To the glider muppets who ruined the Reds display at Silverstone.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Purely on the Notams point, I have not flown at a UK gliding club (and I've flown from more than a dozen) where the Notams were not checked by the duty instructor for local flying, and made available to any intending cross-country pilots. Of course some may not bother reading them, but I really haven't come across any.
You'll never see me checking the Notams at my club because I check them before I leave home.
When flying in a competition I've always relied on the organisers to obtain a copy of the Notams, and this has always been available. The Bicester briefing was clearly defective on this point - and I'd be amazed if it happened again for some years as organisers remind themselves "Remember Bicester".
The gliding movement, and the clubs themselves, are very conscious that gliding is different from other kinds of flying, and work hard to avoid conflicts with other airspace users. We have out share of mavericks and cowboys, as does all GA, but I think no more than any other sector.
From memory the last Red Arrows bust by a glider was more than 5 years ago. With 3-5 busts each year, that suggests to me that we are no more cavalier about RA(T)s than anyone else.
Oh, and I agree with all that has been said about the usability of the Notam system. I use a tool to help me filter the Notams, but read every entry which is filtered out. It's a dull and tedious task to reduce the 100+ Notams to the 5 which are relevant to my flight, and the system means that I'm never 100% confident that I've not missed something.
Time to reduce the clutter and make Notams more accessible please.
You'll never see me checking the Notams at my club because I check them before I leave home.
When flying in a competition I've always relied on the organisers to obtain a copy of the Notams, and this has always been available. The Bicester briefing was clearly defective on this point - and I'd be amazed if it happened again for some years as organisers remind themselves "Remember Bicester".
The gliding movement, and the clubs themselves, are very conscious that gliding is different from other kinds of flying, and work hard to avoid conflicts with other airspace users. We have out share of mavericks and cowboys, as does all GA, but I think no more than any other sector.
From memory the last Red Arrows bust by a glider was more than 5 years ago. With 3-5 busts each year, that suggests to me that we are no more cavalier about RA(T)s than anyone else.
Oh, and I agree with all that has been said about the usability of the Notam system. I use a tool to help me filter the Notams, but read every entry which is filtered out. It's a dull and tedious task to reduce the 100+ Notams to the 5 which are relevant to my flight, and the system means that I'm never 100% confident that I've not missed something.
Time to reduce the clutter and make Notams more accessible please.
Oh, and I agree with all that has been said about the usability of the Notam system. I use a tool to help me filter the Notams, but read every entry which is filtered out. It's a dull and tedious task to reduce the 100+ Notams to the 5 which are relevant to my flight, and the system means that I'm never 100% confident that I've not missed something.
Time to reduce the clutter and make Notams more accessible please.
Time to reduce the clutter and make Notams more accessible please.
If it were good enough for my father and his father before him, it's good enough for you, lad. You people today don't know you're born, why in my day we had to read it it morse code... Who's going to pay for it... Has to conform to international telex standards...
And so on and so on. We have a system that is error prone and tedious, and unfortunately a lot of people that defend the indefensible. But we know it can be done properly, and I've got access to at least 4 graphical presentations of Notams - but none of them is "official", and so we should really check the AIS site as well. We just get a lot of sniping about pilots that can't be bothered to check (I can, but I find however careful I am I make mistakes with the text-only system).
NATS have shown that they do understand that it's not just a matter of punishing infringers - viz the Airspace Aware initiative, and the improvements to Farnborough LARS. Now if only someone would take the really quite small step to produce a 21st Century Notams interface, and preferably before the century is out...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a dedicated glider site. No powered flying except for the home-based motorglider. But Holland is a TMZ for all things flying, from 1200' up. There may be a Transponder-not-mandatory zone around the glider site, but that only applies to non-transponder-equipped gliders. If the glider has a transponder (and the clubs aircraft all do) it needs to be turned on in flight. (To be precise, it needs to be turned on at the top of the launch, and turned to standby after landing - as per the AIC.)
