PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Private Flying (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying-63/)
-   -   Gliders flying in cloud (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/190161-gliders-flying-cloud.html)

Nimbus265 20th Sep 2005 07:29


Who is "we" in this context?

I would doubt the majority of IFR capable GA aircraft have TCAS. Of the people I know who regularly fly IFR/IMC in G airspace only one has TCAS in his current aircraft AFAIK..."

"We" means the company I fly for. An increasing number of operators are fitting TCAS to their aircraft, especially helicopters. Why do you ask?

Nimbus,

"Exactly what percentage of GA aircraft are fitted with TCAS?, or is the use of the royal 'we' a little too regal?"

Nothing regal about me, I'm just a working class pilot trying to minimise risk to myself and my pax. My employer's aircraft have TCAS.

"If TCAS costs soooo much, it would be cheaper to fit another transceiver on a fixed frequency of 130.4, and then you could permanently listen out"
Sorry ShyTorque, I assumed naturally that as we we in the 'Private Flying' Forum, then most of the contributors submissions would have reflected their viewpoint as a 'private pilot flying light aircraft', and hence my comments would have been valid. This is obviously incorrect as you would appear to be a commercial pilot fying for a commerical organisation (and I should have looked at your profile).

My comments were aimed at privately registered and flown light aircraft, and I still advacoate that the majority of these aircraft are not fitted with TCAS.

Flap 5 20th Sep 2005 12:44

The Prof is spot on. When I got my PPL in the 1980's as an experienced helicopter pilot I just had to do 12 hours and a check flight. I was then licenced to fly with a passenger for a year and could validate my PPL merely by flying 5 hours per year. There are a lot of very inexperienced PPL's out there.

Further to the Prof's list you can not fly with a passenger unless you are qualified to do so. The following is an extract from the BGA's rules: Before carrying a club member in a glider, the pilot in charge must be authorised by his CFI and hold a Bronze badge or higher certificate and have at least 50 hours P1 on gliders. To give trial lessons, the pilot must have a Basic Instructor rating or higher instructor rating. The pilot must be in current practice, be familiar with the type of glider and method of launch.

Whirlygig 20th Sep 2005 12:58

Well, from my point of view, the Prof is not spot on!!

I have a JAA PPL(H) for which I have to revalidate my licence every year by taking a skills test. The school/club from which I fly requires 28 day currency for Self-Fly Hire with or without passengers. Sorry Flap 5, but things are a bit different now expecially in the heli world!!

Not saying what is right or wrong; just pointing out that there are difference rules and requirements for different folks!

Cheers

Whirls

Nimbus265 20th Sep 2005 12:59

Very True Flap5:

Prof Wrote:


1. At my club I am not allowed to fly if I am not current. This means (with a Basic Instructor rating) I must have flown within the previous 5 weeks. If not, I must take a flight with an instructor before I am allowed to fly as PIC.
My club's currency requirements is 30 days. After that it's 3 check flights with an half-cat or full cat instructor, and at least one of those flights must include a launch failure. [Edited to add:] Oh an there is the annual assessment; my annual instructor assessment and the cross-country and field landing checks at the start of the season!

Allthough I have a PPL, I have always wondered why the currency requirements appear to be so low for SEP?

I can understand the requirement in gliders (no options for go arounds!), but why so low for PPL? Given the relatively high and soaring cost in the UK for your average PPL pilot to fly, then is there a risk of pilots just maintaining the absolute minimum to maintain the licence and does that mean that there is an increasing tendency for skill fade/more inexperienced pilots flying round the sky?

Go Smoke 20th Sep 2005 13:44

The skill set needed to fly gliders is slightly different to that required to fly power.
Once you have gone solo and have moved to single seaters and have begun to cut the apron strings, so to speak, the constant monitoring does not stop.
As an instructor, cross country pilot, advanced aerobatic instructor I am still regularly assessed and have to fly with CFI's, regional examioners etc on a fairly regular basis.
I have to fly a certain number of instructional flights per year and a certain number of instructional hours plus a certain number of solo launches and solo hours per year to retain my instructor rating.
To just be able to get in a glider and fly I have to have completed flights within the previous month. If not, I'm straight into a two seater with the CFI for currency checks at least one of which will be launch emergencies.
There is a very strong ethos of safety and constant monitoring for all pilots.
Though we don't legally have to have a license there are various qualifications that a pilot goes through from ab initio to early solo to building more experience.
The safety culture is the strongest I have come across in aviation and the training standards are very high.
The various stages in development are too long to list but from more info you might find a visit to the BGA website useful.

http://www.gliding.co.uk/

Dan Winterland 20th Sep 2005 15:19

I used to do cloud climbs in gliders on nothing but a T and S when I was young and stupid. I stopped when I saw another glider in the same cloud one day. And considering that fair weather cumulus clouds are pretty dense, that was f#####g close!

