BGA airspace open letter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary let me clear up a few misconceptions.
Firstly I have flown in gliders recently as pax in a two seat state of the art Blanik from Nympsfield.
Secondly I like gliders in the same way that I like bikes and windsurfers. Gliders are exquisite examples of function creating form, and their sculptural beauty never fails to delight. The gliders, the gliding community, the whole gliding scene is like a big friendly tribe of enthusiastic people. Indeed I use (and subscribe to) the Wendy weather beacons ... they give me the actual weather for the areas I need to transit in my powered aircraft.
As I glider pilot I might wish to be free of the threat posed by GA aircraft bumbling through my area of uncontrolled airspace.
Equally as a GA pilot I might wish to be free of the threat posed by gliders operating in the area of uncontrolled airspace I need to transit through.
Who is at most risk is debatable, but glider pilots wear parachutes and GA pilots do not, so the threat to life is somewhat biased.
Living in West Wales means an into Sun morning departure, and an into Sun evening return. So I am constantly looking out in the vicinity of Talgarth ... it's a bit like wartime, with the threat coming 'from out of the Sun'. I have sometimes flown very high, just under the airway and encountered gliders. So now prefer to go low following the valleys.
Anyway my main point, which is still up for debate, is that: Within uncontrolled airspace there is a basic flight safety incompatibility between what gliders need and what GA needs. This situation requires all pilots to keep an exceptionally good lookout, but will not be resolved until a technical fix is developed.
Firstly I have flown in gliders recently as pax in a two seat state of the art Blanik from Nympsfield.
Secondly I like gliders in the same way that I like bikes and windsurfers. Gliders are exquisite examples of function creating form, and their sculptural beauty never fails to delight. The gliders, the gliding community, the whole gliding scene is like a big friendly tribe of enthusiastic people. Indeed I use (and subscribe to) the Wendy weather beacons ... they give me the actual weather for the areas I need to transit in my powered aircraft.
As I glider pilot I might wish to be free of the threat posed by GA aircraft bumbling through my area of uncontrolled airspace.
Equally as a GA pilot I might wish to be free of the threat posed by gliders operating in the area of uncontrolled airspace I need to transit through.
Who is at most risk is debatable, but glider pilots wear parachutes and GA pilots do not, so the threat to life is somewhat biased.
Living in West Wales means an into Sun morning departure, and an into Sun evening return. So I am constantly looking out in the vicinity of Talgarth ... it's a bit like wartime, with the threat coming 'from out of the Sun'. I have sometimes flown very high, just under the airway and encountered gliders. So now prefer to go low following the valleys.
Anyway my main point, which is still up for debate, is that: Within uncontrolled airspace there is a basic flight safety incompatibility between what gliders need and what GA needs. This situation requires all pilots to keep an exceptionally good lookout, but will not be resolved until a technical fix is developed.
" Firstly I have flown in gliders recently as pax in a two seat state of the art Blanik from Nympsfield."
The Blanik was indeed state-of-the-art when it entered production - but that was in 1958.
Just helping to clear up a misconception - or are you using the word 'recently' in the loosest possible way?
But seriously, there are less gliders, and less powered aircraft, and A LOT less military aircraft buzzing about in uncontrolled airspace than there was 20 or even 10 years ago, yet (although there was the occasional mid-air) such events were quite infrequent.
Anything, be it FLARM, ADS-B or an as-yet unknown system can only help, but to suggest the current situation is even remotely "a bit like wartime" is, IMHO, just a tiny bit OTT.
The Blanik was indeed state-of-the-art when it entered production - but that was in 1958.
Just helping to clear up a misconception - or are you using the word 'recently' in the loosest possible way?
But seriously, there are less gliders, and less powered aircraft, and A LOT less military aircraft buzzing about in uncontrolled airspace than there was 20 or even 10 years ago, yet (although there was the occasional mid-air) such events were quite infrequent.
Anything, be it FLARM, ADS-B or an as-yet unknown system can only help, but to suggest the current situation is even remotely "a bit like wartime" is, IMHO, just a tiny bit OTT.
Last edited by DaveUnwin; 23rd Aug 2015 at 11:17. Reason: Crap grammar!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O dear. The Blanik twoseater glider suffered a wing spar failure in 2010, and was grounded both in Europe and in the USA.
