Lighting the blue touchpaper of gliding
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Signal Orange Strips on Glass Gliders are common in competition and not a problem
2) Mode C transponders mandatory in the Netherlands for Gliders operating away from the immediate vicinity of the airfield
To be fair, I think Il Duce's original point was more to do with the perceived wisdom of gliding in those locations, combined with radio silence
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The positive nature of discussion on this thread is very encouraging. this is not a subject for division into 'them and us' camps.
Backpacker - personally, I am not worried. Unless something hits my rotor or chops off my tail I am likely to survive a close miss or even a "bump". However, UK air law tells me to give way to gliders and I am very happy to do that; I can't unless I know they are there.
I always have radio contact when flying (local tower / radio, or LARS, or London / Scottish information). If the ATC unit knows / suspects from intermittent radar return that a glider is ahead of my track they tell me. I can change course early and deconflict with ease - mostly never actually ever seeing the glider. A x-country glider pilot in UK airspace talking to LARS is not going to get a lot of help from them (agreed), but occasional position reports from the glider gives everyone on channel information to plan to avoid; anyone later reporting a position that might conflict is advised of the risk by ATC and, again, sensible pilots will simply plan to avoid that particular piece of airspace.
Generally speaking, I am not after a traffic service to help me to fly close to gliders but I can't simply avoid any airspace where a glider "might" be; there is just not enough airspace in the UK to do that.
Similarly with transponder - if you show-up to ATC they tell me of potential conflict and I change course and avoid. I don't want to get close enough to need a FLARM warning.
I come back to what I think is my main point: If we continue to have complaints about near-miss, or actual accidents, that can be traced to lack of visibility then at some point official-dum will decide that 'something must be done' and we will have new rules (of some kind or other). It seems to me to far more sensible for us - the aviation community - to work this out ourselves. That way we may avoid expensive and / or ineffective measures being mandated.
So -
1) Is there a problem of visibility? simple yes / no
2) If so, then is that a risk that can (sensibly) be reduced? and
3) If so, what is the most cost-effective option?
Backpacker - personally, I am not worried. Unless something hits my rotor or chops off my tail I am likely to survive a close miss or even a "bump". However, UK air law tells me to give way to gliders and I am very happy to do that; I can't unless I know they are there.
I always have radio contact when flying (local tower / radio, or LARS, or London / Scottish information). If the ATC unit knows / suspects from intermittent radar return that a glider is ahead of my track they tell me. I can change course early and deconflict with ease - mostly never actually ever seeing the glider. A x-country glider pilot in UK airspace talking to LARS is not going to get a lot of help from them (agreed), but occasional position reports from the glider gives everyone on channel information to plan to avoid; anyone later reporting a position that might conflict is advised of the risk by ATC and, again, sensible pilots will simply plan to avoid that particular piece of airspace.
Generally speaking, I am not after a traffic service to help me to fly close to gliders but I can't simply avoid any airspace where a glider "might" be; there is just not enough airspace in the UK to do that.
Similarly with transponder - if you show-up to ATC they tell me of potential conflict and I change course and avoid. I don't want to get close enough to need a FLARM warning.
I come back to what I think is my main point: If we continue to have complaints about near-miss, or actual accidents, that can be traced to lack of visibility then at some point official-dum will decide that 'something must be done' and we will have new rules (of some kind or other). It seems to me to far more sensible for us - the aviation community - to work this out ourselves. That way we may avoid expensive and / or ineffective measures being mandated.
So -
1) Is there a problem of visibility? simple yes / no
2) If so, then is that a risk that can (sensibly) be reduced? and
3) If so, what is the most cost-effective option?
I can't condone the actions described in the first post but I do understand some of why it happens.
Cross country gliding is a high-workload endeavour, especially when the conditions are less than perfect. If you're not used to R/T (it's not part of learning to glide, unlike most power training) and are navigating by 1/2mil in a sailplane of moderate performance, there is precious little capacity left for 'chat' without compromising the ability to stay airborne.
