Gliders flying in cloud
 

I'm not a professional pilot. I fly gliders in my spare time. I've been doing that for 31 years so far. I don't have a grievance or a grudge, I've never posted to pprune before and I'm not asking to get swatted, I'm just curious.

Quite by chance I've recently noticed several comments by "gliding virgins" to the effect they didn't realise gliders are allowed to fly in cloud in the UK. I just wondered if this is a common misconception among power pilots?

For anyone who genuinely doesn't know or hasn't ever thought about it, cumulus clouds are caused by thermals, and gliders commonly circle underneath them in order to gain height. However, thermals don't stop at cloudbase (otherwise the cloud wouldn't be there). Gliders equipped with suitable instruments can continue to climb in IMC until the lift peters out, and it is legal to do so outside controlled airspace.

ChrisN mentioned in another thread that the amount of cloud flying done by UK glider pilots is decreasing, and I think that's right. Older wooden gliders were a lot easier to handle in cloud than modern slippery designs. Also, many gliding instructors nowadays don't cloud-fly themselves and so aren't able to pass on such a skill, or indeed the enthusiasm for it.

Contributors in another thread were apparently treating quite different cloud conditions as if they were the same. Cloud flying is most likely to occur if there are isolated and TALL cumuli with lots of blue sky between them, no water gushing out of the bottom, and if its a weekend day. At the other extreme, if there is solid 8/8 cloud cover on a Tuesday afternoon, with showers, embedded Cu-nims etc, most glider pilots will be earning a crust or digging their gardens.

Descending through cloud when it has closed up below you is a different matter. This can happen when you have been wave soaring, in or near mountainous areas. The advent of GPS has made such descents easier and safer, but even so, most glider pilots would not put themselves in that position by choice.

If you get the chance on a suitable day, listening for a while on 130.4 may give you some idea of what is going on.

I spent 4 years gliding before I started my powered training (on my way to a fATPL) and yes I knew that we were allowed to fly in cloud, altho like you say the glider has to be equipped with certain instruments, the minimum being a turn and slip I think :confused: ideally a AH obviously. The main problem of course then is powerinf them.

Personally I think flying glides in clouds isn't the best of ideas, and I don't think it should be encouraged, but I also don't think that it should be banned. It is sometimes necessary to fly in them, I have flown in cloud a number of times, usually when trying to jump wave bars and being caught out by the high rate of sink and plunging into the top of the next bar lol, altho I popped out within a minute into the lift :ok:

The thing that bothers me is that generally, (in my experience) is that if the weather is decent enough for decent gliding then it is pretty rare to have a good thermal to yourself and they will *usually* be other people about. If all these other gliders continue to climb into the clouds then you have a number of gliders flying close to each other in cloud. Now call me crazy but I think thats a pretty mad idea, even if they are talking to each other.

....well I never, how interesting, I just assumed glider pilot's had to stay in VFR conditions. Given I often see swarms of gliders circling in a thermal, frighteningly close to each other, presumably there's a chance this could go on in a cloud too? ....sounds awfully dangerous.

Or is, as implied in the post, cloud soaring actually very much a minority sport only for those who dare?

Thanks for the post, I've learned something!

Oops - our replies crossed in the post.....

Cloud flying is legal, so glider pilots are perfectly entitled to be there.

However, IMHO, it rates with storm chasing and hand feeding sharks on the common sense scale.

...as one who does(occasionally)... it is very much the minority who, when the conditions are right, may use a cloud climb to provide them with an advantage. There are certain criteria which should be applied and these are defined in the Laws and Rules for glider pilots:

"No glider shall enter cloud within a radius of 5 nautical miles of a gliding site, except from at least 200 feet from below the lowest part of the cloud.

No glider shall enter cloud unless all its occupants are wearing parachutes and have been instructed in their use.

Additionally it is standard practice to announce your intention to enter cloud on which ever frequency you are operating on giving height (QNH), and location and then changing frequency to 130.4. Once on 130.4, this message is repeated and then the height called at every 500'QNH. Once clear of cloud call "[Callsign] clear of cloud' before changing to en-route frequency.

Cloud flying is not for the faint hearted or novice, and pilots really should be of sufficient standard that their general flying is intuitive - but there are times when it can prove useful, especially on log distance flights or in competitions.

However, not only do you need to have the skills to keep a glider in controlled and balanced flight on instruments (preferably turning to gain height) but also have a full of a number of other factors to consider - before you even enter the cloud:

At what height the zero degree isotherm is (when icing may start),

What other gliders were in the vicinity prior to entering cloud,

Does the aircraft you are flying speed limit below VNE with full airbrakes out and at what dive angle?

