Thoughts on reducing risk of mid-airs.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Maybe everything changes when the weekend comes and suddenly all the non-transponding pilots climb to great heights?”
This is true; the aircraft get above 0 feet! At my strip, it is unusual to find anybody flying Monday – Thursday 8am to 6pm and Friday 8am to 1pm. On a good weekend everything is up. Most gilding clubs operate one day during the week and at weekends. I occasionally fly during the week and the situation is hugely different. It is normally possible to get a traffic service, the airspace is much less crowded and some classes of aircraft are almost entirely absent from the sky. Even at a weekend, at significant altitude, say 6 – 10k, there is less traffic, but CAS normally makes this impractical. I regularly fly my LAA machine at 7 – 10k over the more remote parts of the UK (with mode C).
I am not anti transponder; I have mode c and have helped several people fit second hand units to LAA type aircraft. However, with the current regulations and the current fleet most flying machines will not have one for the foreseeable future. Try to get the BGA to push transponders and you will get “not technically possible”. Try to get them to recommend FLARM + PCAS and you have a chance as it is both technically feasible and much less expensive. As collision systems come onto the market which will combine the two, we are moving in a positive direction.
Rod1
This is true; the aircraft get above 0 feet! At my strip, it is unusual to find anybody flying Monday – Thursday 8am to 6pm and Friday 8am to 1pm. On a good weekend everything is up. Most gilding clubs operate one day during the week and at weekends. I occasionally fly during the week and the situation is hugely different. It is normally possible to get a traffic service, the airspace is much less crowded and some classes of aircraft are almost entirely absent from the sky. Even at a weekend, at significant altitude, say 6 – 10k, there is less traffic, but CAS normally makes this impractical. I regularly fly my LAA machine at 7 – 10k over the more remote parts of the UK (with mode C).
I am not anti transponder; I have mode c and have helped several people fit second hand units to LAA type aircraft. However, with the current regulations and the current fleet most flying machines will not have one for the foreseeable future. Try to get the BGA to push transponders and you will get “not technically possible”. Try to get them to recommend FLARM + PCAS and you have a chance as it is both technically feasible and much less expensive. As collision systems come onto the market which will combine the two, we are moving in a positive direction.
Rod1
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod
In the very long thread "Flying out of CAS IMC now dangerous?" which was started by myself a lot was made that the chances of collision with gliders in or out of IMC was negligable.
It was stated by a number of the gliding fraternity that a VMC glider collision would be between gliders only and NOT powered aircraft.
Ironically during the course of my thread a collision has occurred between a powered aircraft and a glider with tragic loss of life.
In my case the near collision was at between 5000 and 6000 feet in IMC. So where do we go from here?
There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by the gliding fraternity clinging onto unwarranted excemptions that gliders enjoy to what the rest of us have to comply with.
Sadly we have loss of life in a VMC collision I really hope we are not in these forums in the future discussing a collision with a glider and CAT with a large loss of life as then all our freedoms will go faster than a blink.
No one will care whether this or that is capable of being fitted in a glider as there will then be NO choice for any of us.
Pace
In the very long thread "Flying out of CAS IMC now dangerous?" which was started by myself a lot was made that the chances of collision with gliders in or out of IMC was negligable.
It was stated by a number of the gliding fraternity that a VMC glider collision would be between gliders only and NOT powered aircraft.
Ironically during the course of my thread a collision has occurred between a powered aircraft and a glider with tragic loss of life.
In my case the near collision was at between 5000 and 6000 feet in IMC. So where do we go from here?
There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by the gliding fraternity clinging onto unwarranted excemptions that gliders enjoy to what the rest of us have to comply with.
Sadly we have loss of life in a VMC collision I really hope we are not in these forums in the future discussing a collision with a glider and CAT with a large loss of life as then all our freedoms will go faster than a blink.
No one will care whether this or that is capable of being fitted in a glider as there will then be NO choice for any of us.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying well above 1000ft, say 3000ft, reduces the probability more than anything else - by at least an order of magnitude. So much so that there have been no UK midairs (TMK) above 2000ft - ever.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I also remind you that very sadly there has been another middar this year, again in VMC, and resulting in the lose of 4 lives. No gliders were involved in that one.