A MATZ doesn't apply to gliders, in the strict sense, although an ATZ does. If you extended the centrelines of all the active runways in the UK out to 10nm and drew the result on a map, it would be a mess, with intersecting lines all over the place. Yes, it is good airmanship and polite to make yourself known to airfields close by but it is not required, if you're not going to transit their airspace. If you're in the open FIR on approach to a particular airfield, you should expect all manner of heavier/lighter than air objects to be rushing/floating about, right up to the boundaries of airspace. Many will be non-radio.
As far as visibility goes, the extremely low frontal area of modern gliders makes them difficult to spot, whatever colour they are. A plus point is that they are rarely flying on a constant track or holding a steady speed and altitude, so there is often some sort of differential motion that the eye can detect, rather than being a 'fly on the windscreen'. I don't think orange stripes on the wings do very much, if anything, as I've often spotted another glider and when it got much closer, observed that it had stripes.
FLARM has had a large take-up in continental Europe and is becoming widely established in the UK. (For those that don't know, it's like TCAS but without the guidance.) It is a useful enhancement to a good lookout, especially in situations where the geometry leaves one or both parties unsighted until quite late.
As far as transponders go, if you got every glider, hang-glider, paraglider, etc. to carry one and use it, within 10 minutes on the first good summer's day NATS would be begging for them to be turned off as thousands of returns swamped the SSR system and TCAS events were triggered all over the place. ADS-B may improve this scenario but it's still debatable. I have a transponder in my glider and use it a fair bit when transiting CAS, getting a Basic Service from an ATC unit or when I'm in IMC.
Also, you have to look at what various groups define as a "near miss". In the LTMA it's three miles and 1,000'; for me in my glider, as long as the other party has seen me and is avoiding, I don't really mind how close they get as long as they don't force me to fly through their wake. I've been in thermals with 50+ other gliders at the same time and as long as there is some discipline it's fine.
Cross country gliding is a high-workload endeavour, especially when the conditions are less than perfect. If you're not used to R/T (it's not part of learning to glide, unlike most power training) and are navigating by 1/2mil in a sailplane of moderate performance, there is precious little capacity left for 'chat' without compromising the ability to stay airborne.
A MATZ doesn't apply to gliders, in the strict sense, although an ATZ does. If you extended the centrelines of all the active runways in the UK out to 10nm and drew the result on a map, it would be a mess, with intersecting lines all over the place. Yes, it is good airmanship and polite to make yourself known to airfields close by but it is not required, if you're not going to transit their airspace. If you're in the open FIR on approach to a particular airfield, you should expect all manner of heavier/lighter than air objects to be rushing/floating about, right up to the boundaries of airspace. Many will be non-radio.
As far as visibility goes, the extremely low frontal area of modern gliders makes them difficult to spot, whatever colour they are. A plus point is that they are rarely flying on a constant track or holding a steady speed and altitude, so there is often some sort of differential motion that the eye can detect, rather than being a 'fly on the windscreen'. I don't think orange stripes on the wings do very much, if anything, as I've often spotted another glider and when it got much closer, observed that it had stripes.
FLARM has had a large take-up in continental Europe and is becoming widely established in the UK. (For those that don't know, it's like TCAS but without the guidance.) It is a useful enhancement to a good lookout, especially in situations where the geometry leaves one or both parties unsighted until quite late.
As far as transponders go, if you got every glider, hang-glider, paraglider, etc. to carry one and use it, within 10 minutes on the first good summer's day NATS would be begging for them to be turned off as thousands of returns swamped the SSR system and TCAS events were triggered all over the place. ADS-B may improve this scenario but it's still debatable. I have a transponder in my glider and use it a fair bit when transiting CAS, getting a Basic Service from an ATC unit or when I'm in IMC.
Also, you have to look at what various groups define as a "near miss". In the LTMA it's three miles and 1,000'; for me in my glider, as long as the other party has seen me and is avoiding, I don't really mind how close they get as long as they don't force me to fly through their wake. I've been in thermals with 50+ other gliders at the same time and as long as there is some discipline it's fine.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I broadly agree with the last post.
Visibility is an issue, and to some degree we rely on lookout and the big sky theory.
If I can be a little contentious, I think being in touch with an ATC unit in the open FIR on a basic service gives a false sense of security if you're relying on it for traffic avoidance. Many is the time that I've been told about one piece of traffic but not the other five or six. It works if there are very few people around - but on a busy day I think it's largely useless. And to be fair to ATC, that's not what they're contracted to do on a basic service. I don't think it's very useful to change your route just because you're told there's something in your path - the likelihood is that you'll just be conflicting with something else.
I think there are only two solutions, other than the Mk 1 eyeball.
1. Ensure that fewer people fly and provide a deconfliction or traffic service. Usually known as CAS.
2. Or technology - but the costs are pretty high, and the cost / benefit perhaps doubtful, particularly if it's regulated technology. There's a reason transponders and TCAS etc are much more expensive than Flarm - it's all designed for the CAT world.
Full Wings' point about different people wanting very different avoidance standards is a good one.
Paul
Visibility is an issue, and to some degree we rely on lookout and the big sky theory.
If I can be a little contentious, I think being in touch with an ATC unit in the open FIR on a basic service gives a false sense of security if you're relying on it for traffic avoidance. Many is the time that I've been told about one piece of traffic but not the other five or six. It works if there are very few people around - but on a busy day I think it's largely useless. And to be fair to ATC, that's not what they're contracted to do on a basic service. I don't think it's very useful to change your route just because you're told there's something in your path - the likelihood is that you'll just be conflicting with something else.
I think there are only two solutions, other than the Mk 1 eyeball.
1. Ensure that fewer people fly and provide a deconfliction or traffic service. Usually known as CAS.
2. Or technology - but the costs are pretty high, and the cost / benefit perhaps doubtful, particularly if it's regulated technology. There's a reason transponders and TCAS etc are much more expensive than Flarm - it's all designed for the CAT world.
Full Wings' point about different people wanting very different avoidance standards is a good one.
Paul
1 I am reminded of the story where a pilot complained that a glider was thermalling on his centre line at 10 miles..... the glider was over his home airfield, why should he not be there?
2 Look out. Glider pilots can see other gliders and even birds. If someone is not seeing gliders they need to train on look out more. pm me if you want a briefing on a good technique
3 Radios. Far from helping EASA will ban the fitting of 760 ch radios from Oct this year and cause those that are currently fitted to be removed in 5 years.
4 The Didcot area sees 40 to 60 gliders per hour on a good day. No radar or radio could deconflict that.
John R81, this thread comes up at least every 12 months and greater minds than ours have debated it. See and avoid is just that, learn to see and learn to avoid just like the rest of us have for 50 years. There are places that are quiet and other that are busy. In the quiet places there is no need to change and the busy places its too difficult to change. No one could cope if all gliders were on the radio communicating their full details to every ATC unit. The thing that would make the biggest safety improvement is to reduce the huge volume of controlled airspace below 6,000' that is seldom used.
If its just gliders your worried about fly at less than half the height of cloud base and you will find very few there, most prefer to be nearer cloud base.
happy flying
bb
2 Look out. Glider pilots can see other gliders and even birds. If someone is not seeing gliders they need to train on look out more. pm me if you want a briefing on a good technique
3 Radios. Far from helping EASA will ban the fitting of 760 ch radios from Oct this year and cause those that are currently fitted to be removed in 5 years.
4 The Didcot area sees 40 to 60 gliders per hour on a good day. No radar or radio could deconflict that.
John R81, this thread comes up at least every 12 months and greater minds than ours have debated it. See and avoid is just that, learn to see and learn to avoid just like the rest of us have for 50 years. There are places that are quiet and other that are busy. In the quiet places there is no need to change and the busy places its too difficult to change. No one could cope if all gliders were on the radio communicating their full details to every ATC unit. The thing that would make the biggest safety improvement is to reduce the huge volume of controlled airspace below 6,000' that is seldom used.