Is there any controlled airspace above you - to name but a few!

My first few excursions (as a P2) into cloud flying were scary, and resulted in my pulling the airbrakes out and descending below cloud. In terms of frequency, I've flown over 4000kms this year, but only taken 2 cloud climbs (although a 3500 ft climb in cloud, having entered it from a 3800 ft cloud base, was particularly satisfying, if not just a tad twitchy!)

It is nothing like as dangerous from a collision viewpoint or informal as you might think.

The standard practice for a glider entering a cloud from below, if no other gliders are apparent in the area, is to announce reg or number, "entering cloud", position reference to a place on the 1:500,000 chart, and alt amsl, on 130.4. If no other glider responds, you know you almost certainly have it to yourself as far as gliders are concerned. It is my experience that GA is normally not in cu clouds on days like that, but if they are, and don't listen out on 130.4, they take the chance often described as big sky, little bullet, but with less safeguard than we try to practise.

Most gaggles of gliders in one thermal have no intention of entering cloud. They are usually intent upon going cross country by the fastest means possible, which rarely involves cloud flying, so they leave the thermal at or below cloudbase.

On the rare occasions when two or more gliders are at or approaching cloudbase and one or more wants to go up into it, the usual thing is for the highest to announce on 130.4 first. The next will generally either go away altogether, or leave at least 500 feet vertical separation before following, after which both call out heights at frequent intervals. It happens so rarely that incidents are almost unknown.

The only one in the UK that I recall was about 30 years ago. Two were in the same cloud, one using 1:250,000 chart for reference to a small village or something for position, the other a 1:500,000 chart and position relative to a different, larger ground feature, both calling out heights as they knew they were in the same part of the country. Eventually one realised they were actually in the same cloud and left, colliding with the other on the way. Both survived, and the BGA then adopted the practice I outlined above.

As I have posted before, power pilots who get excited about the collision risk with gliders are focussing on the least of our and their collision problems. Most power collisions are with the ground, i.e. CFIT. Those with other flying things are mostly with other power. GA power/glider collisions are the least frequent of all - only about 3 in the UK in the last 30 years, at least one of which was in the circuit of a gliding site which the power pilot infringed, and another was between glider and tug from the same site in that site's circuit area.

Most glider collision are with other gliders. Those with powered aircraft included the one mentioned above, i.e. with a glider tug from the same site as the glider. The least frequent type is one with a powered aircraft nothing to do with gliding, i.e. in the same 3 at most, I believe, in 30 years, all in clear air, the most notorious being a Rockwell flying straight into the back of a glider flying straight and level in his 12 o'clock.

Chris N.

Edited to add "from a collision viewpoint" in the first line. Cloud flying by the unskilled is certainly dangerous from a loss of control viewpoint.

I believe it to be pretty harsh when thinking about gliding competitions. How can it ever be a level playing field if say 5% of the grid would be prepared to take a cloud climb in order to fly across 'the big blue hole in the sky' to roar home and win the day?

Additionally, it's not really a problem in this country as we rarely get a (cu) cloudbase above 6000ft, however gliderpilots elsewhere have been wearing devices on the tip of a finger to measure the concentration of oxygen in the blood. On the principle that if they stay above about 95% they are fine to coninue climbing..... many of them upto 12500 even 14000ft.

I have recently done a hypobaric chamber run to these hights as an experiment. If something happens to cause stress and potentially hyperventilation (maybe you thought you saw another glider in the cloud), you feel all the symptoms of going hypoxic. I am sure the decision making process will be impared and the whole fact that you are up there without oxygen is highly dangerous!

As for competition, I believe there should be formal BGA training to fly in cloud, or all should be banned from doing so.

TBK

ChrisN
Some perhqps, but not me.

Many people chase storms and many people hand feed sharks. Few are killed or even injured.

All, again IMHO, are very low probability:high severity risks, so it is unlikley to happen, but if it does..........

Just because it has never happened does not mean it will not (or that it will in the near future.)

Anyway, glider pilots can legally cloud fly, so thats the end of the debate for me.

The debate of whether cloud flying or not should be included in competitions is a debate which has been on going for a few years, and has yet to be resolved for international competitions...the debate continues. In the UK however it is still allowed, on the whole, for regional and national competitions.

If we therefore assume that it is legal, and allowed (as it is in the UK), we can turn to your comment about a level playing field.

100% of any grid are allowed (by law) to cloud fly. If that they have the aptitude, training, ac mandatory requirements and the desire to do so - then they can. For those of us who fly competitions regularly and wish to increase on National ratings or get higher up the leader board, then cloud climbing may prove one strategy that may just enable you to do so. But there really are such few occasions when you would actually do so. There’s nothing to stop any pilot on any grid acquiring the wherewithal and the skills for cloud climbing should he/she so desire. So it remains a level playing field. I just consider it another tool in the toolbox, which I can bring out when I need to.

