitted – sun heat softens the structure if it gets absorbed, and it is banned by certification.
Gliders in cloud are rare. Only a few days each year make it worth trying, and few of us do it even then. On the few occasions I cloud fly in East Anglia, I am often the only one. We don’t/can’t when ST and others mostly have to fly IMC, because under overcast conditions there is no lift to get us up there.
If you have a spare moment, monitor 103.4 – you will hear lots of chat, but almost none about being in cloud – so no gliders are up in them then. If/when we do, calls entering cloud should be with reference to distance and bearing from places marked on 1:500,000 chart, and they will rarely be in other than isolated cu when you can go round with power if it really worries you.
Pace, wave is different – yes, gliders can climb close to cloud in wave. Not usually in cloud, however, in my experience, except by mistake when it unexpectedly forms around one. I can’t comment usefully on what you saw.
IO, I don’t know the percentage, but from observation, listening out, and talking to others, I guess very low. I do 50-100 flights each year, about 50-60 hours typically in total, and probably only 20-40 minutes in cloud in that time. And I do more than most. Nobody else in my club (say 40 solo pilots) flies in cloud at all.
CGB, strobes of sufficient power are even more power hungry than transponders. I wish we had them, but know of no approved mods., and the technology is against it as a useful aid.
ST, I did read what you wrote. I understand why you fly IMC in class G. I do not think I will ever be there when you have to. I did not address LARS because it is a well known issue about which I can do nothing.
I do not defend anyone using CAS without ATC contact. I call ATC, and some others do. I don’t know figures. I do know that such data as exists indicates that gliders are not the main problem. I wish gliders were none of the problem. The BGA and its people like me never, ever, condone it. (Some are simply mistakes, just as some power infringements are. We are all human.) We try to educate pilots, and brief accordingly. I and others have helped trace known infringers and take action. Beyond that, I know no more of how to fix that, than I can fix all those power pilots like one who told me he “cloud dances” near a gliding club, and didn’t know gliders could go into cloud.
Chris N.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
I am replying mostly out of courtesy to those posing questions. I realise that some will be unmoved by anything I write.
I for one am certainly very grateful to you for opening my eyes about gliding. We would all be poorer were your activities restricted unnecesarily.
That said, I hold that in IMC you are a danger to every other user of the airspace; you seem convinced you are a special case.
Please tell me why those who wish to enter cloud cannot carry one of the new breed of compact transponders and turn the thing on when ever they enter cloud?
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: UK
Fuji, the reasons vary, as posted several times before.
The glider I flew most until 2005 (Ka6E, made 1968, bought very second hand, construction mostly wood/fabric) for 20+ years had no more panel space, no more battery space, and was already on the upper limit of max permissible weight. It had no approved scheme. Typical for older gliders of that era.
The glider I now fly (Lak 17A, built 2005, mostly carbon fibre) originally had no approved transponder installation scheme and only one battery barely sufficient for a long flight with normal instruments – I once finished a competition flight switching things off as voltage dropped from 12+ to about 7.
As I am not the tallest pilot (about 5’7”), I fly it with its adjustable seat back one notch forward, and have found a way to carry two more batteries behind it. Not every glider or pilot could accommodate this. I count them as removable portable equipment and so not needing EASA approval. I hope I am right.
The manufacturer has since obtained EASA certification for an approved transponder antenna installation, but included in the approval only 3 specific named transponders, of which at least two would not fit into my panel (which they made, fitting the instruments I asked for, and leaving one small hole for a transponder control unit such as Trig). Unfortunately, Trig is not one of the 3 approved units, so I still can’t fit it. I don’t know what I would have to do, or pay, to have another unit approved, and look to the CAA to make it easier. EASA has not helped in this – in the old days, the BGA could have approved it cheaply and easily..
Many new gliders now being made do have approved schemes. A number of slightly older ones have retrofit approved schemes. If they need a new panel, however, I think it is back to the approved mod issue.
My perception is that most owners are not fitting transponders because of a mixture of reasons – most don’t use CAS, most don’t cloud-fly, most know that glider/glider collisions (one fatality a year on average for the last 20 years, as well as the non-fatal ones) are far more likely than glider with anything else (4 in 40 years), and transponders won’t help those, whereas Flarm will. More are fitting Flarm, few transponders. Flarm is mandatory for continental flying near mountains, and for competitions in some parts of the world. It is cheap (ish - £500 or less) and addresses what people see as an issue. Flarm + transponder + PCAS just won’t fit in most gliders, and without PCAS, TXp is useless for glider/glider alerts. Flarm gives much more useful alerts – level, above, or below, and which direction, and only if on conflicting courses not just nearby (clever algorithm).