If its just gliders your worried about fly at less than half the height of cloud base and you will find very few there, most prefer to be nearer cloud base.
happy flying
bb
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul
I agree that unles you are in CAS with a full service you are only getting "some help" from ATC. Therefore I don't think anyone gettting a 'basic service' from ATC thinks that is their prime source of avoidance information - that is still Mk1 Eyeball. But, surely, any help is valuable.
Personally, I do find it useful to get additional information from ATC. Sometimes the warning can be far enough out to make changing course worthwhile. Not for every single aircraft, obviously, but when ATC tell me "multiple contacts manouvering, on your track, +15miles, intermitent radar returns, they might be gliders" then it is ususally no trouble for me to alter course and not fly into that space. If I get one machine ahead, I think it slightly increases the chances of finding it visually if you have a clue of direction / distance.
And I have one experience (fortunately only one) where the tone of ATC communication helped me to decide that although they cannot direct aircraft to turn, it would be a darned good idea to follow the "suggested" course of action rather than to follow the strict Rules of the Air, which would have kept me going straight and level. On that occasion, at least the other chap was squaking 7000 Mode C and therefore ATC could see him.
finally, I don't see that the SSR will be overwhelmed if everyone in the air had a transponder; but it would be interesting to hear from a controller.
I agree that unles you are in CAS with a full service you are only getting "some help" from ATC. Therefore I don't think anyone gettting a 'basic service' from ATC thinks that is their prime source of avoidance information - that is still Mk1 Eyeball. But, surely, any help is valuable.
Personally, I do find it useful to get additional information from ATC. Sometimes the warning can be far enough out to make changing course worthwhile. Not for every single aircraft, obviously, but when ATC tell me "multiple contacts manouvering, on your track, +15miles, intermitent radar returns, they might be gliders" then it is ususally no trouble for me to alter course and not fly into that space. If I get one machine ahead, I think it slightly increases the chances of finding it visually if you have a clue of direction / distance.
And I have one experience (fortunately only one) where the tone of ATC communication helped me to decide that although they cannot direct aircraft to turn, it would be a darned good idea to follow the "suggested" course of action rather than to follow the strict Rules of the Air, which would have kept me going straight and level. On that occasion, at least the other chap was squaking 7000 Mode C and therefore ATC could see him.
finally, I don't see that the SSR will be overwhelmed if everyone in the air had a transponder; but it would be interesting to hear from a controller.
Last edited by John R81; 28th Jun 2013 at 12:21.
Just before I head out to dodge round a few planes......
I remembered a few airproxes where both planes were talking to ATC but still got very close. It was 2 different ATC units and neither new about the other's traffic.
In the Didcot area you have some pilots talking to Farnborough, some to Benson, some to Brize and these days I prefer to talk to Oxford as they are the best in the area. The long and short of it is that you could be talking to one service provider and I could be talking to another but you would not get any warning of my where abouts if your controller did not have a radar that sees my glider mode "S" transponder.
There is a culture in aviation that wrongly assumes that talking to ATC keeps one safe, user beware. Not all ATC units have radar and not all radars see everything at low level.
bb
I remembered a few airproxes where both planes were talking to ATC but still got very close. It was 2 different ATC units and neither new about the other's traffic.
In the Didcot area you have some pilots talking to Farnborough, some to Benson, some to Brize and these days I prefer to talk to Oxford as they are the best in the area. The long and short of it is that you could be talking to one service provider and I could be talking to another but you would not get any warning of my where abouts if your controller did not have a radar that sees my glider mode "S" transponder.
There is a culture in aviation that wrongly assumes that talking to ATC keeps one safe, user beware. Not all ATC units have radar and not all radars see everything at low level.
bb
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
finally, I don't see that the SSR will be overwhelmed if everyone in the air had a transponder; but it would be interesting to hear from a controller.
Mode A/C has the problem that every interrogation signal, both from any radar head and from any airborne TCAS unit, triggers a response from your transponder. This means that radar heads and transponders receive replies to interrogation signals that were not transmitted by them, and this leads to "ghost returns", or whatever they're called. AFAIK these generally disappear in the next sweep but in huge numbers they may still cause enough clutter to confuse the software or the operator. I think I read a number of 300 somewhere, which is supposed to be the maximum number of transponders in a given area, before the technical limits of the system are reached. So two glider competitions launching might do the trick already. And remember that at this level there's no filtering possible yet. So a huge gaggle of gliders launching and holding at low level, may cause sufficient bandwidth saturation that the responses of high-level targets in a completely different bit of airspace, can also not get through.
One of the main features of Mode-S is "selective" interrogation, where the transponder will only respond to certain interrogation signals, but not to all, every time. This greatly reduces the overall bandwidth requirements, leading to a higher theoretical maximum of transponders in any given area without overwhelming the technical capabilities of the system. (Whether an operator is capable of dealing with those numbers is another matter.)
The second problem is information block density. When Mode-S was introduced in the Netherlands the radar operators did not have good filtering mechanisms. So all mode-S information - quite a block of text - was displayed for every target in the area regardless of its altitude or whether it was inside or outside the operators CAS. This lead to data blocks overlapping each other on a huge scale, making the information completely unreadable. Of course the operator had the ability to move text blocks around to unclutter them, but with 100+ targets in your area - which happened on the first day of beautiful weather after mode-S became mandatory in NL - it was still overwhelming. It took the software guys quite some time to implement filtering based on altitude and a few other things, so that radar operators can now filter out irrelevant targets. (And during that period there were NOTAMs in place that we were not allowed to use our shiny new mode-S transponders in a lot of places. In fact, for a while there was a huge area around Schiphol simply declared a no-go area for GA.)
So, yes, if someone decides to make transponders, or new transponder types, mandatory wholesale for a segment of GA, there are some lessons to be learned from the Dutch experience...
1) Is there a problem of visibility? simple yes / no
2) If so, then is that a risk that can (sensibly) be reduced? and
3) If so, what is the most cost-effective option?
2) If so, then is that a risk that can (sensibly) be reduced? and
3) If so, what is the most cost-effective option?
2) No (unless you think grounding all modern gliders is "sensible")!
3) n/a due to your "if so" but keeping a good look out springs to mind!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see it staying fairly pleasant! As someone with a foot in both camps the only answer on a good gliding day (problem here already, how many non gliding GA pilots can recognise a boomer?) is to keep your eyes on stalks. Gliders are very difficult to spot especially against a cloud background where they are most likely to be. I've had what you would call 'Crikey I saw him late' moments even though I'm a glider pilot and I know where they are liable to be etc.
It's part of the risk assesment you take when you fly I'm afraid. If it's a cracking day I tend to go on top anyway if airspace permits, you don't meet many gliders on the other side of the clouds.
Re the glider pilots who find talking to ATC units distracting, it's also distracting for powered pilots when the cockpit workload is high too.
As to the OP comments, I take it they were tongue in cheek?
Edit: Bad Bear, you don't have to be forceful about anything; if you're not in CAS just call en route to wherever and leaving the frequency.
It's part of the risk assesment you take when you fly I'm afraid. If it's a cracking day I tend to go on top anyway if airspace permits, you don't meet many gliders on the other side of the clouds.
Re the glider pilots who find talking to ATC units distracting, it's also distracting for powered pilots when the cockpit workload is high too.
As to the OP comments, I take it they were tongue in cheek?
Edit: Bad Bear, you don't have to be forceful about anything; if you're not in CAS just call en route to wherever and leaving the frequency.
Last edited by thing; 28th Jun 2013 at 20:08.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm back.
Shenington Regional Competition is over, and went very well indeed. Have a look at some of the photos on the Shenington thread mentioned below!
Now, for the topic under discussion: Early days, when Upper Heyford was still full of Yanks and nuclear weapons, I decided to fly my Pegasus glider to Banbury and return on a nice fair weather cu type of day.
And holding a few power ratings as well, decided to radio Upper Heyford, to state my intention of crossing their airspace..... While circling in a jolly good thermal over Aylesbury, I dialed up their frequency and the following transmissions ensued:
"Upper Heyford, this is glider 987" "Glider 987, squawk daba daba (whatever)......
"Unable!" I replied. "Glider 987 what is your location?" "Over Aylesbury".
"What is your present heading?"
"I'm going around in circles!"
Long pause while everyone else on frequency is creased up with the giggles.
"Glider 987, what is your intention?"
"Enroute to Banbury, would like to cross your airspace."
"Glider 987, that is approved, maintain 4,000 feet."
"I'll try!"
They just don't get it, do they?
Shenington Regional Competition is over, and went very well indeed. Have a look at some of the photos on the Shenington thread mentioned below!
Now, for the topic under discussion: Early days, when Upper Heyford was still full of Yanks and nuclear weapons, I decided to fly my Pegasus glider to Banbury and return on a nice fair weather cu type of day.
And holding a few power ratings as well, decided to radio Upper Heyford, to state my intention of crossing their airspace..... While circling in a jolly good thermal over Aylesbury, I dialed up their frequency and the following transmissions ensued:
"Upper Heyford, this is glider 987" "Glider 987, squawk daba daba (whatever)......
"Unable!" I replied. "Glider 987 what is your location?" "Over Aylesbury".
"What is your present heading?"
"I'm going around in circles!"
Long pause while everyone else on frequency is creased up with the giggles.
"Glider 987, what is your intention?"
"Enroute to Banbury, would like to cross your airspace."
"Glider 987, that is approved, maintain 4,000 feet."
"I'll try!"
They just don't get it, do they?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: EGDD
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh yes, the dreaded UHMRA [Upper Heyford Mandatory Radio Area] the cause of much amusement for glider pilots. For some reason Uncle Sam wanted a big chunk of airspace to protect his F111s against GA. I don't know why this protection was needed, after all he had all the guns. Anyway radio contact was required to enter the area but once contact had been made you could do whatever you wanted, there was no 'control', more like a basic information service. Placing this UHMRA splat across the major north / south runs, and in the middle of a clutch of active glider airfields had the consequence that, on good days, the UHMRA controllers were completely swamped and reverted to 'continue own navigation'. So the only real effect was to pi$$ off non radio gliders, of which there were many in those days.
We had several US pilots at Bicester (RAFGSA) in those days and the bar talk was that Upper Heyford was used as babtism of fire training for controllers posted to European stations. You could listen on the radio as the convection started up and the cross country boys and girls set off. Initially all was calm professionalism but you could sense the tension as the rookie controller tried to give position reports to contacts about others very close (probably in the same thermal!) as more and more gliders popped up until the inevitable 'continue own navigation'.
Back to the original topic. Painting red bits on sailplanes has been shown by many studies to be pretty ineffective. The only colour which seems to work is black, and this would require a reformulation of the resins used in grp structures so it doesn't help the existing fleet.
I agree with other posters on this topic about the advantages of having an RT licence and many gliding clubs make getting one easier by organising group courses and tests on site. However in the near future I shall be forced (by mandate) to dispose of a serviceable 760 radio and replace it at my expense with one which will enable me to talk to gizzillions of people I don't want to. I shall also probably be forced (by exclusion from airspace) to fit at my expense a mode S. Since 99% of my flying is in VFR in class G airspace I think my safety would be better improved by retrofitting, at their expense, all power GA with bubble canopies to encourage pilots to look out the window.
Jim
We had several US pilots at Bicester (RAFGSA) in those days and the bar talk was that Upper Heyford was used as babtism of fire training for controllers posted to European stations. You could listen on the radio as the convection started up and the cross country boys and girls set off. Initially all was calm professionalism but you could sense the tension as the rookie controller tried to give position reports to contacts about others very close (probably in the same thermal!) as more and more gliders popped up until the inevitable 'continue own navigation'.
Back to the original topic. Painting red bits on sailplanes has been shown by many studies to be pretty ineffective. The only colour which seems to work is black, and this would require a reformulation of the resins used in grp structures so it doesn't help the existing fleet.
I agree with other posters on this topic about the advantages of having an RT licence and many gliding clubs make getting one easier by organising group courses and tests on site. However in the near future I shall be forced (by mandate) to dispose of a serviceable 760 radio and replace it at my expense with one which will enable me to talk to gizzillions of people I don't want to. I shall also probably be forced (by exclusion from airspace) to fit at my expense a mode S. Since 99% of my flying is in VFR in class G airspace I think my safety would be better improved by retrofitting, at their expense, all power GA with bubble canopies to encourage pilots to look out the window.
Jim
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UHMRA one unusual weekend when the USAF was operating. Lady glider pilot (not Mary to judge from the accent)
Pilot "Glider XXX approaching UHMRA from the Southeast, request crossing"
UHMRA deep south USA accent "What is your estimated time of arrival, maam?" (very polite always, UHMRA)
Pilot "I don't know, I'm in a glider"
UHMRA "What will be your altitood when you arrive, maam"
Pilot "I don't know, I'm in a glider"
I'm always reminded of that conversation when more contact between ATC and glider pilots is suggested.
P.S. Happy July 4th to all our American readers!
Pilot "Glider XXX approaching UHMRA from the Southeast, request crossing"
UHMRA deep south USA accent "What is your estimated time of arrival, maam?" (very polite always, UHMRA)
Pilot "I don't know, I'm in a glider"
UHMRA "What will be your altitood when you arrive, maam"
Pilot "I don't know, I'm in a glider"
I'm always reminded of that conversation when more contact between ATC and glider pilots is suggested.
P.S. Happy July 4th to all our American readers!
Last edited by astir 8; 4th Jul 2013 at 13:05.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Current report on GASCO Glider and Cessna mid air
A Cessna 150 collided with a glider near Pemberton, British Columbia on 30 June, killing all four people on board the two aircraft. The Canadian Transportation Safety Board is investigating. Mid air collision is one of the four most common fatal occurrence categories for gliders within EASA.
A Cessna 150 collided with a glider near Pemberton, British Columbia on 30 June, killing all four people on board the two aircraft. The Canadian Transportation Safety Board is investigating. Mid air collision is one of the four most common fatal occurrence categories for gliders within EASA.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Largely glider / glider, I think, though I don't have the numbers.
On a 250km glider cross country flight last weekend, (Gransden, Chipping Camden, Hus Bos, Gransden) I saw probably 15-20 other gliders - several opposite direction within a few hundred metres. I think I only saw one or two GA powered aircraft.
Which raises the question, how much cross country flying in powered aircraft actually happens at the weekend? Where is everyone?
OK, I passed close to a couple of gliding sites on the way, but still!
Paul
On a 250km glider cross country flight last weekend, (Gransden, Chipping Camden, Hus Bos, Gransden) I saw probably 15-20 other gliders - several opposite direction within a few hundred metres. I think I only saw one or two GA powered aircraft.
Which raises the question, how much cross country flying in powered aircraft actually happens at the weekend? Where is everyone?
OK, I passed close to a couple of gliding sites on the way, but still!
Paul
yes I had similar experience.I saw 4 biz jets and 4 light singles (inc Tiger moth) but over 100 gliders and one helicopter in 4 hours. I guess EASA has killed off much of the recreational flying therebye making the sky safer?? Odd how few birds were soaring too.
bb
bb
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glider pilots on the radio really does help, and i think FRTO quals would be a good thing for all pilots regardless of craft.
I Fly out of a airport that has glider operations, in fact i went solo with the glider club when i was 15! i share the airspace quite happily with gliders the reason...we talk! on the ground and in the air!
I know with booming soaring days gliders collect in gaggles but those are easier to see and usually generate some sort of chatter, lone glider operations are a bit different.
I was descending after crossing the Tararua mountains from 7000ft, a chap who I knew by voice was ridge soaring at 2000 ft below me on a ridge directly in my path. I never saw him, but i knew exactly where he was and we didn't meet up, All because i relayed my intentions and he relayed his location.
I elected to stay at 2500ft and go for a 747 final instead of descending along the ridge. I never saw him.
Love my glider pals, rather have a beer on the ground tho
FK
I Fly out of a airport that has glider operations, in fact i went solo with the glider club when i was 15! i share the airspace quite happily with gliders the reason...we talk! on the ground and in the air!
I know with booming soaring days gliders collect in gaggles but those are easier to see and usually generate some sort of chatter, lone glider operations are a bit different.
I was descending after crossing the Tararua mountains from 7000ft, a chap who I knew by voice was ridge soaring at 2000 ft below me on a ridge directly in my path. I never saw him, but i knew exactly where he was and we didn't meet up, All because i relayed my intentions and he relayed his location.
I elected to stay at 2500ft and go for a 747 final instead of descending along the ridge. I never saw him.
Love my glider pals, rather have a beer on the ground tho
FK
Last edited by FlyingKiwi_73; 9th Jul 2013 at 04:58.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone asking about the ratio of glider/GA midairs? I offer that we are all GA and should be working together regarding increased conspicuity regardless of our GA sub-set. Personally, I find it more difficult spotting a plastic fantastic SEP following a constant path than a glider which is invariably turning.
Radios - I think we should encourage better airmanship across GA. Some people blindly talk to ATC whenever they can, regardless of the need - this is irrelevant and can undermine the effectiveness of ATC. Others take great delight in exercising their 'rights' in not talking to ATC. Personally, I think there is some middle ground which can only be explored by instilling better airmanship.
TCAS/ADS-B/Mode S/FLARM etc. If I had a bucket full of cash I would put some form of traffic awareness system in every GA aircraft which operates in Class G airspace. I have been watching FLARM for some time now and this one seems to be taking the lead, especially Power FLARM. Of course, some may choose to take the chance and continue to make themselves inconspicuous, because it is their 'right'. For sure, they are entitled to exercise their rights but I would be mighty annoyed if I bumped into someone who had consciously made an effort not to improve their conspicuity.
Radios - I think we should encourage better airmanship across GA. Some people blindly talk to ATC whenever they can, regardless of the need - this is irrelevant and can undermine the effectiveness of ATC. Others take great delight in exercising their 'rights' in not talking to ATC. Personally, I think there is some middle ground which can only be explored by instilling better airmanship.
TCAS/ADS-B/Mode S/FLARM etc. If I had a bucket full of cash I would put some form of traffic awareness system in every GA aircraft which operates in Class G airspace. I have been watching FLARM for some time now and this one seems to be taking the lead, especially Power FLARM. Of course, some may choose to take the chance and continue to make themselves inconspicuous, because it is their 'right'. For sure, they are entitled to exercise their rights but I would be mighty annoyed if I bumped into someone who had consciously made an effort not to improve their conspicuity.
Cows getting bigger,I generally agree with what you wrote but its not about
The whole system of how radiocommunication is conducted and the RT manual is not writen with gliders in mind and there is not an option of "no service required" which is what most of us request. Do you know that the Manual of Air Trafic Services has more writen in it about UFOs than gliders....
I do listen out and cringe at how much seemingly useless chat there is from transiting aircraft but that is what the system requires.
ADSB recievers are becoming affordable (less than £500) but the airlines seem reluctant to spend money on fitting ADSB, few Dash 8 have it for example and they are a common type outside controlled airspace.
EASA has made sure that fitting and maintaining transponders is prohibitively expensive
bb
exercising their 'rights' in not talking to ATC
I do listen out and cringe at how much seemingly useless chat there is from transiting aircraft but that is what the system requires.
ADSB recievers are becoming affordable (less than £500) but the airlines seem reluctant to spend money on fitting ADSB, few Dash 8 have it for example and they are a common type outside controlled airspace.
EASA has made sure that fitting and maintaining transponders is prohibitively expensive
bb