Any club relying on Blaniks for training was not happy. Not worth the trouble of getting them recertified, I imagine.
Any club relying on Blaniks for training was not happy. Not worth the trouble of getting them recertified, I imagine.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vee-tail
It seems to me that your problem is not really about gliders, it's about having many other people flying on the same day as you. Imagine replacing each one of the gliders on a good gliding day with a PA28. Would it be any easier or safer for you? Don't think so. Would a basic service ensure you didn't hit any of them? Absolutely not. Could ATC provide you with a traffic service? Doubt it. So your statement "Equally as a GA pilot I might wish to be free of the threat posed by gliders operating in the area of uncontrolled airspace I need to transit through" becomes "I might wish to be free of the threat posed by other aircraft operating in the area of uncontrolled airspace I need to transit through".
The things you do to ensure a safe flight - "each flight is planned to take account of weather, NOTAMs, terrain, danger areas, aircraft serviceability, etc" - Of course, and I do all that when I fly my glider. What's different?
And glider pilots wear parachutes because they routinely and deliberately fly in the close vicinity of other gliders, which as I pointed out earlier, is where the risk to them is. The only powered GA / glider collision I can think of off hand in the last few years is one in which the cause was found to be inadequate lookout prior to aerobatics by the powered pilot - it's not where the collision risk is.
So if your personal risk mitigation strategy is not to fly when it's busy, then fine, that's your call. But recognise that it's because it's busy, rather than that the other aircraft are gliders. And if you really want to avoid the gliders, you can always fly in the places where they are less likely to be.
Paul
It seems to me that your problem is not really about gliders, it's about having many other people flying on the same day as you. Imagine replacing each one of the gliders on a good gliding day with a PA28. Would it be any easier or safer for you? Don't think so. Would a basic service ensure you didn't hit any of them? Absolutely not. Could ATC provide you with a traffic service? Doubt it. So your statement "Equally as a GA pilot I might wish to be free of the threat posed by gliders operating in the area of uncontrolled airspace I need to transit through" becomes "I might wish to be free of the threat posed by other aircraft operating in the area of uncontrolled airspace I need to transit through".
The things you do to ensure a safe flight - "each flight is planned to take account of weather, NOTAMs, terrain, danger areas, aircraft serviceability, etc" - Of course, and I do all that when I fly my glider. What's different?
And glider pilots wear parachutes because they routinely and deliberately fly in the close vicinity of other gliders, which as I pointed out earlier, is where the risk to them is. The only powered GA / glider collision I can think of off hand in the last few years is one in which the cause was found to be inadequate lookout prior to aerobatics by the powered pilot - it's not where the collision risk is.
So if your personal risk mitigation strategy is not to fly when it's busy, then fine, that's your call. But recognise that it's because it's busy, rather than that the other aircraft are gliders. And if you really want to avoid the gliders, you can always fly in the places where they are less likely to be.
Paul
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that your problem is not really about gliders, it's about having many other people flying on the same day as you. Imagine replacing each one of the gliders on a good gliding day with a PA28. Would it be any easier or safer for you?
OMG! ... a swarm of PA28s in close proximity turning and climbing / descending in random fashion and liable to be encountered anywhere in the area would effectively close the airspace! No it would be hugely dangerous for everyone.
We have rules of the air which transiting GA aircraft observe and some of which would be difficult for a glider to conform to.
Other GA aircraft are a known risk, we will all be using the semi circular rule / quadrantals which gives some protection from reciprocal traffic.
We will be getting traffic advisories from ATC and will be squawking for radar.
Some of us may well be adding to our situation awareness by using the Unicom frequency as it was intended ... broadcasting regular position reports to inform other pilots. Indeed when close to a gliding site I have tried calling on the glider frequencies to get an update on how many are flying and their position. Sadly I seldom get a response.
Yes it would be good sense to use a different route if one was available, but in our overcrowded island that is not so easy to do. If my aeroplane was certified & equipped for IMC and my rating also, then it might be possible to fly IFR in controlled airspace. But that defeats the whole object of retired flying for me ... I just want to safely go places in good weather and enjoy the view, and I really don't want to bump into anyone on the way.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Vee-tail
To take your points in turn:
If we continue our thought experiment, and replace the gliders with PA28s. Let's say we're operating at typical glider levels - between 1500 ft and 5000 ft.