In terms of danger, as anyone on who flies regularly in a regional or national competition will tell you, there is significantly more ‘danger’ in flying in a highly competitive gaggle of 30/40/50 gliders at the start of any stream launch multi class competition, than there is in cloud flying. But again, good airmanship, sensibility and innate responsibility to the safety of yourself and the others around you typically ensures that the collusions are very few and far between.

In respect of TheBeeKeepers comments on a formal syllabus for cloudy flying – I do agree. I maintain a currency in this respect through the use of blackout screens flying from the rear seat of a K21, with a competent and current BGA Full Cat sat up front, who also happens to have an IMC instructor rating (amongst others). Some form of similar guideline or recommended practice should be issued by the BGA.

Well, that's something I never knew!

Is it burried in the AIP somewhere, or are gliders exempt from the AIP?

I take it from the posts here, that there is on further training or qualification necessary for a glider to enter cloud. ie no glider Instrument Rating? Obviously you'd want some form of training, but am I correct in my understanding that none is legally required?

Is there any other group of people who can enter cloud without an instrument rating?

Just curious

The truth is that GA pilots transitting under IFR & in IMC in Class G airspace are highly unlikely to be listening out for gliders on 130.4. In fact I don't know of anyone who routinely does this. In general there are more appropriate frequencies, on which one can obtain either a RIS or FIS, depending on the circumstances.

Our company requires us to obtain such a service so we are always in contact with the local ATC unit. If our track takes us close to an ATZ, the published frequency for that goes on VHF box 2 so we are likely to be already working two frequencies. We are otherwise required to listen out on 121.5.

We are infrequently but very pleasantly surprised to hear glider pilots advising ATC of their presence, which seems a very sound idea, bearing in mind that most gliders don't show up well on radar and don't carry a transponder.

I can understand that a glider pilot flying in very close proximity to others might consider 130.4 the best frequency to use. However, whilst operating in an area where GA aircraft are likely to be transitting, it is in everyones best interest for the glider pilot to consider making contact with the appropriate ATC unit, to enable them to warn other pilots of their presence and allow some sort of co-ordination to take place.

Although CFIT accidents are more common (the ground is EVERYWHERE, so it's not too surprising) a mid-air is often just as fatal to all concerned.

Completely agree with ST, I find it a little unnerving that I could be flying the correct quadrantal level under IFR in IMC minding my own business and get hit by some gliding bod spiralling up in the cloud in a completely indiscriminate fashion simply because he feels like it! Is it me, or is there perhaps a need for a bit more rigour when it comes to the combination of gliding and IMC? Surely there should be an obligation to announce on the most appropriate GA freq. (which may or may not be obvious I grant) that he is a non powered aircraft 'overhead x, intending to spiral climb into IMC etc....' at least we could all divert and get half a chance. Or maybe gliders should stay in VMC unless they squawk and talk to ATC etc?

Quote:
Surely there should be an obligation to announce on the most appropriate GA freq. (which may or may not be obvious I grant) that he is a non powered aircraft 'overhead x, intending to spiral climb into IMC etc....'

An interesting point and well presented, there is however one small problem. How many glider pilots hold a valid R/T licence to broadcast on a non gliding frequency? Perhaps Chris N would like to comment.

Regards

Bletchleytugie

Re RT licences, I don't know, but the numbers are growing, I believe.

Chris N.

Most glider pilots I know would be more then happy to get a R/T licence, the main thing that stops them is that they have to learn so much that just isn't needed for them.

Ideally it would be great to have a seperate R/T licence for glider pilots that will focus on what they need, making it mandatory would be even better. Problem then of course is that gliders then have to all carry radios that cost money, and they have to be powered etc etc.

Everyone who uses RT needs to understand all of it, there is nothing that in the RT syllabus they do not need to know, since comprehension of other users transmissions depends on a broad awareness.

Most of your points regarding RT are perfectly valid, and to be quite honest I don't know what the answer is.

If glider pilots wish to fly x-country regularly, then I would agree that holding an R/T license would be desirable - it is not currently essential or mandated. Whether EASA will change the rules in the future is open to debate, along with the same debate surrounding gliders being fitted with transponders. There is no moral argument against the use of transponders for instance; the practicalities of supplying sufficient power to a transponder on an aircraft that does not generate its own electrical power, is the practicality that must be overcome on this one.

