Airmanship - a consideration
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in the south
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was at an aerobatic competition yesterday and despite it being notam'd we had 3 harriers fly through the overhead at approx 3000ft( aerobatics up to at least 3000ft ) and a spitfire meandered through at no more than 3000ft. I would expect these pilots to know better. I assume the spit pilot was a fairly experienced pilot.
Probably, but you could be an operational Harrier pilot at, say, 23 with 500 hours potentially, whilst nobody's going to let anybody that inexperienced near a Spitfire these days.
All a bit irrelevant - they should certainly all have known about anything NOTAMed and stayed out of the way.
G
All a bit irrelevant - they should certainly all have known about anything NOTAMed and stayed out of the way.
G
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: around
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless you get the MoD to agree to a Mandatory Temporary Avoid then your NOTAM goes down as a 'warning' only. No requirement to avoid it. After all, it's "still Class G", and those Harriers have as much right to that piece of airspace as your aerobatic aircraft...
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in the south
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anonystude,
I agree but we are talking about airmanship
Good airmanship would mean reading notams and avoiding, so would self preservation.
I agree but we are talking about airmanship
Good airmanship would mean reading notams and avoiding, so would self preservation.
Last edited by fivegreenlight; 9th Aug 2010 at 11:16.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If an event which is out of the ordinary is being held in Class G, then all the more reason to issue a NOTAM about it.
Going back to the original Elvington example, then the 'intruding' aerobatic pilot had every legal right to carry out aerobatics in the overhead in Class G, no doubt using the enormous runway as a handy line feature. However, had he/she heeded the NOTAM warning of the Wings 'n Wheels event, then the chances of meeting head-on with a T-6 while inverted at the top of a loop would have been completely avoided. Taking the glider comp example, while the gliders could be almost anywhere there is a strong likelihood that the 'host' airfield will be significantly busier than usual and, blow me, gliders are hard to spot at the best of times. Surely common sense and a healthy survival instinct should tell you to avoid such places if possible? I know mine do...
Again referring to Elvington, I assume that the event attracted a number of cars, stalls, aircraft, vehicles etc all coverinng areas of grass and tarmac that would normally be bare; didn't the 'intruding' pilot notice all these big hints? I'll be blunt: what sort of numbnuts proceeds to carry out aerobatics over an airfield with such obvious clues underneath him/her? (If I've missed something obvious, apologies for the bluntness.) I'd also like to think that the aerobat was in receipt of a Basic Service from, say, Fenton, and that ATC might have mentioned something about the event.
A long time ago, as a 17 year old with about 25 hours under my belt, I was pax in the back of a Cherokee flying from Scotland to Lincs. As we trundled towards Church Fenton at about 2000' the chaps in the front couldn't raise CF on the radio, so decided to continue through the MATZ as it was a Sunday and, surely, a military airfield would be closed on Sunday? (Error, in Fenton's case.) I remember looking down and idly wondering why there were hundreds of cars and a funfair on the airfield, and also (being a schoolboy spotter) why a P-3 Orion would be parked at Fenton. I then pondered the date, Sunday 16 July 1989; SSAFA day airshow at Fenton...the penny dropped..."Guys!!!" A lesson learned and never forgotten.
To return to my original point, NOTAMs are there to warn us about something abnormal and, by extension, a potential risk to our own flying. To assume that you can safely ignore a NOTAM, or even that you can fly safely without checking NOTAMs, just because you are in Class G, is arrogant and dangerous. Plenty of us will privately admit to having accidentally infringed a NOTAM, either through a lack of planning or forgetfulness - though I've never flown either a Spitfire or a Harrier! - but we should do everything possible not to do so, irrespective of the class of airspace, in order to fly as safely as possible.
E99
Going back to the original Elvington example, then the 'intruding' aerobatic pilot had every legal right to carry out aerobatics in the overhead in Class G, no doubt using the enormous runway as a handy line feature. However, had he/she heeded the NOTAM warning of the Wings 'n Wheels event, then the chances of meeting head-on with a T-6 while inverted at the top of a loop would have been completely avoided. Taking the glider comp example, while the gliders could be almost anywhere there is a strong likelihood that the 'host' airfield will be significantly busier than usual and, blow me, gliders are hard to spot at the best of times. Surely common sense and a healthy survival instinct should tell you to avoid such places if possible? I know mine do...
Again referring to Elvington, I assume that the event attracted a number of cars, stalls, aircraft, vehicles etc all coverinng areas of grass and tarmac that would normally be bare; didn't the 'intruding' pilot notice all these big hints? I'll be blunt: what sort of numbnuts proceeds to carry out aerobatics over an airfield with such obvious clues underneath him/her? (If I've missed something obvious, apologies for the bluntness.) I'd also like to think that the aerobat was in receipt of a Basic Service from, say, Fenton, and that ATC might have mentioned something about the event.
A long time ago, as a 17 year old with about 25 hours under my belt, I was pax in the back of a Cherokee flying from Scotland to Lincs. As we trundled towards Church Fenton at about 2000' the chaps in the front couldn't raise CF on the radio, so decided to continue through the MATZ as it was a Sunday and, surely, a military airfield would be closed on Sunday? (Error, in Fenton's case.) I remember looking down and idly wondering why there were hundreds of cars and a funfair on the airfield, and also (being a schoolboy spotter) why a P-3 Orion would be parked at Fenton. I then pondered the date, Sunday 16 July 1989; SSAFA day airshow at Fenton...the penny dropped..."Guys!!!" A lesson learned and never forgotten.