1. The semi-circular rule. Which is safer - to put all that traffic at a few levels (8 in my example - every 500 ft, even assuming they apply below 3000 ft), or to have them at all levels? I think I'd argue the latter - you're much safer with people climbing and descending. If the cross section of a couple of aircraft is say 20 feet (ie they have to be within 20 ft of height to hit each other), then you have 175 levels available if climbing and descending like gliders, only 8 if flying semi-circular. Much lower risk of collision with the glider like behaviour. (And I'm as guilty as anyone - I have a habit of flying around in power at 'exactly' 2000 ft or whatever - it's the instrument training Much safer to pick a random altitude, eg 3420 ft and stick to that. Or pretend to be a glider and go up and down).
2. Advisories from ATC and squawking for radar: More or less useless - see earlier arguments. It's OK if there are only a few aircraft, but this is a busy day, remember. Too busy for a traffic service.
3. Radio: As (2). Only tells you to keep a good look out. You know that anyway.
I wasn't aware that Unicom was for broadcasting position reports in the Open IFR. I thought it was for airfields without a dedicated frequency. That might just be my misunderstanding though. But I'm not surprised that you don't get a response on the gliding frequencies - I'm not sure what you're expecting. They are mostly very general frequencies - it's a bit like broadcasting on London Info and expecting people to tell you about what's local to you. Even less useful than a basic service from an ATC unit.
Places to avoid gliders: Above the convection layer; (Mostly) below 1500 feet. (Mostly) not under cumulus. That's where I'd go if I was worried.
Paul
To take your points in turn:
If we continue our thought experiment, and replace the gliders with PA28s. Let's say we're operating at typical glider levels - between 1500 ft and 5000 ft.
1. The semi-circular rule. Which is safer - to put all that traffic at a few levels (8 in my example - every 500 ft, even assuming they apply below 3000 ft), or to have them at all levels? I think I'd argue the latter - you're much safer with people climbing and descending. If the cross section of a couple of aircraft is say 20 feet (ie they have to be within 20 ft of height to hit each other), then you have 175 levels available if climbing and descending like gliders, only 8 if flying semi-circular. Much lower risk of collision with the glider like behaviour. (And I'm as guilty as anyone - I have a habit of flying around in power at 'exactly' 2000 ft or whatever - it's the instrument training Much safer to pick a random altitude, eg 3420 ft and stick to that. Or pretend to be a glider and go up and down).
2. Advisories from ATC and squawking for radar: More or less useless - see earlier arguments. It's OK if there are only a few aircraft, but this is a busy day, remember. Too busy for a traffic service.
3. Radio: As (2). Only tells you to keep a good look out. You know that anyway.
I wasn't aware that Unicom was for broadcasting position reports in the Open IFR. I thought it was for airfields without a dedicated frequency. That might just be my misunderstanding though. But I'm not surprised that you don't get a response on the gliding frequencies - I'm not sure what you're expecting. They are mostly very general frequencies - it's a bit like broadcasting on London Info and expecting people to tell you about what's local to you. Even less useful than a basic service from an ATC unit.
Places to avoid gliders: Above the convection layer; (Mostly) below 1500 feet. (Mostly) not under cumulus. That's where I'd go if I was worried.
Paul
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad Bear;
I'm slightly concerned at your post re Oxford. I'm an Oxford based pilot, I fly corporate helicopters, corporate jets and hold a Gold C and am a lapsed instructor (gliding). Ground at Oxford is not currently used and hasn't been used for at least ten years, tower and radar SHALL NOT be combined in UK airspace, it is ILLEGAL. What I suspect you got was a combined tower and approach (procedural) which often happens at weekends.
Also at least two of the Oxford controllers are/were very experienced glider pilots, so can we all start facing the fact that ATC often fly as well and can be found among us at the launch point/club bar.
For those of us who fly public transport in Class G TCAS has become an essential tool in traffic avoidance, not just a great pose, and FLARM is utterly useless in telling me where you are (and trust me the view out of the helicopters I fly is no where near as good as the view out of any glider)
I regularly hear a glider near Cambridge talking to Cambridge Approach at weekends and his position reporting is mighty handy (if you read this thread I was the one telling you to trust your abilities one Sunday this summer when it was all going wrong and you were looking for a field)
Closest I've ever come to a glider outside of a thermal was the Janus which went under my aircraft from seven o'clock to one o'clock less than thirty feet below in August 2014 five miles south of Fairford. No doubt he didn't see me, if he did he was a touch silly and if he had hit me from that angle the seven helicopter occupants would have died and I'm sure a lot of people would have been on here saying "power gives way to glider, ergo it must be the helicopter pilots fault.
There is plenty of airspace in the UK, it has to be used reasonably and fairly and with KNOWLEDGE. If I'm flying an approach and you're in the feather I'm IFR with all that implies even if I can see forevermore outside. And the feather denotes an instrument approach, not just an ILS. Please if you want to be taken seriously by ATC/CAA commercial operators look at the rules they live by, just fo info as a case in point there is not now, never has been an information call with "no service required" you have called an ATC unit, they have to respond and will pass information on you to others. The only place you may receive an acknowledgement to that is from an Air Ground only unit.
SND
I'm slightly concerned at your post re Oxford. I'm an Oxford based pilot, I fly corporate helicopters, corporate jets and hold a Gold C and am a lapsed instructor (gliding). Ground at Oxford is not currently used and hasn't been used for at least ten years, tower and radar SHALL NOT be combined in UK airspace, it is ILLEGAL. What I suspect you got was a combined tower and approach (procedural) which often happens at weekends.
Also at least two of the Oxford controllers are/were very experienced glider pilots, so can we all start facing the fact that ATC often fly as well and can be found among us at the launch point/club bar.
For those of us who fly public transport in Class G TCAS has become an essential tool in traffic avoidance, not just a great pose, and FLARM is utterly useless in telling me where you are (and trust me the view out of the helicopters I fly is no where near as good as the view out of any glider)
I regularly hear a glider near Cambridge talking to Cambridge Approach at weekends and his position reporting is mighty handy (if you read this thread I was the one telling you to trust your abilities one Sunday this summer when it was all going wrong and you were looking for a field)
Closest I've ever come to a glider outside of a thermal was the Janus which went under my aircraft from seven o'clock to one o'clock less than thirty feet below in August 2014 five miles south of Fairford. No doubt he didn't see me, if he did he was a touch silly and if he had hit me from that angle the seven helicopter occupants would have died and I'm sure a lot of people would have been on here saying "power gives way to glider, ergo it must be the helicopter pilots fault.
There is plenty of airspace in the UK, it has to be used reasonably and fairly and with KNOWLEDGE. If I'm flying an approach and you're in the feather I'm IFR with all that implies even if I can see forevermore outside. And the feather denotes an instrument approach, not just an ILS. Please if you want to be taken seriously by ATC/CAA commercial operators look at the rules they live by, just fo info as a case in point there is not now, never has been an information call with "no service required" you have called an ATC unit, they have to respond and will pass information on you to others. The only place you may receive an acknowledgement to that is from an Air Ground only unit.
SND
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 64
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vee-tail-1,
The gliders operating in the immediate vicinity of Talgarth listen out on 130.1 MHz, which is one of the four frequencies allocated to gliding. You're very welcome to communicate your position and intention on 130.1 MHz when passing Talgarth airfield. The air ambulance helicopter does so routinely, and his courtesy is appreciated. You will most likely not get a response from Talgarth airfield, as the airfield does not employ a FISO and is not licensed to provide a flight information service. I would hope that any glider pilots who are close to your intended track would pass on their own positions.
If you're concerned about flying in areas where gliders are likely to be operating, I recommend that you purchase a PowerFLARM unit. This will give you situational awareness of any gliders and other aircraft operating FLARM.
I agree with you that a low cost (and therefore likely to be uncertified), low power device to provide electronic conspicuity and collision avoidance for all Class G airspace users, from commercial airliners to microlights, gliders, paragliders and unmanned air vehicles, would be of great benefit to the flying community. At the moment, we have a plethora of technical solutions (transponders, ADS-B, TCAS, FLARM and now TABS), each of which only meets the needs of a subset of Class G airspace users.
The gliders operating in the immediate vicinity of Talgarth listen out on 130.1 MHz, which is one of the four frequencies allocated to gliding. You're very welcome to communicate your position and intention on 130.1 MHz when passing Talgarth airfield. The air ambulance helicopter does so routinely, and his courtesy is appreciated. You will most likely not get a response from Talgarth airfield, as the airfield does not employ a FISO and is not licensed to provide a flight information service. I would hope that any glider pilots who are close to your intended track would pass on their own positions.
If you're concerned about flying in areas where gliders are likely to be operating, I recommend that you purchase a PowerFLARM unit. This will give you situational awareness of any gliders and other aircraft operating FLARM.
I agree with you that a low cost (and therefore likely to be uncertified), low power device to provide electronic conspicuity and collision avoidance for all Class G airspace users, from commercial airliners to microlights, gliders, paragliders and unmanned air vehicles, would be of great benefit to the flying community. At the moment, we have a plethora of technical solutions (transponders, ADS-B, TCAS, FLARM and now TABS), each of which only meets the needs of a subset of Class G airspace users.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks Dewidaniels, it's good to know my position reports on 130.1 are useful to the gliders when transiting near Talgarth.
Yes there does seem to be a plethora of devices out there, and even if there was room to fit them all there would not be 100 % coverage.
There's a lot of development going on at Aberporth to enable drones to avoid other aircraft ... perhaps that is where the technical fix will come from. If and when that happens there's going to be a lot of suddenly redundant avionics!
Yes there does seem to be a plethora of devices out there, and even if there was room to fit them all there would not be 100 % coverage.
There's a lot of development going on at Aberporth to enable drones to avoid other aircraft ... perhaps that is where the technical fix will come from. If and when that happens there's going to be a lot of suddenly redundant avionics!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. The semi-circular rule. Which is safer - to put all that traffic at a few levels (8 in my example - every 500 ft, even assuming they apply below 3000 ft), or to have them at all levels? I think I'd argue the latter - you're much safer with people climbing and descending. If the cross section of a couple of aircraft is say 20 feet (ie they have to be within 20 ft of height to hit each other), then you have 175 levels available if climbing and descending like gliders, only 8 if flying semi-circular. Much lower risk of collision with the glider like behaviour. (And I'm as guilty as anyone - I have a habit of flying around in power at 'exactly' 2000 ft or whatever - it's the instrument training Much safer to pick a random altitude, eg 3420 ft and stick to that. Or pretend to be a glider and go up and down).
The Journal of Navigation - On the Use of Height Rules in Off-route Airspace - Cambridge Journals Online (Apologies if you need a subscription for access.)
This was previously discussed on Pprune here
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/419...ml#post5780485
Windrusher
I think this thread has meandered a bit but there are some really interesting points-of-view coming out, which are starting to point towards a common theme:
Class G.
There seems to a fairly widespread view that armed with your +3 Radio of Protection and possibly a Transponder of Truth, you can go heads-down through large tracts of uncontrolled airspace and if you meet anything else it’s their problem.
The primary method of separation is see-and-be-seen VFR, semi-circular IFR. Anything else is nice but don’t count on it.
I’m amazed that people wouldn’t go flying because there might be gliders out there on a good day flying at odd heights and directions. Please do come fly with us but KEEP A GOOD LOOKOUT, like glider pilots do and be prepared to alter course so as not to give other pilots concern. You’d do that in the circuit at an airfield, why not en-route...?
Class G.
There seems to a fairly widespread view that armed with your +3 Radio of Protection and possibly a Transponder of Truth, you can go heads-down through large tracts of uncontrolled airspace and if you meet anything else it’s their problem.
The primary method of separation is see-and-be-seen VFR, semi-circular IFR. Anything else is nice but don’t count on it.
I’m amazed that people wouldn’t go flying because there might be gliders out there on a good day flying at odd heights and directions. Please do come fly with us but KEEP A GOOD LOOKOUT, like glider pilots do and be prepared to alter course so as not to give other pilots concern. You’d do that in the circuit at an airfield, why not en-route...?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For your amusement I repeat the conversation I had talking to Upper Heyford long ago....
"Upper Heyford, this is glider 987"
"Glider 987, squawk 8654 (or whatever)"
"Unable. Negative transponder."
"Glider 987, what is your present height and position?"
"Approximately 3,000 feet over Aylesbury"
"and Glider 987, what is your present heading?"
what else could I say? "I'm going around in circles!"
long pause while those listening in are enjoying the moment
"Glider 987, what are your intentions?"
"I plan to cross over your airspace enroute to near Banbury"
"Glider 987, maintain 4,000 feet when over Upper Heyford..."
"I'll try!"
"Upper Heyford, this is glider 987"
"Glider 987, squawk 8654 (or whatever)"
"Unable. Negative transponder."
"Glider 987, what is your present height and position?"
"Approximately 3,000 feet over Aylesbury"
"and Glider 987, what is your present heading?"
what else could I say? "I'm going around in circles!"
long pause while those listening in are enjoying the moment
"Glider 987, what are your intentions?"
"I plan to cross over your airspace enroute to near Banbury"
"Glider 987, maintain 4,000 feet when over Upper Heyford..."
"I'll try!"
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Ah, the old UHMRA.
Once, in a Jodel.
'Upper Heyford G-ABCD'
Errr G-CD squawk 7040'
'Negative transponder G-CD'
'Errrr G-CD you're not painting'
'That's 'cos we're made of wood...
Fast forward 30 years to last week, in an OGAR touring Motor Glider, class 'G' airspace. Same thing, no transponder, no primary return, but this time controller very helpful with a basic service, just asked us politely if we could avoid his instrument approach 'feather' while he had an airliner inbound. No problem at all for us, he was very happy with our occasional position reports as we went sniffing for lift. (Gained 800' in 3 mins with the engine off, very pleased with that as a beginner to soaring).
Personally, I'd MUCH rather comply with:
a) if transponder equipped, obtain basic service so that the controller can separate deconfliction traffic from me
b) if not so equipped, maintain a reasonable distance from the instrument approach path so that he doesn't have to send airliners miles out of their way. The very LAST thing we want is the nonsense that has occurred elsewhere with similar traffic density of Class 'D' or some ghastly mess of a radio mandatory or transponder mandatory zone which won't improve safety but just make lives more difficult. Our local ATC unit don't want that any more than we do.
TOO
Once, in a Jodel.
'Upper Heyford G-ABCD'
Errr G-CD squawk 7040'
'Negative transponder G-CD'
'Errrr G-CD you're not painting'
'That's 'cos we're made of wood...
Fast forward 30 years to last week, in an OGAR touring Motor Glider, class 'G' airspace. Same thing, no transponder, no primary return, but this time controller very helpful with a basic service, just asked us politely if we could avoid his instrument approach 'feather' while he had an airliner inbound. No problem at all for us, he was very happy with our occasional position reports as we went sniffing for lift. (Gained 800' in 3 mins with the engine off, very pleased with that as a beginner to soaring).
Personally, I'd MUCH rather comply with:
a) if transponder equipped, obtain basic service so that the controller can separate deconfliction traffic from me
b) if not so equipped, maintain a reasonable distance from the instrument approach path so that he doesn't have to send airliners miles out of their way. The very LAST thing we want is the nonsense that has occurred elsewhere with similar traffic density of Class 'D' or some ghastly mess of a radio mandatory or transponder mandatory zone which won't improve safety but just make lives more difficult. Our local ATC unit don't want that any more than we do.
TOO
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and please do not wear large brimmed/peaked caps - like wot everyone on utube aviation videos's seems to.
Gliding CFI's effectively banned these as they restrict your field of view upwards and hence reduce lookout and general situational awareness.
Gliding CFI's effectively banned these as they restrict your field of view upwards and hence reduce lookout and general situational awareness.
and please do not wear large brimmed/peaked caps - like wot everyone on utube aviation videos's seems to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpFaCs_3JoA
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm longing (and have been for years) for someone to explain to me how glider pilots in competitions are exempt from the rules of the air relating to low flying when they are clearly not landing.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Not landing despite being <500'
I think that you MIGHT be referring to both power and glider pilots 'racing for the line' in a competition (and dropping water ballast in the case of a glider). Of course the intention is to land eventually, just not from that approach. No-one seems to mind, though, so what's the harm?
TOO
TOO