As it currently stands, many glider pilots are happy to fly within the local gliding airfield area, and rarely fly or venture cross country (or until they have progressed to a point where this is something that they wish to do). Consequently, for these pilots there is no real need to know more than the basics to operate from their local field, which for the majority of clubs in the UK, operate on one of the dedicated gliding R/T frequencies. I fly regularly in the US in open FIR, and the same rules apply with respect to a ‘radio operators license’ there.

I for one, got my R/T license before my PPL, and subsequently am more than happy to advise local ATC of my position when flying x-country. Equally, class D zone transition or penetration requires the use of non-gliding assigned R/T frequencies, and therefore holding a valid R/T license is a prerequisite if you wish to fly in those controlled airspaces which gliders are allowed to fly.

If you want to see the current laws and rules pertaining to gliding, with relative extracts from the ANO then go here: BGA Laws and Rules 15th Edition

If a glider pilot wants to fly in the vicinity of a published glider field, which sensible GA pilots do avoid, then I don't see much of a problem with remaining on the glider frequencies or non-radio operations.

However, if a glider pilot wants to venture further afield, I think for his own safety (and everyone else's) he needs to consider the bigger picture before he goes flying in cloud without advertising his presence to others.

"Problem then of course is that gliders then have to all carry radios that cost money, and they have to be powered etc etc."

I really don't consider this to be a valid argument these days.

A hand held ICOM transceiver with a rechargeable battery costs about the same as four fill-ups of a car petrol tank. A lightweight gel type motorcycle battery could be used to prolong the battery life for soaring or cross country flights, at very little weight penalty.

As the old saying goes, "If you think flight safety is expensive; just try having an accident!"

Fly safe! :ok:

Red Chilli

>>>>I find it a little unnerving that I could be flying the correct quadrantal level under IFR in IMC minding my own business and get hit by some gliding bod spiralling up in the cloud in a completely indiscriminate fashion simply because he feels like it<<<

and I find it unnerving when flying VFR along a line feature keeping to the rules of the air, but some twit flying a GPS route comes head on at me because he says to himself that he is navigating en-route by following the moving map.

If you are under IFR in IMC you are quite likely to be in receipt of a service who will let you know of even small traffic in your vicinity. It happens to me when on a FIS in VFR conditions.

As an ex-glider pilot, I still hold to the view that no-one has absolute priority. After all the ATCO will be the only one at the Board of Enquiry.

Er... I think you missed the point ShyTorque...

99% of all gliders are fitted with radios; those radios, almost without exception, operate across the full Air frequency bands. Those that aren't, are normally old vintage aircraft which are very unlikely to fly x-country.

Most tranceivers are designed to draw as little current as possible when on TX/RX thereby providing maximum endurance for the battery or batteries. (Typically up to 8 hours)

The issue is regarding fitting a transponder not a tranceiver. Transponders consume significantly more power than a typical glider tranceiver, and the additional electrical load would significantly reduce overall endurance, without the need to add additional batteries (which add weight/Cof G changes etc). Most gliders are fitted with a single 12V7AH battery; some have 14V 7AH; some have a reserve.

When you consider that it is possible to fly distances of 500kms cross-country, with durations over 8 hours, then the overall electrical load needs to be as low as practicable to ensure sufficiant power is available at the end of a flight.

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.

You also stated that:


As both myself and other posters have already pointed out; cloud flying is the exception not the norm. It's not done every time you fly ouside of gliding range of an airfield as you would seem to intimate. And as already mentioned in this thread, it is standard practice to call before, during and leaving cloud, when you do enter it using the en-route frequency and cloud flying frequencies.

The majority of the time we fly in Open FIR, not under control of an ATC - I'm not sure that there are too many other frequency options available?

Glider pilots just don't fly cross country willy-nilly and I can assure you we are more than aware of the bigger picture.

Before a glider pilot can even begin to fly x-country he or she requires compentancy and endorsement (At least 2 successful approaches into fields; planned and flown a triangular task of at least 100km (in a glider, motorglider or light aircraft) and having already passed examinations on airmanship, meteorology, principles of flight, radiotelephony and navigation).

Chilli ... Like robin, your post left me feeling a bit hot!

Surely outside controlled airspace, you have no more right to be in IMC than any other person legally allowed to do so? Why are you flying IFR in IMC? is it simply because you feel like it ? or is it an aid to your goal (getting from A-B). Perhaps the glider pilot is using it to aid his or her goal (distance record perhaps). If you're not happy get an IR and fly in class A. Apart from crossing under permission there be no gliders there!

SS

Shortstripper How do you suggest that BA continue their service into Newcastle then?

I am sure that the professionals will be able to confirm many other instances of commercial traffic being unable to make a whole journey in controlled airspace, let alone class A.