And please don't try and convince me that cloud climbing is safe - a friend of mine died doing it.

shortstripper 20th Sep 2005 16:11

No flying is safe .... I've had a couple of friends die doing it!

But risk is relative, and you have to make you own mind up as to what is an acceptable level with all things in life; flying is just one of them.

SS

WorkingHard 20th Sep 2005 17:44

"The safety culture is the strongest I have come across in aviation and the training standards are very high"
Did not keep some of you out of a circuit at a licenced airfield I departed from recently. Climbing away downwind had to report gliders conflicting with expected arrivals and departures. Please do not adopt a "better than the powered pilot" attitude, it is untenable.

ShyTorque 20th Sep 2005 20:31

Best we keep that sort of stuff for another thread. Or revive one of the old "us v. them" threads ....

There's mud to be slung both ways, but so far we were doing quite well at keeping it out of the discussion. It's generally counterproductive.

shortstripper 20th Sep 2005 21:17

I couldn't agree more Shy Torque. Flying in all its forms is wonderful (mind you jumping from Angel falls with a bat suit and parachute doesn't exactly float my boat :uhoh: ), but mud flinging is best left to those who never get away from it (ie earth bound folk). We are privileged to be able to take to the skies however we do it, so let's not start pointing fingers or try to be elitist! :ok:

SS

jumpseater 23rd Sep 2005 02:54

From the first post, 'Older wooden gliders were a lot easier to handle in cloud than modern slippery designs.'
Why is this?

Dan Winterland 23rd Sep 2005 07:26

The older gliders are more draggy and don't accelerate like the new slippery glass models. They take longer to get into trouble so the pilot has more reaction time.

Nimbus265 23rd Sep 2005 07:50

There is a down side to this. Stucturally older gliders were weaker, and this was reflected in their relativly low VNE. Modern gliders have by comparison a much higher VNE. Although older gliders were perhaps more forgiving, once speed did start to build up, it didn't take long to reach VNE.

bookworm 23rd Sep 2005 08:08


Most gliders are fitted with a single 12V7AH battery; some have 14V 7AH; some have a reserve....
Once you start adding GPS systems, horizons (which can draw 1.5A on start and 1A in a steady state), Mode C transponders etc then electrical endurance for these long flights (where you may be more reliant on additional instruments) does becomes a issue.
Let's go back to this bit for a moment. Filser's TRT600 LAST draws about 0.2 A at 12 V.

If your AI draws 1 A, is it unreasonable to expect you to fit a transponder to fly in cloud? In fact, is it unreasonable to expect you to fit a transponder to fly at all?

As a power pilot, I'd rather you had a transponder and said nothing to ATC than vice versa. At least then they can tell me that you're there, rather than being told in the middle of a 300 mile IFR flight to look out for a glider that just reported going into cloud over Little Smallington.

robin 23rd Sep 2005 08:47

...but I'd prefer to be on the cloud flying frequency calling out my height and listening out for others.

Nimbus265 23rd Sep 2005 10:30

[QUOTE]quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most gliders are fitted with a single 12V7AH battery; some have 14V 7AH; some have a reserve....
Once you start adding GPS systems, horizons (which can draw 1.5A on start and 1A in a steady state), Mode C transponders etc then electrical endurance for these long flights (where you may be more reliant on additional instruments) does becomes a issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's go back to this bit for a moment. Filser's TRT600 LAST draws about 0.2 A at 12 V.

If your AI draws 1 A, is it unreasonable to expect you to fit a transponder to fly in cloud? In fact, is it unreasonable to expect you to fit a transponder to fly at all?
[QUOTE]


OK lets look at the practically:

The typical power budget for a glider is as follows:

GPS - 150mA (it's common for most competition ac to be fitted with 2)

Flight Director/PDA/Audio Vario(based on cambridge 302) - 1A

Radio - 500mA (RX) 1.8A on (TX) - Based con Filser ATR600

Normally steady state = 1.650A;

Max on radio Transmit ~3A.


A fully charged (new) 7AH battery will provide ~ 7Ah for 1 hour or
1 Ah for 7 hours (rated at 10 Hr rated as most 7AH batteries are)

As a ball park figure, and based on these figures most 12V 7Ah batteries will last about 5-6 hours before the voltage begins falls to a point which begins to be an issue and probably about 7 hours before equipment begins to fail. This is normally about right for club flying, although many aircraft are fitted with an additional 2v cell to provide a greater potential, and some are fitted with 2 batteries, to ensure that there is sufficiant voltage available for a full flying day.

For the competition pilots amonst us, and for those whose aircraft are equipped for cloud flying:

add into this a secondary GPS/Logger at about 150mA
an AH at 1.5A start/1A sustained

and a typical transponder at between 400-800mA (not 0.2A as you suggest - See the full technical manual for the TRT600 at http://www.filser.de/handbuch/trt600instmane.pdf.

Lets just assume that there is an additional load of 150mA for a competition glider which draws an additional 1.5A when the transponder is fitted and the AH is switched on.

The maximum current drawn could be as high as 5.3A but likely to be about 2.3 A.

In fact 2.5A is used as a design guide.

Whichever way you look at it, an additional 400/700mA load due to a transponder on such a fragile power budget IS significant. It can mean the difference between systems working at the end of a 7 hour competition flying day or not working. And it is more important to maintain a workable supply to the Radio/Logger/GPS at the end of a flying day, than fit additional instrumentation, when there are procedures in place mitigating the need for it (calling on 130.4)


...Oh and as a PS....I design glider electrical systems!

pheeel 23rd Sep 2005 17:48

just a question...

in other countries, such as NZ, don't gliders have to have transponders fitted? Perhaps not, I'm not sure....

But, if so, does anyone know how the power budget in gliders is managed over there, or anywhere where transponders are mandatory in gliders?

Nimbus265 23rd Sep 2005 18:52

No not transponders; FLARM has been introduced into NZ. It draws less than 80mA wich is about an 1/8th of that of a conventional transponder.

see my earlier post or go to: http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html

ShyTorque 23rd Sep 2005 18:59

Oh dear, Nimbus! This statement shows where your true priorities lie:

Quote: "And it is more important to maintain a workable supply to the Radio/Logger/GPS at the end of a flying day, than fit additional instrumentation, when there are procedures in place mitigating the need for it (calling on 130.4)"

You appear to completely underestimate the danger of relying on a little used frequency to provide separation from GA in cloud. You are flying with little or no protection from GA. You haven't said where you fly from, but I suggest you speak to a controller at a busy unit such as Coventry and ask their view.

I spent last Sunday and the last three days of this week flying around southern and central UK. Each day our TCAS screen was extremely busy with GA aircraft flying VMC / IMC at MSA up to FL55, as were we. I would think that not ONE of them was on the frequency you insist on relying on for your safety.

I did listen out on 130.4 when I could, which wasn't often due to both radios being in use for ATC frequencies. As far as I am concerned, it's not viable for us to do so. I proved to myself (and my bemused colleague) that we simply cannot leave 130.4 dialled up due to ATC requirements. Unfortunately the chances are that we will therefore miss a relevant call from a glider (I never heard ONE glider call on 130.4 or any other frequency, btw).

I wish you safe and lucky flying :}

And myself :rolleyes:

bookworm 23rd Sep 2005 19:00


...Oh and as a PS....I design glider electrical systems!
I can tell. :) A very well reasoned answer, Nimbus, thank you.


And it is more important to maintain a workable supply to the Radio/Logger/GPS at the end of a flying day, than fit additional instrumentation, when there are procedures in place mitigating the need for it (calling on 130.4)
There I disagree. ICAO and the CAA believe that a Mode S transponder is a necessary piece of equipment for aircraft.

If the power requirement of a transponder reduced the typical battery life by a factor of 3, I could see a case for exempting gliders from the forthcoming requirement to carry them. But at 10-20% of the design electrical load, I can't -- while it is undoubtedly significant, we all make sacrifices to performance to install equipment with a safety benefit.

BTW power consumption data on the TRT600 appears contradictory:

0.2 A on http://www.filser.de/main.php?dat=e_ger_trt600
0.1 A on http://www.filser.de/prospekte/TRT600_prosE.pdf
0.4 A on http://www.filser.de/handbuch/trt600instmane.pdf

I'd imagine a Mode S only environment would significantly decrease the mean power consumption, but that will be a long way off while Mode A/C ground equipment continues to operate.

robin 23rd Sep 2005 19:54

I'm not sure yuou understand the importance of retaining the GPS/Data Logger

These are essential these days to prove that a flight took place for competition or record purposes.

On the few days that a 500k, 750k or 1000k flight takes place in the UK or during a rated competition you need absolute evidence that the flight conformed with the regulations

To ask a glider pilot in such circumstances to give up the GPS/data logger combination would be like asking the Red Arrows to stop a flight to let a microlight pass through the display area

Nimbus265 23rd Sep 2005 22:47

Thanks for that Robin, I'm sure there are many non glider pilots who do not fully understand competition gliding or badge claim flying requirements.


ShyTorque

For me it is a matter of priority and personal choice. While it obviously has benefits and can be seen to add a measure of extra safety, it is currently not a mandated requirement and there are technical difficulties for gliders:

For me currently:

1. The percentage of time a spend cloud flying (see earlier posts - less than 1/1000 of my flying time is spent in clouds)

2. Cost (they ain't cheap) unit costs x antenas x fitting x fuselage strengthening x panel.

3. Electrical load, power budget (my current electrical installation = 3 x seperate GPS and 2 x logger systems, Flight Director, PDA (Moving Map), T/S and AH means that currently I can only achieve about three and a half hours on 1 x 12V 7AH - which is why I have 2 fitted.

4. Change of C of G. I fly with an optimsed C of G and this would need to be rebalanced (by counter weight) with a new panel/additional battery (hassle factor more than anything).

5. I fly to MAUW (580Kg); that means loading exactly 106liters of water for competitions; I don't want to reduce this by adding another instrument and battery.

6. The fact that to fit one, I would have to totaly repanel my glider. (ever seen a competition glider panel?) Theres just no room to cut a spare 57mm diammeter hole in most modern glider panels! It ain't cheap to do either!

7. The level of risk (see previous posts). Out of interest, when exactly was the last GA/Glider collision in cloud, and how many have there been over the last say 25 years?

8. Fitting a transponder to a glass fibre glider is significantly easier than fitting one to a carbon fibre glider.


Currently it's my choice. Sure if the BGA,CAA or EASA state that it it is mandatory requirement - then I'll happily comply. They are likely to do this in 2008 anyway if EASA get their way, but there are currenty difficulties in developing the technology for gliders - which is likely to delay this requirement. If something like FLARM was introduced, I'd seriously consider it. I'm happy to admit that it has advantages.


This debate has been centered on Cloud Flying... it won't be long before somebody extends it into VFR flying!!

I don't know what is so difficult about monitoring 130.4; I have a scanning radio, which is set to scan up to 10 frequencies. When there is a Tx on one frequency that breaks the squelch, I get the message. It normally scans 129.975, 130.1, 130.4 and my local DAIS frequency; I've never knowingly not heard a transmission.


I'm also still happy to fly in a highly competitive competition gaggle with 50 or 60 gliders, flying with about a wingspan horizontal seperation and with less that 100' vertical seperation. The risk of collision in these circumstances is infinately higher than flying in clouds....or should we mandate against gaggles as well?:\

Nimbus265 23rd Sep 2005 23:57

Oh I forgot to add. A quick straw poll at the weekend of a busy club with 100+ members showed that among those that fly cross-country regularly, only 4 pilots (all of which have a National rating) said that they cloud climb; and of the 4 the total cloud climbs taken this year is 7 - all bar one were in competitions. The actual incidence is very very low. It's not an every day occurance as may of us have stated in previous posts and we don't spend long in clouds anyway when we do cloud climb. That possibly accounts for why it's very unlikely you'll actually hear anyone cloud climbing on 130.4 on most days.

ShyTorque 24th Sep 2005 10:06

Nimbus,

Thanks for the reply, which confirms my view, reinforced by my recent experience, that it's statistically pointless for a GA pilot transitting in UK to listen on 130.4.

Perhaps you might care to listen out on the nearest LARS frequency the next few times you fly and see just how busy our Class G airspace is.

As a glider pilot, you don't want any more equipment, I do fully understand the technical difficulties this would present. As you say, EASA may well require that gliders, in common with other small aircraft, carry more electronics in the near future.

To argue against further legislation, with any hope of gaining an exemption, the gliding fraternity would need to present a very strong case with a viable alternative. To propose that GA neglects its established and proven procedures to call on the gliding frequency would be untenable.

GA has by definition to avoid YOU but if GA has no idea you are there, how can they?

Nimbus265 24th Sep 2005 11:46

ShyTorque,

Thanks for your balanced viewpoint. It is nice to have a balanced debate without mudslinging :ok:

Here's the latest in terms of European Legislation http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/doc...an05update.pdf

Final 3 Greens 24th Sep 2005 16:34

I've been away for a few days, just looked up the thread again.

What a pleasure it is to read such a coherent and reasoned debate.

IO540 24th Sep 2005 17:38

Believe it or not, the material cost in a Mode C/S transponder is of the order of £200.

Like most avionics, they list at 10x the parts cost because most firms making this stuff are olde fashioned big firms where every useless middle manager has a deputy, because the stuff is often designed by "engineers" who would never get a job designing anything that has to compete commercially so the stuff packs up often so warranty costs are high, because new product introductions are rare so anyone with a brain gets bored and leaves, because the aviation community has always accepted junk products, because the avionics shop gets a nice markup, etc.

A small firm (say 10 employees) could easily cater for the whole European existing GA transponder market. But it's very hard for someone to get in because the way the GA market is structured few people can do own fitting, and an avionics shop will much rather make 30% of £2000 than 30% of £500 (plus fitting). Avionics shops just love a regular GNS430 fitting job :O

If Mode C/S had been MANDATED on everything that flies, the market for transponders would be some 10x bigger than it is today. It is trivial to design a unit which works perfectly well for TCAS, and well enough for short range (say 30 miles) secondary radar and which draws 1/10 of the present power requirement. Total parts cost under £150 (100-off batches) and a list price of £500 assuming a 25% dealer discount.

But until transponders are mandatory, the market won't exist. Nobody will have a go because everybody knows that any existing transponder maker can produce a low power unit if they choose to (it's very easy to do) and since they have the dealer channel all set up they will clean up. But as I say the existing players won't do anything until the market is there, and then they will milk it for all it's worth.

Something might happen around 2009, when there should be a lot of demand for Mode S. But most of that will be powered stuff where the existing GTX330-type products will get fitted.

A very bold small company could get in now but they would be fools to show their cards 4 years before the market materialises, and almost nobody in "normal VFR GA" will fit a transponder to make themselves visible to others (yes I really do believe this!)

larssnowpharter 3rd Oct 2005 07:38

Fascinating discussion. Permit this old boy - who first went solo in a glider in the early/mid sixties and got his gold height in Cb – a few words. Unfortunately, finances now limit me to a month or so a year gliding in Australia each year. No cloud flying in gliders there.

I read this subject as much about VFR as about cloud flying and an attempt by the ATC fraternity to control all airspace. Transponders on everything? Perish the day!

The airspace rules have been changing and evolving over the years. My guess is that few have kept up with the all the changes and, if asked, would struggle to give a clear concise explanation of classes of airspace and the VFR/SVFR/IFR stuff. The attempts at some new simplified Euro 3 classes of airspace may simplify matters but this old carbon based brain struggles to keep up with the requirements in different countries.

I rather suspect the ‘let out clause’ allowing gliders to enter cloud is as much to avoid the issues of cloud separation. When wave flying you will invariably be closer than published minima for vertical and horizontal cloud separation.

Cloudbase 3000ft does sometimes happen in UK. Soaring pilots will regularly climb to cloudbase. How can they maintain VMC minima?

At the risk of being found guilty of topic creep, are B21 and B226 still open to gliders crossing with ATC clearance.

Rgds

lars


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:28.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.