In the long term, I think Transponders + ADS-B or something like it might be an interoperable compromise – but I’m not holding my breath. It would probably be less useful in alerts than Flarm, unless a similar algorithm could be incorporated.
Any technical solution will be a long time being widely adopted, unless mandated – gliders last as long as powered aircraft, EASA changes are difficult and disproportionately expensive, and most people simply don’t see anything needing fixing. They spend their money on what are their priorities – doesn’t everybody?
Just saw CGB’s picture. Not EASA approved, I believe.
Chris N
The glider I flew most until 2005 (Ka6E, made 1968, bought very second hand, construction mostly wood/fabric) for 20+ years had no more panel space, no more battery space, and was already on the upper limit of max permissible weight. It had no approved scheme. Typical for older gliders of that era.
The glider I now fly (Lak 17A, built 2005, mostly carbon fibre) originally had no approved transponder installation scheme and only one battery barely sufficient for a long flight with normal instruments – I once finished a competition flight switching things off as voltage dropped from 12+ to about 7.
As I am not the tallest pilot (about 5’7”), I fly it with its adjustable seat back one notch forward, and have found a way to carry two more batteries behind it. Not every glider or pilot could accommodate this. I count them as removable portable equipment and so not needing EASA approval. I hope I am right.
The manufacturer has since obtained EASA certification for an approved transponder antenna installation, but included in the approval only 3 specific named transponders, of which at least two would not fit into my panel (which they made, fitting the instruments I asked for, and leaving one small hole for a transponder control unit such as Trig). Unfortunately, Trig is not one of the 3 approved units, so I still can’t fit it. I don’t know what I would have to do, or pay, to have another unit approved, and look to the CAA to make it easier. EASA has not helped in this – in the old days, the BGA could have approved it cheaply and easily..
Many new gliders now being made do have approved schemes. A number of slightly older ones have retrofit approved schemes. If they need a new panel, however, I think it is back to the approved mod issue.
My perception is that most owners are not fitting transponders because of a mixture of reasons – most don’t use CAS, most don’t cloud-fly, most know that glider/glider collisions (one fatality a year on average for the last 20 years, as well as the non-fatal ones) are far more likely than glider with anything else (4 in 40 years), and transponders won’t help those, whereas Flarm will. More are fitting Flarm, few transponders. Flarm is mandatory for continental flying near mountains, and for competitions in some parts of the world. It is cheap (ish - £500 or less) and addresses what people see as an issue. Flarm + transponder + PCAS just won’t fit in most gliders, and without PCAS, TXp is useless for glider/glider alerts. Flarm gives much more useful alerts – level, above, or below, and which direction, and only if on conflicting courses not just nearby (clever algorithm).
In the long term, I think Transponders + ADS-B or something like it might be an interoperable compromise – but I’m not holding my breath. It would probably be less useful in alerts than Flarm, unless a similar algorithm could be incorporated.
Any technical solution will be a long time being widely adopted, unless mandated – gliders last as long as powered aircraft, EASA changes are difficult and disproportionately expensive, and most people simply don’t see anything needing fixing. They spend their money on what are their priorities – doesn’t everybody?
Just saw CGB’s picture. Not EASA approved, I believe.
Chris N
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,817
Likes: 1
From: Hotel Gypsy
Chris, interesting. The RAF seem to think the scheme doesn't affect airworthiness so why the difference with EASA. Maybe another one for the Nimrod/C130/Chinook thread. 
PS. I see that Cranfield did some trials at Bicester a few years back; I wonder if the results of the study were taken forward.
PS. I see that Cranfield did some trials at Bicester a few years back; I wonder if the results of the study were taken forward.
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
The problem seems to be a lack of education in many cases. I'm not criticising any one group but suffice it to say that some think that the gaining of a basic aviation licence of any sort is all they need; no more need be learned. I've been in the profession since 1971 and hold the view that if I learned nothing new on a flight it's because I'd stopped trying to learn. I won't ever stop trying to learn; if I do I'll give it up.
One thing I have noticed in some pilots is a lack of awareness about the true numbers of airborne traffic in Class G in UK. Some obviously think that lookout is the answer to everyone's VFR issues. From experience, it certainly isn't; the RAF taught us that in our early training. About thirty years ago a study was carried out (by RAE Farnborough I think) and the reality of the inadequacies of the human eyesight in the aviation environment is frightening.
As someone who tries to gain an ATC radar service where appropriate and as a long term TCAS/TAS user, I'm amazed by the number of other pilots who just don't comply with the rules of the air with regard to collision avoidance. I put this down to a failure of lookout on their part because I'm sure no-one would deliberately fail to take the necessary and mandatory avoiding action on another aircraft but many do fail to do so. I'm sure I've failed to see a few in my time too, see the previous paragraph.
These very same pilots who don't look out properly under "see and avoid", have no on-board collision avoidance equipment and don't think it a good idea to seek an ATC service are probably the very same ones who don't believe there is a problem. They fail to see other aircraft around them and therefore in their ignorance believe the sky is less busy than it really is.
One thing I have noticed in some pilots is a lack of awareness about the true numbers of airborne traffic in Class G in UK. Some obviously think that lookout is the answer to everyone's VFR issues. From experience, it certainly isn't; the RAF taught us that in our early training. About thirty years ago a study was carried out (by RAE Farnborough I think) and the reality of the inadequacies of the human eyesight in the aviation environment is frightening.
As someone who tries to gain an ATC radar service where appropriate and as a long term TCAS/TAS user, I'm amazed by the number of other pilots who just don't comply with the rules of the air with regard to collision avoidance. I put this down to a failure of lookout on their part because I'm sure no-one would deliberately fail to take the necessary and mandatory avoiding action on another aircraft but many do fail to do so. I'm sure I've failed to see a few in my time too, see the previous paragraph.
These very same pilots who don't look out properly under "see and avoid", have no on-board collision avoidance equipment and don't think it a good idea to seek an ATC service are probably the very same ones who don't believe there is a problem. They fail to see other aircraft around them and therefore in their ignorance believe the sky is less busy than it really is.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
From: UK
As gliders can't always be fitted with TCAS/Transponder/battery consuming devices then we remain reliant on a good lookout/'big sky' theory. The problem with lookout though is that quite often closing speeds are very high - so why don't we simply mandate a lower max cruising speed in Class G? I'd like to propose 60kts as that's the speed that my glider flies most efficiently at. That'll buy us all far more time to see and avoid each other. Also makes a collision in cloud much more survivable, particularly if you're wearing a parachute (which I presume anybody flying in cloud OCAS does as a matter of course).
On a more serious note, I think ChrisN illustrates the wider issue very well - yes there is a small risk of collision but it's much much smaller than other risks.
On a more serious note, I think ChrisN illustrates the wider issue very well - yes there is a small risk of collision but it's much much smaller than other risks.
Joined: Sep 2001
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 2,787
Likes: 208
From: Toronto
PowerFlarm
powerFlarm - FLARM und ADS-B has been announced. Their website is still German only.
What I like is that you will get alerts for ADS-B (Mode S) equipped a/c as well as Flarm equipped a/c. Helicopters use them too for cable and glider avoidance in mountanous terrain.
Think of PowerFlarm as a dirt cheap TCAS that will also warn you about gliders, especially as CAT is going to Mode S.
What I like is that you will get alerts for ADS-B (Mode S) equipped a/c as well as Flarm equipped a/c. Helicopters use them too for cable and glider avoidance in mountanous terrain.
Think of PowerFlarm as a dirt cheap TCAS that will also warn you about gliders, especially as CAT is going to Mode S.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: UK
CGB, the conspicuity trials were written up at the time, and remarkably, showed no improvement and actually some worsening. Counter-intuitive, I know. The authors thought that perhaps the dayglo stripes acted more like camouflage breaking up the outline than aiding visual acquisition.
But in any case, as BGA Laws and Rules has it as a “recommended practice”:
RP25. It is possible that gliders may be rendered more conspicuous in certain conditions by applying large, bright coloured patches. As coloured surfaces absorb more heat and this can appreciably weaken the resin used in the construction of Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic and Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic gliders, it is strongly recommended that before applying colour in such cases, the guidance and advice of the glider manufacturer or the BGA Technical Committee is sought.
The only glider manuals I have seen mention it, limit paint to tips. It would be a brave inspector/BGA person to go against the manufacturer of an EASA glider, IMHO. Dunno about the RAF.
Chris N.
But in any case, as BGA Laws and Rules has it as a “recommended practice”:
RP25. It is possible that gliders may be rendered more conspicuous in certain conditions by applying large, bright coloured patches. As coloured surfaces absorb more heat and this can appreciably weaken the resin used in the construction of Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic and Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic gliders, it is strongly recommended that before applying colour in such cases, the guidance and advice of the glider manufacturer or the BGA Technical Committee is sought.
The only glider manuals I have seen mention it, limit paint to tips. It would be a brave inspector/BGA person to go against the manufacturer of an EASA glider, IMHO. Dunno about the RAF.
Chris N.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
powerFlarm - FLARM und ADS-B has been announced. Their website is still German only.
1 - EASA doesn't allow Mode-S elementary aircraft to couple the Mode-S and GPS to send position data on the ADS-B link, so detecting Mode-S aircraft with a cruise speed of less than 250 kts is going to be a challenge
2 - FLARM, due to its light weight and low power output is not detectable at significant range
3 - Gliders must be hit by Cat even less than they are by smaller powered aircraft, and even if you know the CAT is there, it is still the glider that needs to maneuver.
However, it does show what could be done with ADS-B and gives some confidence that in the coming years this issue will be resolved.
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
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
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
Flight into bad weather.
Part of the IFR job, that's what we're discussing.
Impact with high ground and loss of control in IMC.
A PPL operating outside of his personal limitations, maybe. IR'd professional pilot in a passenger carrying transit in a fully equipped IFR aircraft? Unlikely.
Loss of control in VMC, including stall/spin.
Not in my aircraft, it's not a fixed wing so it can't stall or spin
Low aerobatics and low flying.
I do neither these days, I have no need and no intention.
Runway too short.
Helicopters don't use runways.
Colliding with obstacles, perhaps being too low on the approach.
Some risk, but a small one in the professional world.
That leaves the mid-air collision problem.
Do we just say "So be it, live with it", or should we do what we can to minimise the risk? I do my bit - it's my personal responsibility to my employer, my passengers, my family and to other pilots and theirs. It's very sad that others either underestimate the risk or are quite prepared to accept it and do nothing about it.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
Gliders in cloud are rare.
You are a very diplomatic and good ambassador for the gliding fraternity.
If Gliders are so rare flying IMC and so few are involved in cloud flying, surely there would be little hardship to gliding to ban IMC flight to all but those that are equipt to be there safely?
We all have the same rights to use the Sky and do live together but then we should all be on a level playing field as far as what we can or cannot do.
There are many modern microlights and homebuilts which are very sophisticated and very well equipt. They are far better equipt to fly in cloud than most gliders but are banned from doing so by the powers that be.
No wonder there is a certain resentment when the powered fraternity see one rule for some and not for all not only in aircraft but the training required to cloud fly.
To say my aircraft isnt up to it so I should be allowed anyway would not be an arguemnt the homebuilders or other powered pilots could use.
Surely a small wind powered generator could supply power?
The government appear to be cutting back military RAS making us all more alone in the skies. More reason to keep an eye out for other traffic but that doesnt work in clouds.
Maybe legislation would be the only motivator to do something because as you said people are reluctant to do anything unless forced.
Pace
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Do you have a portable FLARM?
This discussion is about gliders in cloud - not about gliders in VMC.
From the comments on here from the glider community it would seem quite clear very few gliders fly in cloud - IMC operations are therefore nearly the preserve of powered aircraft. It is usual for the majority to set the rules; it would seem that us powered boys are unhappy about you lot playing by different rules in the clouds. Now I understand FLARM has some specific advantages that are well suited glider to glider, but again to me this smacks of writing the rules to suite yourself and your own minority community.
I understand some older gliders may have real problems fitting a transponder and powering it, but so have many home builts -which are banned from operating in IMC? Why should an exception be made for you?
If you want to operate in IMC fit a transponder, if not stay out of the clouds.
.. .. .. and if you really cant fit or power a transponder
well sadly there is a cost involved in aviation. I didnt want to fit a mode S unit. I couldnt fit an IFR GPS in one of the aircraft I owned. However I accept that technology moves ahead, and, when it comes to safety, so must I.
There should not be any element of flying that is a lottery. If I decide to fly in VMC I have got some chance of spotting another aircraft intent on colliding with me (it may not be perfect, but at least I can try to mitigate the risk). If I decide to fly with one engine it is almost certainly within my powers to land without causing anyone harm other than myself. However when you launch your glider in IMC there is absolutely nothing I can do to avoid hitting you - and to render useless by your actions my ability to conduct the flight safely seems very unfair. It seems even more unfair to expect me to operate airways when you are the minority user of the airspace.
Can you imagine cars on the road where the vast majority all have bumpers at the same height. One manufacturer says sod that, it will spoil the beautiful lines of our model if we conform, in fact we will not be able to fit the engine where best suites us. Now whenever one of these cars meets another car (and almost certainly the other car is part of the conforming population) it does a huge amount of damage - do we make an exception of that manufacturer, or do we expect them to conform?
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: UK
Pace, sorry to be pedantic, but you rolled two different things into one (perhaps because they are one, for rule-observing power pilots above 3000 feet).
1. Few gliders fly in cloud. When we do, we are usually out of the way of other things in cloud, owing to the altitudes/levels and locations concerned. Small number of events times small risk of encountering anything other than another glider = extremely low risk of encounters. Even so, it would not surprise me if one day the authorities mandate transponders for it. I would have had one by now if EASA etc. had not made it too difficult/expensive. I don’t know many glider pilots who take a similar view, however – but then I don’t know many who fly in cloud at all, these days. It was more prevalent when wooden, draggy, gliders were the norm, as Cats wrote earlier.
2. Flying in IMC, i.e. closer to cloud than 1000 ft vertically and 1.5km horizontally, we do all the time. It is fundamental to our means of locomotion. There will be an almighty battle if any one tries to stop that or mandate transponders for it. I understand EASA may have drafted something to that effect and negotiations are under way, but I am not in the loop.
For what its worth (not much – “history is bunk!”), the present exemptions predate my 39 years in gliding, but I gather that when the CAA or whoever after the war started to draw up legislation, cloud flying was then so fundamental to our means of locomotion, and caused no perceptible problems to other air users, that UK law became what it is and has stayed. Broadly speaking, we like to go up at or close to cloudbase, light GA tends to be at 1000-1500-2000 feet, hence usually below us when we go cross-country, and the heavier things, particularly CAT, tend to be higher. When its 8/8 and cloudbase is 1000 feet, we do circuits at our sites and don’t go cross country.
Chris N.
1. Few gliders fly in cloud. When we do, we are usually out of the way of other things in cloud, owing to the altitudes/levels and locations concerned. Small number of events times small risk of encountering anything other than another glider = extremely low risk of encounters. Even so, it would not surprise me if one day the authorities mandate transponders for it. I would have had one by now if EASA etc. had not made it too difficult/expensive. I don’t know many glider pilots who take a similar view, however – but then I don’t know many who fly in cloud at all, these days. It was more prevalent when wooden, draggy, gliders were the norm, as Cats wrote earlier.
2. Flying in IMC, i.e. closer to cloud than 1000 ft vertically and 1.5km horizontally, we do all the time. It is fundamental to our means of locomotion. There will be an almighty battle if any one tries to stop that or mandate transponders for it. I understand EASA may have drafted something to that effect and negotiations are under way, but I am not in the loop.
For what its worth (not much – “history is bunk!”), the present exemptions predate my 39 years in gliding, but I gather that when the CAA or whoever after the war started to draw up legislation, cloud flying was then so fundamental to our means of locomotion, and caused no perceptible problems to other air users, that UK law became what it is and has stayed. Broadly speaking, we like to go up at or close to cloudbase, light GA tends to be at 1000-1500-2000 feet, hence usually below us when we go cross-country, and the heavier things, particularly CAT, tend to be higher. When its 8/8 and cloudbase is 1000 feet, we do circuits at our sites and don’t go cross country.
Chris N.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
Could I make an alternative suggestion? All powered aircraft that are IFR certified have a transponder. A portable PCAS receiver costs about £350, will run on two AA batteries for 6 hours and would fit in any cockpit. If the gliding community equipped with this and the powered people who worry about this get FLARM, then we can all miss each other with no huge outlay on either side. Remember only 1% of PPL’s have an IR, so this is a very small minority on both sides.
Rod1
Rod1