Gliding in clouds will continue to be legal, until a serious incident happens and the debris lands in full sight of her Majesty's Press. After that, I wouldn't be surprised to see a rapid change of the laws.

Then again, due to the low probability of two aircraft occupying the same piece of cloud at the same time, it could be a considerable time until this happens.

Nimbus,

I haven't missed that point at all, but I hadn't noticed that transponders were being discussed until you mentioned the subject.

That's a different, even more contentious issue; I thought someone might mention it before this discussion was over.

I certainly DON'T think that gliders fly in cloud for more than a short while to gain height in a particular cloud. I'm not sure why you think I intimated that because it certainly wasn't my meaning. (Read that paragraph again - the word BEFORE is the clue).

We carry TCAS and it's an excellent safety aid, in all regimes of flight. We've heard the arguments about lack of sufficient electrical power in gliders for transponders before, which I do accept to some extent, but I think it could be overcome if there was a will (or mandate) to do so.

However, the main point of my contribution was about some glider pilots not even wanting to gain an R/T licence, and speak to ATC, let alone spend money on equipment!

Even in good VMC gliders can be notoriously difficult to see; in IMC it's a complete lottery if there is no co-ordination. I really can't understand the mentality of any pilot who pronounces: "I have a right to be here, I expect you to avoid me because the ANO says so, but don't expect ME to do anything to help YOU keep all of us safe!

That's what I meant when I referred to "the big picture".

I can give one example of how a conflict (or worse) might occur in Class G:

It's a hazy day, end of summer.
A GA aircraft is transitting towards London, VFR, in class G airspace to the east of Coventry at 2500 feet QNH and 145 kts. Coventry ATC is contacted because the track crosses the approach to runway 23, and a FIS is requested. The ATC response is a request for the aircraft to climb to 3,000ft QNH to give separation on a 737, inbound to runway 23. The Coventry conspicuity code of 0256 is selected as requested by ATC. The aircraft begins a climb and becomes marginal VMC shortly after level off, passing in and out of cloud. The crew advise ATC that they are changing to IFR and are climbing to the correct quadrantal of 3,500 ft. ATC identifies the aircraft via a position report off the DTY and upgrades the service to a RIS. All very well, separation is believed to have been achieved.

HOWEVER! In that same cloud, at FL 35 also, is a glider on a cross-country flight, not talking to anyone, not transponder equipped and not appearing on Coventry's radar........ :uhoh:

There's another glider, in the cloud, with a 737 approaching at 250 kts, in the descent from behind.......

It's potentially out there, waiting to happen, not just near Cov. If an IMC collision occurred, which pilot might be held to blame? Probably the powered aircraft pilot, if only the word of the ANO is considered.

On the other hand, most sensible folks wouldn't even consider crossing the road or loitering in it without looking, especially after dark whilst wearing dark clothing, even on a pedestrian crossing. What's the difference?

Having just checked with my local ATC; most gliders actually do show up on primary radar, and the higher they climb, the better the return! Should show up on Coventry's then?

Interesting thread, but so far mostly about why, how, ATC, conflicts, and whether good or bad idea.
But I am intrigued by what this says about pilot training and qualifications. Power pilots are advised to treat cloud with the greatest respect, given 4 hrs of IF training, told about 180 degree turns and train on aircraft with at least an AI. We are advised to get an IMC asap and then only use it in an emergency. We are always reading about people who "lost it" in cloud.

So can someone explain how glider pilots manage with minimal training, minimal instrumentation and hardly ever seem to come to grief?

I like the change in direction on this thread!

I fly both power and glider; I'm an instructor on the latter.

I don't know that there is a definative answer but one thing, I have learned through experience, is how differently glider pilots are attuned to the attitude of the aircraft by feel, rather than instruments.

I can detect changes in speed as low as 5 kts by reference to the noise in the cockpit and attitude - not by looking at the ASI. My bum (through the seat) can feel a change in attitude and lift, before the instruments have time to respond. Consequently I can maintain a constant (ish) airspeed, without reference to the ASI; and that helps significantly in maintaining a constant attitude in cloud (or anywhere else)

Glider pilots learn to recognise the symptoms of the stall through feel and take the appropraite action - the stick goes forward. Flying in a tight thermal with fully flaps 45 degrees of bank, I am close to the stall: If I Sense, ease forward on the stick - carry on flying; no electrical stall warnings - just sense:

I don't need a T&S to tell me when I'm slipping or skiddiing when flying gliders - I have a yaw string.

With 15-20 meters of wing, I can tell (normally) on which side of the glider the strongest lift is, through my seat.