'clinging on to exemptions' had nothing whatsoever to do with the first middair (it didn't involve a glider), and since the second was in VMC I doubt very much it had anything to do with that either. Hopefully the AAIB will produce informative reports on both, hopefully PDQ. In the meantime, if you are so concerned, there are a number of suggestions in the thread about how you can mitigate the risk to yourself that are either free or pretty cheap. Implement at least some of them. Otherwise the rest of us will have excellent grounds for complaining that:
There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by Pace
There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by the gliding fraternity clinging onto unwarranted excemptions that gliders enjoy to what the rest of us have to comply with.
There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by Pace
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
“There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by the gliding fraternity”
I am no longer a glider pilot, but I do understand gliding. I have experience of fitting Transponders in “low” electric aircraft. I was involved in the aircraft interoperability consultations (from an LAA POV) and am aware of the BGA’s case and the CAA reaction to it.
The only reluctance on this thread has been yours to listen.
Transponders in the existing glider fleet are not going to happen. Had the glider in the collision recently had a transponder, it would, I suspect, have made no difference.
A workable anti collision system has been proposed and some of us are busy testing it. Had BOTH the aircraft in this tragic incident had FLARM and PCAS, I suggest it is most unlikely it would have happened. I am in touch with a manufacturer who has a prototype box which will provide collision avoidance for both FLARM and transponder aircraft. If my FLARM test is ok, I will give details on how to help this along.
Now, are you going to carry on winging, or help with a practical solution?
My thanks to Chris for testing my PCAS (has yours turned up now?) and for loaning me his FLARM.
Rod1
“There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by the gliding fraternity”
I am no longer a glider pilot, but I do understand gliding. I have experience of fitting Transponders in “low” electric aircraft. I was involved in the aircraft interoperability consultations (from an LAA POV) and am aware of the BGA’s case and the CAA reaction to it.
The only reluctance on this thread has been yours to listen.
Transponders in the existing glider fleet are not going to happen. Had the glider in the collision recently had a transponder, it would, I suspect, have made no difference.A workable anti collision system has been proposed and some of us are busy testing it. Had BOTH the aircraft in this tragic incident had FLARM and PCAS, I suggest it is most unlikely it would have happened. I am in touch with a manufacturer who has a prototype box which will provide collision avoidance for both FLARM and transponder aircraft. If my FLARM test is ok, I will give details on how to help this along.
Now, are you going to carry on winging, or help with a practical solution?
My thanks to Chris for testing my PCAS (has yours turned up now?) and for loaning me his FLARM.
Rod1
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by Pace
I would not consider flying any aircraft in IMC without a transponder.
So as long as your happy to do what I do Im happy too.
Pace
In the very long thread "Flying out of CAS IMC now dangerous?" which was started by myself a lot was made that the chances of collision with gliders in or out of IMC was negligable.
It was stated by a number of the gliding fraternity that a VMC glider collision would be between gliders only and NOT powered aircraft.
Ironically during the course of my thread a collision has occurred between a powered aircraft and a glider with tragic loss of life.
In my case the near collision was at between 5000 and 6000 feet in IMC. So where do we go from here?
There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by the gliding fraternity clinging onto unwarranted excemptions that gliders enjoy to what the rest of us have to comply with.
It was stated by a number of the gliding fraternity that a VMC glider collision would be between gliders only and NOT powered aircraft.
Ironically during the course of my thread a collision has occurred between a powered aircraft and a glider with tragic loss of life.
In my case the near collision was at between 5000 and 6000 feet in IMC. So where do we go from here?
There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by the gliding fraternity clinging onto unwarranted excemptions that gliders enjoy to what the rest of us have to comply with.
I can find no statement there that a VMC collision WOULD be between glders, only that it was more probable.
Your concern was IMC, and to drag your arguments into an entirely different subject is (in my opinion) in poor taste. I understand the Tutor does not carry PCAS, and therefore carriage of Mode C/S (as you insist should be the case) would not have been useful.
'Unwarranted' is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. If you would like to reduce universal risk, entering into a discussion on affordable and effective traffic information systems (they exist but are deemed not acceptable by the regulatory authorities) would be (again in my opnion) a more rational approach. There has been much more than 'nothing but excuses' from other sections of the aviation community if you would only listen.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had BOTH the aircraft in this tragic incident had FLARM and PCAS, I suggest it is most unlikely it would have happened.
If you read my previos threads I am all for Flarm and PCAS as a solution.
I note in your section pasted above you post this
Had BOTH the aircraft
But if its not unilateral or at least nearly a majority use we are all wasting our time.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace has a valid point. How does one protect themselves and their passengers when you simply have to rely on the Mk1 eyeball and all it's failings? In a Jet at 250kts at 6000' in receipt of a radar service, but HAVING to be outside CAS, one would feel pretty pissed off if one then slams into a glider because no one knew it was there (ref. Hawker 800XP and Glider outside Reno last year). I say Glider because chances are a Light aeroplane with engine may show a primary return on a radar.
There are several solutions to this: a) Increase CAS to keep people out, b) Mandate that everyone fit transponders so that the likes of Pace in his Citation can have fair warning of someone doing steep turns at 6000 just below the airway he is about to pop out of, or c) Come to a compromise, for example all aeroplanes in IMC MUST transpond? or d) make aeroplanes ighly radar visible without having to have a transponder fitted (i.e. radar reflectors) or e) have Transponder mandatory zones in certain busy areas.
I'd vote for e) myself.
There are several solutions to this: a) Increase CAS to keep people out, b) Mandate that everyone fit transponders so that the likes of Pace in his Citation can have fair warning of someone doing steep turns at 6000 just below the airway he is about to pop out of, or c) Come to a compromise, for example all aeroplanes in IMC MUST transpond? or d) make aeroplanes ighly radar visible without having to have a transponder fitted (i.e. radar reflectors) or e) have Transponder mandatory zones in certain busy areas.
I'd vote for e) myself.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
“But if its not unilateral or at least nearly a majority use we are all wasting our time.”
The vast majority of Transponder fits in UK SEP aircraft are not mandated. Most people think it is a good idea, if their aircraft is capable, it gets fitted (out of there own pocket). I fall into this category, as do many other pilots and owners who are restricted to VFR by aircraft type (in my case) or pilot qualification, or both.
If we can prove that Flarm / PCAS works well then lets try and persuade the BGA to recommend it on Gliders, and the LAA / BMAA to recommend it where possible on their aircraft (weight shift may not work). There may be no point in some vintage and training machines fitting it, but if the majority “go any distance” aircraft had it we would all be a bit safer. As we are talking about portable battery powered devices you could even get your own, so you would always have it with you…
This is an argument we can probably win. Trying to push transponders is doomed, and of almost no help unless you have some form of CAS as well, which 90+% of aircraft do not have.
Rod1
“But if its not unilateral or at least nearly a majority use we are all wasting our time.”
The vast majority of Transponder fits in UK SEP aircraft are not mandated. Most people think it is a good idea, if their aircraft is capable, it gets fitted (out of there own pocket). I fall into this category, as do many other pilots and owners who are restricted to VFR by aircraft type (in my case) or pilot qualification, or both.
If we can prove that Flarm / PCAS works well then lets try and persuade the BGA to recommend it on Gliders, and the LAA / BMAA to recommend it where possible on their aircraft (weight shift may not work). There may be no point in some vintage and training machines fitting it, but if the majority “go any distance” aircraft had it we would all be a bit safer. As we are talking about portable battery powered devices you could even get your own, so you would always have it with you…
This is an argument we can probably win. Trying to push transponders is doomed, and of almost no help unless you have some form of CAS as well, which 90+% of aircraft do not have.
Rod1
Last edited by Rod1; 17th Jun 2009 at 12:51.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod
That makes a lot of sense and thanks for your input.
To the others who feel i am being arrogant or not listening my apologies.
having had a glider flash past the wing in IMC and a realisation of what the consequences nearly were does make you focus on the problem and maybe more motivated on my opinions.
Hence maybe I of all the posters here have come across as dictatorial on the subject. thats not my intention so apologies.
Pace
That makes a lot of sense and thanks for your input.
To the others who feel i am being arrogant or not listening my apologies.
having had a glider flash past the wing in IMC and a realisation of what the consequences nearly were does make you focus on the problem and maybe more motivated on my opinions.
Hence maybe I of all the posters here have come across as dictatorial on the subject. thats not my intention so apologies.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 17th Jun 2009 at 13:25.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace,
I think Rod's suggestion has some merit. What I object to, is the "fit a transponder or keep out" mentality. I've always thought FLARM has a place, and if a compromise has to be made, it is at least affordable, small, light and portable (so no CAA/EASA probs).
SS
I think Rod's suggestion has some merit. What I object to, is the "fit a transponder or keep out" mentality. I've always thought FLARM has a place, and if a compromise has to be made, it is at least affordable, small, light and portable (so no CAA/EASA probs).
SS
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal: I think your suggestion about different inbound & outbound heights from an airfield is a good one. Funnily enough, the local training organisations at Bournemouth do in fact have their own "voluntary" system of 1700' outbound & 1300' inbound (I think...) - someone can confirm.
Saw the same when I was flying from St Cyr under the Paris TMA (terrain 300-500 AMSL below) & TMA @ 1500'QNH above, where we operated 1300' & 1100' QNH respectively along strict in/out routes. There you really needed to separate vertically as they passed within less than a km of each other!
One other major thing we could do: GET RID OF OUR INSANE O.H.J.!!
Nothing is better designed to put lots of unfamiliar aircraft in:
(i) a jumbled mess in the same piece of sky,
(ii) not knowing from which direction they're coming,
(iii) followed by a disorientation by putting them in an artificial turn that bears little relationship to the underlying circuit,
(iv) dumps them out potentially somewhere in the middle of downwind meaning the appropriate checks get rushed.
Unless there's something I'm missing, either the French-style "rectangular" OHJ or US-style "45 degree join" must be immeasurably simpler & safer for all concerned.
BFA
Saw the same when I was flying from St Cyr under the Paris TMA (terrain 300-500 AMSL below) & TMA @ 1500'QNH above, where we operated 1300' & 1100' QNH respectively along strict in/out routes. There you really needed to separate vertically as they passed within less than a km of each other!
One other major thing we could do: GET RID OF OUR INSANE O.H.J.!!
Nothing is better designed to put lots of unfamiliar aircraft in:
(i) a jumbled mess in the same piece of sky,
(ii) not knowing from which direction they're coming,
(iii) followed by a disorientation by putting them in an artificial turn that bears little relationship to the underlying circuit,
(iv) dumps them out potentially somewhere in the middle of downwind meaning the appropriate checks get rushed.
Unless there's something I'm missing, either the French-style "rectangular" OHJ or US-style "45 degree join" must be immeasurably simpler & safer for all concerned.
BFA
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In another place on another thread on the same subject a glider pilot in Holland points out that it is nonesense gliders cant be fitted with transponders and goes on to say the whole fleet at his gliding club with the exception of a very few vintage models is fitted with transponders.
Someone is not telling the truth.
Someone is not telling the truth.
battery power
Fuji wotsit
Cloggies are a bunch of light weights! Have any Dutch pilot done 1,00km in the Netherlands? There are few ridges, no mountain waves and they are limited to thermals only. Few glider pilots fly long cross countries in the Netherlands and many are forced into Germany to fly sensible cross countries, thus no need to run transponders for lengthy periods. The Amsterdam TMA is over large and has an unacceptably low base, this is environmental vandalism at its worst and excludes much of the flying activity in the local area. Last Sunday one UK glider pilot was airborne 10 hr 50 min (he is working on flying faster next time!) Do the sums, 1.6 AH for 11 hrs exceeds his battery power by over 40 %.
Besides the cloggies have been banned from using their transponders near the TMA
b b
Cloggies are a bunch of light weights! Have any Dutch pilot done 1,00km in the Netherlands? There are few ridges, no mountain waves and they are limited to thermals only. Few glider pilots fly long cross countries in the Netherlands and many are forced into Germany to fly sensible cross countries, thus no need to run transponders for lengthy periods. The Amsterdam TMA is over large and has an unacceptably low base, this is environmental vandalism at its worst and excludes much of the flying activity in the local area. Last Sunday one UK glider pilot was airborne 10 hr 50 min (he is working on flying faster next time!) Do the sums, 1.6 AH for 11 hrs exceeds his battery power by over 40 %.
Besides the cloggies have been banned from using their transponders near the TMA
b b
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how many gliders fly for more than 5 hours?
There are always exception - but the exceptions do not enable you to evade the point - if gliders in clogg land as you put it can and do fit transponders under EASA why cant the same gliders do so in roast beef land?
There are always exception - but the exceptions do not enable you to evade the point - if gliders in clogg land as you put it can and do fit transponders under EASA why cant the same gliders do so in roast beef land?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: coventry
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In defence of the MK 1 Eyeball:
--It is not the MK 1....... I make no apologises to the Creationists amongst you.
--they are incredibly powerful versatile visual sensors; and the good news is that if you are a pilot and reading this you are very lucky to have a pair in good condition (possibly only needing refractive assistance).
--they are FREE. When you won Life's Lottery and found your consciousness awakening in the body of a human being you didn't have one but two at NO COST.
-- yes like all equipment they have shortcomings which have to be appreciated.
With respect to the shortcomings these mainly centre around the difficulty in detecting threats with no relative motion ,as most are aware. Back to my query concerning the use of lights / beacons call them what you will. If I can stand at the threshold of Birmingham Airport (don't ask) staring back up the approach; see an aircraft on its 30 degreee intercept (rel motion); not see it on the glideslope (constant bearing no rel motion); then see it on the glideslope as soon as it switches on its' landing lights. That's 10nm + and these lights are constant not flashing which I suspect would grab the eyes attention even more.
Okay so the lights are a "billion candelera" but surely if is possible to engineer a Light Aviation sensible equivalent........or maybe not?
TIM
--It is not the MK 1....... I make no apologises to the Creationists amongst you.
--they are incredibly powerful versatile visual sensors; and the good news is that if you are a pilot and reading this you are very lucky to have a pair in good condition (possibly only needing refractive assistance).
--they are FREE. When you won Life's Lottery and found your consciousness awakening in the body of a human being you didn't have one but two at NO COST.
-- yes like all equipment they have shortcomings which have to be appreciated.
With respect to the shortcomings these mainly centre around the difficulty in detecting threats with no relative motion ,as most are aware. Back to my query concerning the use of lights / beacons call them what you will. If I can stand at the threshold of Birmingham Airport (don't ask) staring back up the approach; see an aircraft on its 30 degreee intercept (rel motion); not see it on the glideslope (constant bearing no rel motion); then see it on the glideslope as soon as it switches on its' landing lights. That's 10nm + and these lights are constant not flashing which I suspect would grab the eyes attention even more.
Okay so the lights are a "billion candelera" but surely if is possible to engineer a Light Aviation sensible equivalent........or maybe not?
TIM
Okay so the lights are a "billion candelera" but surely if is possible to engineer a Light Aviation sensible equivalent........or maybe not?
1, they are high power, so would flatten a battery in minutes, and burn out an alternator. CAT has much higher power available.
2. They are directional, being primarily the equivalent of headlights, and the threat is 3 dimensional.
Strobes have peak brightness as high as possble, and experiments show that you can identify an aircraft (in daylight) that has a strobe once you have visually acquired it. The presence of the strobe has no statistically significant effect on the range of acquisition. (Cranfield University conspicuity test flights).
But let's keep thinking - FLARM is not the only solution, but it is one that exists and works. If regulatory authorities permitted 10 times the transmit power (which would have only a small effect on unit power, since transmit time is very short) then range in the 10s of Kms is possible, allowing sufficient time for faster traffic to be aware. Of course, the regulators would probably want gold plated certification, multiplying the price by 10, but if united political effort was put into pushing the safety angle, who knows what is possible.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji, for the record, I asked a Dutch glider pilot who has the same type of glider as mine how he was able legally to fit a transponder, when under EASA there was at that time no approved scheme as far as I could find out.
I had hoped to be able to do what he did.
He sent me a drawing, and implied that they just did it without EASA approval. As far as I could find out, there was no EASA approval for installing one of any make at that time in this glider type. As I have posted before, there is now, but limited to three specific models of transponder which does not include Trig.
I don’t know which model transponder he fitted, but I don’t think Trig was available then. Without a major instrument panel change – and even then I don’t know how I would make more room – the Trig TT21 appears to be the only one I can fit, and it is not covered by an EASA approved modification for my glider. Other people with different instrument levels and specifications may have more room for other transponders. The Trig is the only one I am reasonably sure will fit in mine.
Chris N.
I had hoped to be able to do what he did.
He sent me a drawing, and implied that they just did it without EASA approval. As far as I could find out, there was no EASA approval for installing one of any make at that time in this glider type. As I have posted before, there is now, but limited to three specific models of transponder which does not include Trig.
I don’t know which model transponder he fitted, but I don’t think Trig was available then. Without a major instrument panel change – and even then I don’t know how I would make more room – the Trig TT21 appears to be the only one I can fit, and it is not covered by an EASA approved modification for my glider. Other people with different instrument levels and specifications may have more room for other transponders. The Trig is the only one I am reasonably sure will fit in mine.
Chris N.