When Mode-S was first introduced (and made mandatory) in the Netherlands this was indeed a significant problem. Loads of VFR returns which conflicted with the relevant IFR returns. Much has been said about this then, but all ATC units now have filters in place to filter out all 7000 returns (just show the primary return, not the secundary data block), or anything above/below a certain height.
But even without those filters, if ATC were to call me and report "traffic is multiple gliders from your 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock, three miles, lowest at XXX, highest at YYY" I'd be happy and take some action. I don't need to know the individual position and altitude of all 23 of them.
But a transponder is not just used by ATC. There's also TCAS and, increasingly popular, PCAS. Both which require transponders to be active.
Flarm seems to be used excusively in the glider world. Pity, since it's a lovely tool - although the range and sensitivity probably need to be increased if it were to work for fast-moving aircraft. But international regulations and aircraft certification requirements will probably prevent it from getting widespread adoption outside the glider world.
However, this seems to be a very interesting unit. Now if they would only make the transponder receiver directional such as the Zaon XRX, and interfaceable with a GNS430 or similar...
PowerFLARM
When Mode-S was first introduced (and made mandatory) in the Netherlands this was indeed a significant problem. Loads of VFR returns which conflicted with the relevant IFR returns. Much has been said about this then, but all ATC units now have filters in place to filter out all 7000 returns (just show the primary return, not the secundary data block), or anything above/below a certain height.
But even without those filters, if ATC were to call me and report "traffic is multiple gliders from your 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock, three miles, lowest at XXX, highest at YYY" I'd be happy and take some action. I don't need to know the individual position and altitude of all 23 of them.
But a transponder is not just used by ATC. There's also TCAS and, increasingly popular, PCAS. Both which require transponders to be active.
Flarm seems to be used excusively in the glider world. Pity, since it's a lovely tool - although the range and sensitivity probably need to be increased if it were to work for fast-moving aircraft. But international regulations and aircraft certification requirements will probably prevent it from getting widespread adoption outside the glider world.
However, this seems to be a very interesting unit. Now if they would only make the transponder receiver directional such as the Zaon XRX, and interfaceable with a GNS430 or similar...
PowerFLARM
If you don't have a transponder then that's ok.
If you DO have a transponder then you're required to turn it off when below 1200' or when being launched. Therefore it's not usable as a collision avoidance device by fellow gliders when in the circuit (generally considered to be the highest risk phase of flight for collisions).
With the introduction of Mode-S, secondary returns (i.e. transponder squark codes), are filtered by ATC to instead just show primary returns on their radar. Don't know much about radar but I didn't think that primary returns show anything other than location, i.e. don't show height and so ATC can't say if something is above//below you. But you're happy simply to know that there are gliders in the area...something that most radars can already achieve without even the need for gliders to be Mode-S equipped.
This al seems to be getting awfully confusing! Perhaps the Dutch implementation is a good opportunity for the various other authorities to learn how NOT to implement such requirements.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't have a transponder then that's ok.
If you DO have a transponder then you're required to turn it off when below 1200' or when being launched.
With the introduction of Mode-S, secondary returns (i.e. transponder squark codes), are filtered by ATC to instead just show primary returns on their radar. Don't know much about radar but I didn't think that primary returns show anything other than location, i.e. don't show height and so ATC can't say if something is above//below you. But you're happy simply to know that there are gliders in the area...something that most radars can already achieve without even the need for gliders to be Mode-S equipped.
Perhaps the Dutch implementation is a good opportunity for the various other authorities to learn how NOT to implement such requirements.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand to be corrected by ATCOs but is it not partly true to say that the large number of CAS infringements is a result of improved radar and increased use of transponders by light aircraft. Gliders are less likely to show up on radar due to a universal non-use of transponders. As I bimble about I often hear controllers advising of traffic that could be gliders or microlights. I do understand the argument that gliders rarely have enough power or room for transponders.
This was an embarrassing show of incompetence by the gliding movement - and by the BGA, right to the top. This has been waiting to happen for some time, sadly.
I consider myself a glider pilot first and foremost. I am, or have been, proud of that. I have long held that on balance, pilots trained as glider pilots first are better, safer pilots than the average. Right now, this event makes me seriously doubt that. All UK glider pilots should feel embarrassed at this shambles.
Anyone can make a mistake of course. I've made plenty. But what sort of half asleep characters set a task to within such a short distance of an RA? These should be fairly senior, competent people. (And while I thoroughly approve of the contest directors reading a major riot act the next day, I hope they also did a 'mea culpa'. They surely needed to !)
This was a Juniors contest, so the pilots are likely to need more guidance and supervision, support. Of course, these folk are supposed to be amongst our brightest and best (wince) young pilots, so the fact that apparently more than half the field can't do basic navigation is a fairly damning indictment of the BGA's training system these days. They will include pilots from all over the UK, so it's a generic problem, not just a local one.
Who taught these young pilots navigation and airmanship? Who has been supervising them? Evidently, no-one, or not sufficiently. One or two getting it wrong would be understandable. Half the field? Come on.
Looking around the current BGA set up, sadly, I am not surprised. We have too many, at best marginally capable, 'instructors' who can just about teach to a safe level of mechanical action. I challenge what deeper understanding they can give our young pilots. Apparently, darn little.
In the modern touchy feely, 'everyone is as good as everyone else', 'don't let's be unkind to anyone' world, these people are not encouraged to either develop their own competence to teach or get out. There is not enough positive criticism given or accepted. All too often folk are allowed to continue without improvement in too many cases.
This event, to my way of thinking, is exactly the sort of result to be expected, eventually. Fortunately nothing worse than embarrassment and annoyance, though it is bad enough. I hope the gliding movement at large learns a lesson from this and sharpens up its act. They desperately need to. I see notably higher standards of flying, training and supervision elsewhere in the gliding world now.
We used to think we were amongst the world's best; it would nice to head back that way, so -
Come on folks - surely we can do better than this. There are a bunch of lessons to learn here !
I consider myself a glider pilot first and foremost. I am, or have been, proud of that. I have long held that on balance, pilots trained as glider pilots first are better, safer pilots than the average. Right now, this event makes me seriously doubt that. All UK glider pilots should feel embarrassed at this shambles.
Anyone can make a mistake of course. I've made plenty. But what sort of half asleep characters set a task to within such a short distance of an RA? These should be fairly senior, competent people. (And while I thoroughly approve of the contest directors reading a major riot act the next day, I hope they also did a 'mea culpa'. They surely needed to !)
This was a Juniors contest, so the pilots are likely to need more guidance and supervision, support. Of course, these folk are supposed to be amongst our brightest and best (wince) young pilots, so the fact that apparently more than half the field can't do basic navigation is a fairly damning indictment of the BGA's training system these days. They will include pilots from all over the UK, so it's a generic problem, not just a local one.
Who taught these young pilots navigation and airmanship? Who has been supervising them? Evidently, no-one, or not sufficiently. One or two getting it wrong would be understandable. Half the field? Come on.
Looking around the current BGA set up, sadly, I am not surprised. We have too many, at best marginally capable, 'instructors' who can just about teach to a safe level of mechanical action. I challenge what deeper understanding they can give our young pilots. Apparently, darn little.
In the modern touchy feely, 'everyone is as good as everyone else', 'don't let's be unkind to anyone' world, these people are not encouraged to either develop their own competence to teach or get out. There is not enough positive criticism given or accepted. All too often folk are allowed to continue without improvement in too many cases.
This event, to my way of thinking, is exactly the sort of result to be expected, eventually. Fortunately nothing worse than embarrassment and annoyance, though it is bad enough. I hope the gliding movement at large learns a lesson from this and sharpens up its act. They desperately need to. I see notably higher standards of flying, training and supervision elsewhere in the gliding world now.
We used to think we were amongst the world's best; it would nice to head back that way, so -
Come on folks - surely we can do better than this. There are a bunch of lessons to learn here !
Last edited by biscuit74; 24th Aug 2010 at 22:30.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After all, TCAS does not know that the winch will run out of steam at 1500' or so.
Can cables really go this high? or does this hazard just relate to tow releases?Allowing for the slant angle at time of cable release it would seem to necessitate runway lengths well in excess of 1000metres?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you have a 1000m field, your cable length will be about that length too. Maybe a little extra, but not much. Theoretically if the wind is strong enough you can "kite" all the way up and since you're being released almost on top of the winch, you would be released at almost 1000m.
In practice, with a moderate headwind and moderate technique the average height you can reach is more like 500m. Nil wind and you might be lucky to reach 350m.
The number marked on the chart will probably be the max release height.
You're welcome. And sorry about my last sentence. It might have come across a little more condescending than intended.
In practice, with a moderate headwind and moderate technique the average height you can reach is more like 500m. Nil wind and you might be lucky to reach 350m.
The number marked on the chart will probably be the max release height.
@Backpacker - thanks for the clarification!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, Thank you. the possibility of "kiting" hadn't occurred to me. I had assumed that the winch would have to keep running for the whole launch or at least until the point at which it started to drag the glider back down again.
I know nothing about gliding but do know that many UK gliding sites are marked on the charts as cable hazards to in excess of 3000ft.
Can cables really go this high? or does this hazard just relate to tow releases?Allowing for the slant angle at time of cable release it would seem to necessitate runway lengths well in excess of 1000metres?
Can cables really go this high? or does this hazard just relate to tow releases?Allowing for the slant angle at time of cable release it would seem to necessitate runway lengths well in excess of 1000metres?
As a glider pilot I'm pretty embarrassed by the infringements of the red arrows RAT. Having looked at the task set (available on the web) the outbound and return tracks are unforgivably close to the RAT. It should never have been set. Although gliders are using GPS technology most will not have the NOTAMed areas shown on a moving map so in many cases eyeball has to be used to judge distance in such a case. The task should have been set to give a minimum of 5 miles clearance between the RAT and the task track. This was not the case.
If court cases result it should be the task setter as well as the pilots facing the music.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God forbid a glider pilot has to carefully navigate close to controlled airspace!
Imagine if some gliding sites were actually located next to controlled airspace, both laterally and vertically, just imagine the carnage that could ensue..
Imagine if some gliding sites were actually located next to controlled airspace, both laterally and vertically, just imagine the carnage that could ensue..
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No emoticon this time, oversteer?
For the benefit of people who might otherwise think that oversteer has a serious point, there are of course gliding sites close to or beneath controlled airspace, and local pilots learn to observe landmarks on the ground, and/or use GPS and moving map displays, to avoid incursions.
Of the large numbers of incursions recorded by NATS each year, almost all are by powered aircraft and very few are by gliders.
Chris N
For the benefit of people who might otherwise think that oversteer has a serious point, there are of course gliding sites close to or beneath controlled airspace, and local pilots learn to observe landmarks on the ground, and/or use GPS and moving map displays, to avoid incursions.
Of the large numbers of incursions recorded by NATS each year, almost all are by powered aircraft and very few are by gliders.
Chris N
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Of the large numbers of incursions recorded by NATS each year, almost all are by powered aircraft and very few are by gliders"
ChrisN that MAY have been true until this year but you have certainly skewed the charts this time. Please dont try and deflect the cockup by glider pilots by introducing powered aircraft into this. This thread is about one incident and you cannot deflect from that.
ChrisN that MAY have been true until this year but you have certainly skewed the charts this time. Please dont try and deflect the cockup by glider pilots by introducing powered aircraft into this. This thread is about one incident and you cannot deflect from that.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biscuit74 - well said. You have hit the nail on the head. Hopefully the BGA will take ownership of this problem and review its procedures with regards instruction.
I know from past experience that the CAA can be very harsh if it wants to be, sometimes even petty with regards its enforcement policies. I hope this time they do make a stand and look at the whole problem globally rather than as something in Black and white, yes the infringements happened, yes they could prosecute. It would be more useful to examine WHY it happened, over 50% of the pilots on the day appeared to be unable to read a Notam, yes they are sometimes a pain to read, yes it might not be an ultra modern system which is employed to publish them. None the less, the system works (it could be made better) The information is freely availible. It is not excusable for the pilots to have been unaware of the RAT - or to rely on the competition organisers to brief them, it takes seconds to check and is only good airmanship.
I started my flying with gliding and worked through to Silver C, My training at the time was scant with regards map reading and airlaw. I had no idea how scant until I converted my silver c to a ppl. That was again reinforced with my written atpl exams. Thirty years later I would have thought those gaps might have been addressed. Its clear from Sundays events and the subsequent postings on here, that the issues may have been addressed at some club sites, but not on a national uniform policy basis. The training system seems to be too varied, the scope of what is taught does not seem standardised. It may produce glider pilots who can fly, but seems to not be so good at producing pilots with knowledge and skills to intergrate safely into busy and complex UK airspace.
There is the question about the wisdom of the person who set the task so close to the RA(T), I guess that NONE of the competitors thought (or dared) to raise the question at the briefing as to why the route had to take them so close. At least 50% of the competitors did not even know it was a RA(T).
The whole of this episode has highlighted some serious questions about the training of glider pilots in the UK, lets hope that lessons are learnt and things move rapidly forward for the better
I know from past experience that the CAA can be very harsh if it wants to be, sometimes even petty with regards its enforcement policies. I hope this time they do make a stand and look at the whole problem globally rather than as something in Black and white, yes the infringements happened, yes they could prosecute. It would be more useful to examine WHY it happened, over 50% of the pilots on the day appeared to be unable to read a Notam, yes they are sometimes a pain to read, yes it might not be an ultra modern system which is employed to publish them. None the less, the system works (it could be made better) The information is freely availible. It is not excusable for the pilots to have been unaware of the RAT - or to rely on the competition organisers to brief them, it takes seconds to check and is only good airmanship.
I started my flying with gliding and worked through to Silver C, My training at the time was scant with regards map reading and airlaw. I had no idea how scant until I converted my silver c to a ppl. That was again reinforced with my written atpl exams. Thirty years later I would have thought those gaps might have been addressed. Its clear from Sundays events and the subsequent postings on here, that the issues may have been addressed at some club sites, but not on a national uniform policy basis. The training system seems to be too varied, the scope of what is taught does not seem standardised. It may produce glider pilots who can fly, but seems to not be so good at producing pilots with knowledge and skills to intergrate safely into busy and complex UK airspace.
There is the question about the wisdom of the person who set the task so close to the RA(T), I guess that NONE of the competitors thought (or dared) to raise the question at the briefing as to why the route had to take them so close. At least 50% of the competitors did not even know it was a RA(T).
The whole of this episode has highlighted some serious questions about the training of glider pilots in the UK, lets hope that lessons are learnt and things move rapidly forward for the better
Last edited by goldeneaglepilot; 25th Aug 2010 at 17:39.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is the question about the wisdom of the person who set the task so close to the RA(T), I guess that NONE of the competitors thought (or dared) to raise the question at the briefing as to why the route had to take them so close. At least 50% ofthe competitors did not even know it was a RA(T).
With a rapidly changing weather situation the intention was presumably to get the gliders in the air ASAP. All of them could have waited before starting, or the director could have delayed the launch.
There is no single person to blame here. Seems a classic "holes in the cheese" situation:
- pressure to get the gliders launched in an awkward day
- task changed at last minute
- pilots forced to launch or lose their space in the launch grid
- weather south of track not condusive to soaring
- insufficient prominence attributed to the RA(T) in the brief
- director expecting gliders to route south of track line
- perhaps, no checking of NOTAMs by competitors 'as the directors would brief us of everything'
- pilots under pressure flying in a competition, perhaps for the first time
- pilots not familiar with the area features (is that Buckingham or .. ?)
- difficulty in referencing 6nm from Silverstone on a half mil map
- tendency for pilots to follow the 'gaggle' and think that 'if he's doing it it must be OK'
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Hove
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What pompous tosh.
(not you oversteer)
First of all, it is completely impractical for 40+ pilots to individually self-brief using the limited resources at a small airfield. The BGA know this. The competition rulebook states very clearly that a briefing must be held each morning and include:
It is not unreasonable for a competition field to rely on the organisation for airspace alerts and sensible tasking. The task setting & timing of launch indicates that the organisation were unaware of the significance of the NOTAM.
Secondly, the requirements for an XC endorsement include passing an airlaw exam (equivalent to the power exam) and demonstrating an ability to navigate. This is all clearly stated in the BGA syllabus for those who care to look it up.
None of these pilots are incompetent. Some of them are more experienced than others but they will all have received an adequate level of training. I believe one of the infringers is a military pilot, I wouldn't be surprised if there is an airline/commercial pilot or two amongst that group as well.
On a human factors note, the task planning & scoring software will not know what a RA(T) is. I believe it will present any temporary airspace as a 'Nav Warning' but this airspace should not be interpreted in the same way as a NOTAMed Nav Warning.
Ranting on about inadequate BGA training is wrong; none of these pilots got lost so:
is clearly wrong. The failures here were inadequate daily briefing and monumentally inappropriate task setting. Although the pilots have to shoulder the blame, the fault lies squarely with the task setter and competition director in whom they put their trust. The sheer stupidity of the chosen task is what makes me think that the organisers were unaware of the nature & extent of the NOTAM, an attitude which was probably passed on to the pilots.
If biscuit74 believes his club instructors are incompetent, the fault lies with his CFI, who is responsible for standards at his club.
I'm prepared to believe that the BGA Bronze badge (which requires the ability to acquire, understand & use NOTAMs) post-dates goldeneaglepilot's dim & distant gliding experience.
(not you oversteer)
First of all, it is completely impractical for 40+ pilots to individually self-brief using the limited resources at a small airfield. The BGA know this. The competition rulebook states very clearly that a briefing must be held each morning and include:
Airspace restrictions and hazards that might affect competitors and are additional to those shown on the latest aviation maps, i.e. NOTAM information and active parachute zones to be treated as prohibited airspace.
Secondly, the requirements for an XC endorsement include passing an airlaw exam (equivalent to the power exam) and demonstrating an ability to navigate. This is all clearly stated in the BGA syllabus for those who care to look it up.
None of these pilots are incompetent. Some of them are more experienced than others but they will all have received an adequate level of training. I believe one of the infringers is a military pilot, I wouldn't be surprised if there is an airline/commercial pilot or two amongst that group as well.
On a human factors note, the task planning & scoring software will not know what a RA(T) is. I believe it will present any temporary airspace as a 'Nav Warning' but this airspace should not be interpreted in the same way as a NOTAMed Nav Warning.
Ranting on about inadequate BGA training is wrong; none of these pilots got lost so:
the fact that apparently more than half the field can't do basic navigation
If biscuit74 believes his club instructors are incompetent, the fault lies with his CFI, who is responsible for standards at his club.
I'm prepared to believe that the BGA Bronze badge (which requires the ability to acquire, understand & use NOTAMs) post-dates goldeneaglepilot's dim & distant gliding experience.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a shame so many on here seem to love glider bashing! Yep the bust was bad, but one thread down as I write this, is another about a GA pilot busting the Reds display as well 
I started as a glider pilot but have flown GA for the best part of the 20 years since. Last year I went back to do a bit of gliding and had forgotten how to use my eyes! I thought my lookout was good .... How wrong I was! Glider pilots have skills many GA pilots don't, and vice versa. We tend to become honed at the skills we use the most and then expect others to be just as good, but forget that we may lack skills in other areas, that others would expect us to have.
We are all lovers of the air. We need to respect the rights of others to fly their particular aircraft and the right to airspace needed to allow it. Even the best pilots have been know to make mistakes and bust airspace. How it's dealt with needs to be proportional and not vindictive. Clearly in this case, an in depth review of "why?" is needed ... but a single aircraft popping up in the wrong place at the wrong time presents just as much danger and just as worthy of scrutiny.
SS
I started as a glider pilot but have flown GA for the best part of the 20 years since. Last year I went back to do a bit of gliding and had forgotten how to use my eyes! I thought my lookout was good .... How wrong I was! Glider pilots have skills many GA pilots don't, and vice versa. We tend to become honed at the skills we use the most and then expect others to be just as good, but forget that we may lack skills in other areas, that others would expect us to have.
We are all lovers of the air. We need to respect the rights of others to fly their particular aircraft and the right to airspace needed to allow it. Even the best pilots have been know to make mistakes and bust airspace. How it's dealt with needs to be proportional and not vindictive. Clearly in this case, an in depth review of "why?" is needed ... but a single aircraft popping up in the wrong place at the wrong time presents just as much danger and just as worthy of scrutiny.
SS
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statement from RAFAT's OC on Saturday's cancellation:
RAF Red Arrows - The Red Arrows Team News
After the unfortunate airborne cancellation of our display at Silverstone on Sunday, I would like to take this opportunity to explain why the establishment of Restricted Area (Temporary) airspace for Red Arrows displays is required and the implications therein of its infringement ...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: around
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinpilot -- I'm a glider pilot myself (after a fashion). I've done my CCE, and am on my way to finishing the Silver C. I'm also a professional powered aircraft pilot, and I take issue with several of your points.
Put simply, this is balls. Take a half mil, some sticky-back plastic and a pen. Put map behind plastic, hang on side of launch point bus, DI draws notams for local area / task on map. No excuses. Yes, it still relies on one chap with the notam, but if you stick the printout next to it for people to cross-reference, then errors get spotted. This system works, it's simple, and pretty fail-tolerant.
No -- they're nowhere near equivalent in depth and breadth. Compare the JAR-PPL(A) theoretical requirements, especially Air Law, with the single page six of this one .
He's not the only one -- I (as a relatively experienced PPL(A) at the time) had to fully rebrief my then-club CFI about NOTAMS (this was when I started gliding, c. 2004). He had *no* idea. I've since seen similar levels of knowledge from other BGA-rated BIs through to club CFIs.
It doesn't post-date mine...! And I don't recall a single question about NOTAMs in my Bronze theory exam, nor even meeting the concept during the training. Nor, come to think of it, during my CCE flying -- apart from the aforementioned discussion with the then-CFI...
I have another question for those who question the need for the Red Arrows transit NOTAMS (and, in extremis, the need for a RA(T)!) -- take a moment to try and understand the workload required to manoeuver a nine-aircraft formation, of fast jets at low level, through cluttered airspace whilst doing all the other good stuff that comes with a long navigational flight. Now imagine doing that at three times the speed of your average light aircraft. Can you now begin to see why poor Red 1 might appreciate it if you could possibly not bitch and whine about why the 'Reds expect us to get out of their way in our God-given and inviolate Class G' as some people seem to think, and just do the poor bugger a favour and stay out of the way temporarily?
First of all, it is completely impractical for 40+ pilots to individually self-brief using the limited resources at a small airfield.
the requirements for an XC endorsement include passing an airlaw exam (equivalent to the power exam)
If biscuit74 believes his club instructors are incompetent, the fault lies with his CFI, who is responsible for standards at his club.
I'm prepared to believe that the BGA Bronze badge (which requires the ability to acquire, understand & use NOTAMs) post-dates goldeneaglepilot's dim & distant gliding experience.
I have another question for those who question the need for the Red Arrows transit NOTAMS (and, in extremis, the need for a RA(T)!) -- take a moment to try and understand the workload required to manoeuver a nine-aircraft formation, of fast jets at low level, through cluttered airspace whilst doing all the other good stuff that comes with a long navigational flight. Now imagine doing that at three times the speed of your average light aircraft. Can you now begin to see why poor Red 1 might appreciate it if you could possibly not bitch and whine about why the 'Reds expect us to get out of their way in our God-given and inviolate Class G' as some people seem to think, and just do the poor bugger a favour and stay out of the way temporarily?
Last edited by Anonystude; 25th Aug 2010 at 16:50.