When flying cross country, even though I fly on QNH, I don't know the height of the ground, and hardley ever look at the altimeter when landing out in a field (its all done by eye)

(if fact the cross-country endorsement requires you to do field landings with the altimeter covered up/offset)

The basic controls of a glider and a power aircraft are the same: stick goes forward - cows get bigger.

Heads outs of the cockpit, a constant lookout; not looking at the instruments and flying intuatively all help.

But I think thats where the similarity ends; glider pilots are IMHO far more intune with the aircraft that power pilots, and maybee that has something to do with it?

Nimbus,

As your friendly ATCO said, MOST gliders show up on radar, but from experience they might NOT. In any event, these days the UK doesn't have full LARS coverage. For example, Coventry can't always provide a radar service and some military radar units stand down during holiday periods.

Even where radar coverage IS available, a primary contact could be anything from ground clutter to airways traffic. Some radar units don't have secondary radar, Coventry being one example.

If an aircraft painting only a primary contact on radar isn't in contact with ATC (or not transponding mode C) there is no way of them knowing its altitude, whether it is IMC or VMC below and certainly no certain way of knowing if the contact is a glider.

This is a flight safety issue equally affecting all of us. It would be better if we all worked together in such cases, not adopt an unhelpful "us and them" attitude. If an accident were to occur in these circumstances, legislation might well be used to prevent a recurrence........ GA already carries radios, transponders and often TCAS and speaks to ATC, so where do you think any legislation would be aimed?

Or do you have an alternative solution to the concept of a glider pilot simply making a radio call to ATC? :confused:

I note your comments about glider pilots being more in tune with their aircraft. Can you also sense a 737 coming along behind you at 250 kts in the same cloud?

Personnally I think that anyone who flies in IMC should be equipped with a Mode C or better transponder........Whether it be a glider, a Cub or 737......Preferably in receipt of a radar service.

only for the last foot! Ouch! Are you suggesting that power pilots don't? An electric stall warner goes off 5-10 knots BEFORE the stall break, therefore one learns to recongise buffet, sloppy controls etc .... if you didn't, I'd ask for a partial refund from your instructor ;) And by the way, most Cessna singles don't have an electric stall warner anyway.

There was also the fatal - AA5 out of Elstree with glider - accident/collision was near Wescott in the 1990s. VMC/VFR.

I knew of one GA/glider accident over a gliding site, which sounds like WR's example, but not the other. Without more details it would take me ages going through old reports to find out for certain.

If Rustle and WR are both right, that makes 4 power/glider collisions in my 35 years of gliding (rather than 3 as I thought), including 1 glider tug/glider, the Rockwell/Cirrus I mentioned, and these two.

None in cloud.

I have no more wish to encounter something in cloud than anyone else, but it is the least likely source of collision, for power or gliders, based on density of flying things in types of air/where most things are/actual accident statistics etc.. I think I am more likely to have a collision in VMC than in cloud, because most gliders and GA is there, and we know that the eyeball is only partly effective. I have had far more close calls with other gliders at the heights we normally fly than with power in class G. So has every other glider pilot I have ever discussed it with.

If transponders and TCAS-type solutions were universally available and the power and package problems were solved, I personally would have one. As I have written before on similar threads, the glider (old, wood, no water ballast - a Ka6E if you want to know) I was flying until last July was already at maximum weight with its existing battery and instruments, and its panel was full. No way to get a transponder in.

My new one has a hole in the panel ready for a transponder, I await the CAA-inspired LAST with eager anticipation, and I am working on the battery storage problem.

It will do nothing to help significantly until there is a TCAS-type solution in every GA aeroplane. Once every glider is squawking, ATC will switch them off when they see over 1000 gliders in southern England, sometimes as many as 40 in one thermal. Transponders are mandatory in Holland, and it is mandatory to switch them off under the Amsterdam TMA because they clutter the ATC screens too much. With Mode S, ATC will selectively "switch off" their reception rather than making the gliders switch them off, but the effect for ATC will be the same. Only TCAS will pick them up and take away one source of conflict.

If anyone seriously thinks ATC could today cope with 1000 gliders all telling their positions, constantly changing heights and directions, and sorting out potential conflicts either with the other gliders or with passing GA in class G, please try to get at least 10 ATCO's onto this thread by random selection (i.e. not pre-biassed one way or the other) of whom at least 8 agree that they could handle it.

Last time I called Essex Radar, to warn them that they were working a powered aircraft round Stansted zone in class G who was telling them he could see no gliders, straight over Ridgewell gliding site, towards me over Haverhill, they would not talk to me when I tried to tell them I was manoeuvring in his 12 o'clock -- too busy. That was just one glider trying to communicate. You really think they could cope with say 50-100 in East Anglia, several hundred from Lasham/Booker/Dunstable etc., several hundred more from other clubs?