To return to my original point, NOTAMs are there to warn us about something abnormal and, by extension, a potential risk to our own flying. To assume that you can safely ignore a NOTAM, or even that you can fly safely without checking NOTAMs, just because you are in Class G, is arrogant and dangerous. Plenty of us will privately admit to having accidentally infringed a NOTAM, either through a lack of planning or forgetfulness - though I've never flown either a Spitfire or a Harrier! - but we should do everything possible not to do so, irrespective of the class of airspace, in order to fly as safely as possible.
E99
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if I was flying a glider I would buy a Mode C transponder and install it, and to hell with silly rules for certified aircraft.
The weight and balance issue is critical for some gliders, and don't forget these are single seaters, not four-seat aircraft, so the margins are tighter. Space is generally more of an issue, especially in the panel. Don't forget that weight includes the batteries to run the thing, and that's where the problem often lies.
I'm booked for another week of glider flying lessons next week at a club in the Netherlands. All their gliders have a mode-S transponder fitted. So don't tell me it can't be done because of weight, panel space, electrical requirements or certification issues.
I agree that there might be some types of (older) gliders for which one or two of the problems you mentioned may be insurmountable, but that's certainly not the case across the entire fleet.
But the main issue I have to agree about is the cost/benefit issue. You can get an old wooden glider (in good condition) for less than 10 grand. Spending 2 grand or more on a transponder installation is a lot of money then. But how often do these old wooden gliders really leave the vicinity of the glider site? I'm not too worried about them flying around without transponders. It's the high performance gliders that fly competitions all over the place, sometimes in dense packs, that I'm worried about.
Cost is a real issue - my costs of sole ownership, including flying costs, are in the region of £2,500 per annum, so installing a transponder is likely to cost me 2 years worth of flying. A second-hand mode C might be less than a grand installed, but the CAA won't allow that. And anyway, I'd have to leave it turned off most of the time, only using it when near controlled airspace, because I can't carry enough batteries.
Returning to the notams issue, I agree that the level of clutter is so great that the usefulness of the whole system is reduced. Checking the notams for today, of 177 there were only three which were in any way relevant for glider flying within a 100nm range of my airfield.
The major gliding competition notams seem to me to be potentially useful though, because between 50 and 100 aircraft will be launched and will hang around the vicinity waiting for the start gate to open. That's probably worth being aware of and avoiding! Once they're off on task the notam tells you nothing worthwhile about where to expect them, and the reasons why have been explained earlier.
This thread started with a nav warning notam - some replies seem to think that a warning is much the same as an RAT. I'm never going to fly through the middle of an aerobatics competition with such a notam (unless I've missed the notam somehow), but I do have a perfect right to do so if I comply with the rules of the air. It's just a warning to me that there are extra dangers there, and to be careful. I won't do it because I always try to comply with my wife's instructions: "Fly nicely".
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would have been visible via the NATS site until the end of the posted duration of the competition.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To amplify on what Prof Chris Reed has posted, I have probably the only glider that my club that could physically accommodate a Trig 21 transponder, but contrary to what others have posted, I cannot do it, because there is no EASA approved modification, in sufficient detail to satisfy the CAA, for my glider. I have a hole in the instrument panel ready to accommodate the control unit; there is enough spare weight capacity to accommodate the extra batteries required for long flights; but there is no paperwork to cover it.
It is no good people saying that they have them on the continent. I have been in correspondence with people on the continent who have fitted transponders in gliders, and at least some of them did it before there was an approved EASA modification. Those who did it on my model of glider have subsequently seen an approved modification submitted by the glider manufacturer. Unfortunately, it does not cover installation of extra batteries, nor the installation of a separate power unit located in the fuselage and not the panel which is what the Trig 21 has - and that is the only one that would fit in my glider, I believe. The BGA, and the inspector I have most recently had doing work on my glider, both tell me that without that sufficiently detailed approved modification, I cannot legally fit a transponder. It is no good saying they did it on the continent. It is no good saying that I should go ahead and have it installed illegally. The inspector won't do it. The next ARC would not be renewed if it is there.
Unless the posters on here, who say it can be done, are themselves the right person with the right authority in the CAA, they just don't know what they're talking about.
If you are the right person in the CAA, and do have the right authority, why have you and/or your colleagues told the BGA and my inspector differently?
So Flarm and PCAS is all I can do at the moment to have technology assist me in collision avoidance, unless I invest in a completely new instrument panel and layout, with extra batteries, and the cost and inconvenience of drawing up a very detailed modification proposal covering all that which would be required, and paying for it to be officially approved - a burden which is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, requiring skills I do not have.
Chris N
It is no good people saying that they have them on the continent. I have been in correspondence with people on the continent who have fitted transponders in gliders, and at least some of them did it before there was an approved EASA modification. Those who did it on my model of glider have subsequently seen an approved modification submitted by the glider manufacturer. Unfortunately, it does not cover installation of extra batteries, nor the installation of a separate power unit located in the fuselage and not the panel which is what the Trig 21 has - and that is the only one that would fit in my glider, I believe. The BGA, and the inspector I have most recently had doing work on my glider, both tell me that without that sufficiently detailed approved modification, I cannot legally fit a transponder. It is no good saying they did it on the continent. It is no good saying that I should go ahead and have it installed illegally. The inspector won't do it. The next ARC would not be renewed if it is there.
Unless the posters on here, who say it can be done, are themselves the right person with the right authority in the CAA, they just don't know what they're talking about.
If you are the right person in the CAA, and do have the right authority, why have you and/or your colleagues told the BGA and my inspector differently?
So Flarm and PCAS is all I can do at the moment to have technology assist me in collision avoidance, unless I invest in a completely new instrument panel and layout, with extra batteries, and the cost and inconvenience of drawing up a very detailed modification proposal covering all that which would be required, and paying for it to be officially approved - a burden which is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, requiring skills I do not have.
Chris N