Chris N.
========================

ChrisN This is not an indicator of the risk severity.

That is calculated by Probability x Impact (no pun intended.)

So, if the prob is 0.01 (ie 1/100th of a percent) x 100 (on a scale of 100), the severity will be 1, i.e very low indeed.

However, all we have proven is the limitation of of quantitative analysis, since qualitative risk analysis (as demonstrated by ShyTorque) illustrates the potential risk scenarios and how they can occur.

It then becomes a matter of taking a view.

Presently, it is legal to cloud climb in gliders, which suggests that the lawmakers take a view that the severity is very low.

But, and it is a big but IMHO, the laws were drafted years ago in an era where there was less traffic movements and some might argue that this should be considered.

As we tend to plan to fight the last war, we end up with a status quo and this is usually broken by an incident that compells us to take notice.

One argument is that cloud climbing is justifiable, whereas a contrary point of view would be that stopping cloud climbing would break a link in a particular accident chain.

However, glider pilots are entitled to climb in clouds and the4 rest of us must hope that they do so with skill and discretion.

I'm not suggesting that at all, and perhaps I should have phrased that slightly differently. I'd reitterate that I fly both power and gliders and can see both sides of the argument.

What I was driving at is that IMHO glider pilots are more sensitive to changes in small attitudes through feel than power pilots, and this may be because on average glider pilots are exposed to greater ranges of the aircrafts flight envelope - and this may in some part answer Windy1's last question.

A glider is just a different type of flying machine, but it needs a different set of skills to fly it. The generalised style of flying is also very different. When I fly GA I generally taxi, take off, transit to somewhere on a pre-determined course at a fixed speed and land again, with minimal risk of a PFL. Generally I don't deviate too much from planned course and if I can avoid it, don't go anywhere near the stall, VNE or make 60 degree banked turns - I don't lke pulling much G either. (Perhaps I'm a boring power pilot!!)

Totally different when I'm flying gliders; I'm happy to spend an hour or 2 flying cross-country, or staying locally and never being outside of gliding range of the airfield. To spend 2 hours locally and never go anywhere far, means that you use the time flying gliders very differently to that of a powered aircraft; by their design and the way that they are flown, glider pilots are therefore exposed to a greater percentage of the flight envelope and become more atuned to the aircraft sensitivities:

Thermalling to stay up (at various bank angles and G loadings)/ various techniques to increase the rate of climb (near to or beyond the stall!) practicing inter-thermal flying, aerobatics etc are all 'the norm' and just to use the time up I'll throw in a normal stall, hammer head stall, mushing stall, high G stall - then find some lift, climb away, go and do some spinning then finish the flight with a sideslipped landing into the undershoot for good measure... and why not? - its just different.


It's also worth mentioning that the ETPS course have for the past few years included a week of gliding in the course, to enable the ETPS students to understand how different a glider is when compared to a normal aircraft, how much more of the flight envelope a glider uses, and how a different set of skills are needed to fly one.

I often wonder with these sort of "dangerous gliders" threads, just what some on here would really like? It almost seems a case of "If we can't do it, why should they?" .... "best try to make enough noise to bring them into line eh?"

Or am I just being too cynical? :suspect:

SS

chrisN I know you weren't suggesting it wasn't true, but HERE'S the accident report for the one I mentioned -- 1996.

Shortstripper With the very greatest of respect, I think that this is one of the most asinine comments I have read for some time.

What we have on this thread is, IMHO, a constructive discussion between some glider pilots (some or all of whom also fly power) and two commercial pilots who are expressing their reasonable concerns about the practice of cloud climbing.

Let's repeat it, THEY CAN LEGALLY CLOUD CLIMB, no one is saying that they shouldn't. Personally, I have never fancied flying in IMC and do not envy glider pilots their privilege.

Like flying a light single at night, cloud climbing causes a potential risk and pilots like ShyTorque, whose opinions I respect, are sharing the reasons why they are concerned.

ShyTorque says "This is a flight safety issue equally affecting all of us. It would be better if we all worked together in such cases, not adopt an unhelpful "us and them" attitude"

What could be more reasonable and less like your assertion?

With regard to the perception of risk, I also used to own three pistols and shoot in competitions, until my mindset was altered by Hungerford and I withdrew from the sport. After Dunblane, the government altered the law and a formerly respectable sport suffered from the severe restriction of gun ownership.

Yet the risk of being killed by a licensed gun was still statistically very low. Very often it is the perception of government and/or society that drives the qualitative analysis of risk and leads to conclusions that some feel are fair and others feel are unfair.

If a cloud climbing glider collided with a 737, per one of ShyTorque's scenarios, then I bet the law would change overnight, hopefully that thesis willnever be tested.

For your information, I am an ex glider pilot, as well as a PPL.

Nimbus

I do understand what you are saying and glider pilots are definitely better at using the footrests, err whoops, I mean rudder pedals ;)

Rustle, thanks for the link, which I have now saved. I now realise that my memory is primarily of collisions fatal to the glider pilot(s), which I believe power/glider collisions usually are. The one you pointed out was fatal for the power pilot and for some reason had not lodged in my RAM.

It was another case of power-flying-into-the-back-of-the- glider, both flying straight, in VMC.

None of my comments should be taken as dismissing dangers, nor of suggesting that power pilots are more likely to fly into the back of things than glider pilots. We all suffer from the fallibility of the eye, attention spans, etc.. I have written before, and still firmly believe, that only technology is going to make much difference, i.e. the poorman's TCAS - at least a proximity alert, preferably one indicating distance and direction of a threat within roughly the same height band. And it needs everyone to have the sender and the receiver to be fully effective, though the chances of avoiding collision will be improved with increasing levels of take-up. I am far from convinced that transponders are the entire answer, but if most people had them at least the heavy metal could avoid gliders and other GA (much of the non-glider GA also lacks any or all of radios, transponders, and paints on primary radar).

None of these will help the 40th glider avoid the other 39 in a thermal - only the eyeball, and airmanship using existing guidance for good thermalling practice can do that, I believe. Just as something similar will be the only way power in close formation, air-air photography etc., will avoid collisions in that sphere.

Meanwhile, the greatest danger to me of a collision is with another glider, in VMC, based on accident figures, incidents I and others have experienced, and my own analysis and judgement of the various scenarios and the relative lengths of time I am exposed to them.

Chris N.
==================

I was walking the dogs on Devil's Dyke (nr Shoreham for the uninitiated) last Sunday and I thought I saw one of the paragliders climb up into the low cloud above the ridge.

Are these allowed to cloud fly? I didn't see him come back down through the cloud but I must admit I wasn't really paying attention as I was being followed by a rather belligerent looking sheep at the time.

Here is a conversation I had with a LARS unit a couple of years ago:

"Traffic 1 O'clock, 3 miles,opposite direction, a Bonanza at FL45 under my control, multiple targets 12 O'clock, 4 miles, no height information, could be gliders or ground clutter"

I was IFR in IMC with a RIS (obviously), and not near a gliding site. My rational was "ok, the Bonanza is under his control, so I will maintain altitude and heading and all will be ok. Could be gliders ahead, but I'm not near a gliding site on the chart, so it is probably spurious echos. Besides I am in IMC and likely that if it is gliders, they will be below the cloud base with is a good 1000' below"

It WAS gliders, as I passed over the "echos" the cloud was breaking and I could see them below me. Possibly had I known at the time that gliders could legally enter IMC then I may have thought a bit harder about the concequences. I didn't know that gliders could enter IMC, but a reasonable assumption, and it is clear that I am not the only one who didn't know ("clear of cloud and in sight of the ground" I seem to remember from air law).

I have no problem with gliders being allowed in IMC, from a qualification point of view (they can do what they like as far as I am concerned - though I don't think a glider pilot is any better at surviving the "Leans" than a powered pilot seeing as its a physiological thing you can't be "trained" out of), though I really don't want to run into anything at 120 Kts especially as I don't wear a parachute!

I appreciate the problem with 1000 gliders sqwarking, though couldn't they use one code, then ATC could have told me "Gliders 12 O'clock 4 miles, no height information" and I would have definitely altered course......

Cheers

Robin, Shortstripper - absolutely no intention to offend, it was simply news to me (and I'm sure it would be to a lot of power folks) that whilst flying along in IMC I might meet a glider. I am not saying I have any more 'right' to be there than your goodselves, just a bit shocked that having just spent thousands of pounds, sat an exam and flight test and then following the procedures to the best of my ability, I could still encounter an aircraft that would not be flying a quadrantal level or even talking to anyone :confused: Doesn't make any sense to me and I was just suggesting a simple way of helping the situation.

An enlightening thread - I'm in agreement with englishal, ST etc. I do appreciate your problems re: kit, number of aircraft etc. but feel we must work together for the safety of all concerned. So how can we crack it? To avoid a myriad of transmissions could the gliding club simply inform ATC re: activity and likely cloud climbs? This info could then be relayed via the FIS/RIS etc.

As an aside, last year my climbing buddy and I had finished a session in the High Sierras with a number of days to spare. 'Let's try gliding' says I, so Ron and I went to Truckee Soaring and had a thoroughly good time, quite an art I thought, finishing with a hammerhead for good measure :ok: