All this kit (and kash).

There's still a little voice in the back of my head saying 'technology is no substitute for technique'.

Technology is not a substitute, or shouldn't be. It supplements and enhances the effectiveness of see and avoid, and is itself improving.

Is there a technique thats adequate to stay out of mid-airs - with say, all-white aircraft, no flarm, no P/TCAS, no transponder, no ATC service, not using radio - that couldn't be meaningfully supplemented?

We don't need to guess... Statistics talks. Most collisions do happen in the traffic pattern, with a significant number on final approach.

Why that is so is an interesting question IMHO, bearing in mind the factors you mention... One interpretation is that the main collision avoidance mechanism is the big sky concept, and where that does not apply (=traffic pattern) the risk of collisions goes up tremendously, despite same direction frequency intention etc.

This is a pretty interesting publication on the subject: http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa15.pdf

Is there something intrinsically wrong with the RAF Grob having the PIC in the right hand seat and wearing a bone dome scanning to port must be difficult if not impossible.....

I recall that in the USA about 25/30 years ago they did a statistical analysis of mid air collisions and very close airproxes.

The highest risk was if you were within 10 nm of an airport with mixed VFR/IFR traffic - very often these airports were equipped with radar. In the open FIR there tends to be a fair amount of random separation built in (apart from certain choke points) so although you might get a fright by having an airprox the chances of a midair collision are relatively low.

I often call Class G "jungle airspace". To many airspace users (including me!) the idea of a control service in the open FIR is something of an anethma. There are ways of sensibly mitigating the risks many of which have been mentioned in this thread.

A question I sometimes ask students and pilots is if you have to go around from an approach what is the first action? Very rarely, if ever, is lookout (above) mentioned. Also my observation is that very often the lookout below prior to descent is omitted. Do you weave during climb and descents? This is very basic stuff and whilst the mk 1 eyeball isn't infallible correct lookout techniques are vital to remain safe.

That's an excellent link - and the pictures show just how bad the vis can be from GA. :(

The problem is that no "technique" actually works. As has been written a million times, a target on a genuine collision course is a stationary point in your field of view.

The best one can do is play the probabilities in one's favour.

The "Mk 1 eyeball" so beloved of the proverbial ex RAF navigators who write the training literature, doesn't work, and never did work. Not in cases where there is a genuine collision course.

Fortunately, due to the way flying is trained, it is not too hard to improve matters drastically.

Flying well above 1000ft, say 3000ft, reduces the probability more than anything else - by at least an order of magnitude. So much so that there have been no UK midairs (TMK) above 2000ft - ever.

Flying at weird levels, say 2300 or 2700 or 3300ft, reduces it by another huge amount - because most people who fly "high" fly as they have been trained i.e. at 2000ft 2500ft or 3000ft.

Be conscious of aerodrome circuits when flying enroute. Get a decent GPS which shows the ATZs and even when flying an accurate planned route, give these areas a wide margin. Another order of magnitude improvement?

If you have to fly low, e.g. taking pics of your bird's house, or departing or arriving, have all the lights on. One is far more visible in a near head-on situation when the landing light is on, even during bright sunlight.

TCAS would be great but until Mode C is made mandatory it will be of limited usefulness for avoiding actually possible collisions, versus the cost of the proper active system - £10k+. And I suspect a huge % of the low level bimblers don't have a transponder or don't switch it on, anyway, and if you fly high, there ain't nobody there, more or less.

Personally, I don't worry about this.

The circuit remains the dangerous place. The only time I do overhead joins is when ordered by ATC. At AFIS or A/G airfields I ignore the "overhead RH circuit" default instruction and if he reports no known traffic I tell him I will report downwind / crosswind / long final. But I must confess I wouldn't fly to Stapleford (or some other totally mad free for all place where people cut you up left right and middle) on a sunny Sunday :)

If you have an autopilot, use it to reduce cockpit workload and look out of the window - one day you might actually spot something.

If you have a GPS, use it to reduce cockpit workload and look out of the window - as above.

But don't bank on spotting the one that might get you while flying at 1000ft.

IO540

I think that is the one aspect of your post with which I disagree, although I havent got any proven stats with which to back it up.

Using TAS I reckon that only around 10% of primary contacts reported by PR is not shown on TAS, and about 5% are shown with no height information. That would suggest that most traffic has transponders at a mix of levels - albeit I agree the number without is even less at higher levels.

It would be interesting to know what % of the UK GA fleet has a transponder fitted - does anyone know?

Unless I misunderstand you, that would very much suprise me, because when flying under a "traffic service" the majority of reported contacts are "level unknown" which means either no TXP or Mode A only.

These contacts would not usefully show on any TCAS system.

I think Mode C fit % is close to 100% among those flying higher up, say 3000ft+. It's a whole different pilot population up there.

Between flying below 2000ft, and flying above 3000ft (approx) it seems as if GA exists in two different compartments.

A lot of pilots joke about getting a nosebleed at a few thousand feet but I don't think many of them are actually joking.

Tinpilot,

Thankyou. That was probably the glider I passed yesterday.

I asked the question because after what I think was about 7.5 hours flying he still had enough electrical power to speak to an ATC radar unit and to use a transponder with mode C, which helped us to see and avoid him, using our TCAS to assist our lookout.

Good on him, a good example of how to fly in a thoroughly professional manner, he allowed us the chance to avoid his aircraft by changing our transit altitude in good time and keep us all the safer for it, whilst maintaining my passengers' comfort.

Don't assume the glider had had his transponder on for the whole flight.

From the link posted by somebody above, it shows it is an ASH25 EB28 – a 2-seat motor glider (fold-away engine) which has much bigger battery capacity than most gliders. “Electric power supply by two lead batteries, one in each inner wing. . . . 5 kg can be saved by using lithium-mangan-batteries in the fuselage instead of lead batteries in the inner wings.” [Sic]

See: Binder aircraft- & engineconstruction | ASH 25 EB 28 | ASH 25 EB 28 for details if interested.

For the umpteenth time, yes, SOME gliders can have transponders, and SOME of those have fitted them. SOME OTHERS, like mine could physically have a transponder, but EASA at present prevents it.

AND A LOT OF GLIDERS cannot and never will have.

I can’t really believe ST does not understand, but I don’t know why he keeps hammering the point that SOME gliders have transponders, as if that means all could.

If I got a needle stuck in a groove saying SOME powered aircraft have BRS, TCAS, Autopilot, and two crew to look out, so all can, so why don’t you all do it - I suspect that he and others would soon get fed up.

As I am of having to remind people who keep hammering that some gliders can have transponders as if that means that all can.

And two transponding gliders have no communication to tell each other of impending collision – only ST etc. with TCAS, or those who also fit PCAS, could know. Flarm is better than that for glider/glider. It could be used for GA/glider. Why don’t they get Flarm as well as their other equipment?

Chris N.

Forgive me if this has been mentioned previously.

It is not only the lookout that is important but the eyes need to be focused. It is of little use being on instruments for a period of time and then proceed to lookout for something several miles away from your aircraft. Your eyes need to be focused for that distance, for you to see effectively. This takes time and not 5 seconds or so.

To focus you need to look at an object of that approximate distance, not just thin air.

This may sound like a wise guy statement but if you want to avoid completely the risk of a mid air collision, then stay on the ground. Mind you the aluminium /composite show will probably get you, from some other persons bad day at the office.

IO and others.

the idea that there is a lot less traffic at say 3000'+ can be a questionable assumption. This may be true of powered light aircraft but on a thermic day the gliders will operating as high as they can keep themselves. ie from cloudbase to 1000 - 1500 feet below cloudbase. So if it's a 5000' cloudbase day, there will be a lot of gliders in the 4000' band, particularly through the known choke points.

Sad to say Didcot/Abingdon is one of the said choke points

Chris I would not support a proposal that all gliders regardless of whether they fly in IMC or VMC have to have transponders.

The ones who want to fly in cloud should be equipt to a certain standard and their pilots should be trained to a glider pilot specific IMCR.

In VMC we fly see and avoid in clouds we cannot. In powered flight there are rules as to who can or cannot operate in clouds. As an ATP I could go out and buy myself A Europa. I could build it, spend a fortune on avionics. Would the CAA allow me to fly it in clouds? NO. Could I argue that gliders have exceptions so why not me?

On the other hand as a glider pilot I can buy an old wreck of a glider with minimal instrument flying instrumentation. I can have NO radio, little IMC flying experience and I can fly blind to all in clouds to my hearts content.

Is that a level playing field between power and gliders? is that fair morally never mind from a safety aspect?

Because see and avoid is a non starter in cloud flying there should be regulations to stop aircraft and pilots who are not equipt to be there from being there.

Like the example of the Europa in powered flight if the glider cannot meet the required standards and the same with the pilot it should be legally limited to day VMC ONLY. There is no valid or fair arguement for otherwise.

There is a fair arguement that gliders cannot fly normal VFR rules. To force them to do so would destroy the sport. We as power pilots know gliders maybe lurking in cloudbases so to be allowed to fly to glider specific VFR rules maybe FLARM should be looked at for all gliders.

Flarm is a good option for VMC gliders and an extra backup for IMC gliders but unless regulated as a requirement for all powered and non powered it can give a false sense of security.

Pace

IO540

With all your experience you must have noticed that some VFR pilots are very good at spotting other traffic and some are not. The more one works on lookout and scan the better ones gets, but it is not 100% and never will be.

100% of people have transponders above 3000 ft? This is not correct. Last weekend there were 2000 ish gliders flying, 99% with no transponder and most would have been at 3000+.

Some numbers;

There is about 7000 G reg c of a SEP aircraft. Most will have transponders, say 80%

There are 4000 micros, 99% will not have transponders. About 50% of these are “little aircraft” flown by ex C of A aircraft owners who fly them exactly the same as there old PA28/140’s (similar performance). Such people do not usually stooge around at low level.

There are 2200 LAA permit aircraft. Around 50% of these have radio, so less will have transponders. Reasonable guess, 30%? Most of these are flown by experienced PPL’s in the 50 + age bracket with old stile CAA PPL’s, who are as likely to fly at 3000 ft as anybody else.

Lastly, you have a very large number of paramotors, 12000+. These are mostly low level, but I have seen them at 4000ft, and they have flown over Everest.

The above represents the majority of UK light GA which will be flying on a Saturday afternoon in summer. The % with some kind of traffic avoidance system will be very low. There are only 2 – 400 PCAS units in the UK, Flarm is estimated at 200 and rising fast, TCAS etc is only on a small number of high end C of A machines. Last Saturday the few LARS units which were open were swamped and offering BS only, so right now we need to work on our lookout, encourage people to fit low cost traffic warning systems which are technically appropriate to the aircraft concerned and stop bleating for transponders.:ugh:

Rod1

That's because he is a professional. If the ASH is the glider you passed, the pilot in question flies B777 for Big Airways.

Rod, it's indeed possible that your picture is closer to the mark for weekend traffic. I rarely fly at weekends.

My comment about the correlation between Mode C carriage and altitude is based on an obvious observation of traffic reports by radar ATC.

I tend to fly either just below CAS or (if CAS base is in IMC; often the case under the LTMA) just below the cloudbase, so there will be negligible GA traffic above me. The vast majority of traffic reported to me in this situation is "level unknown". Most of this traffic is never spotted (by me or passengers) but when it is spotted it turns out to be way down below.

If OTOH I fly higher up, 3000ft+ which a lot of the time is above cloud, the vast majority of traffic spotted is reported with a known level (Mode C).

Anyway I have written this before many times. Maybe everything changes when the weekend comes and suddenly all the non-transponding pilots climb to great heights?

Transponder use is (as you well know) not just for the benefit of the few TCAS-equipped Cirrus SR22s etc. You get

- protection to jet transport TCAS, should you bust CAS (of course you never bust CAS but hundreds of other pilots manage it every year, with plenty having near misses with 737s etc)

- protection to jet transport TCAS in Class G (the only solution to CAT in G is more CAS, which nobody in GA wants, do they??)

- radar ATC can see your level and pass it to other pilots (hardly any point in calling any ATC unit if they cannot provide a radar service, but a RS is near-useless without it seeing altitudes)

- easier to get CAS transits (apart from airspace rules, a transponder makes you appear more professional)

- visibility to other planes that carry TCAS (fixed or portable) systems

Considering the average 30 year old spamcan costs about £5000/year to drag through the Annual, I don't really see this argument anymore. And the vast majority of "homebuilt" planes can have one fitted too - even if battery powered.

ChrisN,

Please get down off your pedestal and read my post again. You are possibly now getting stuff I have posted mixed up with stuff posted by others! Of course I know that rules don't allow the fitting of certain equipment to certain aircraft. As I mentioned to you before, I too have no clearance to fit FLARM or anything other equipment to the public transport aircraft that I fly. It already has the mandatory CAA fit and more besides. It looks like there is no possibility of FLARM being given a certification for PT in the near future; each individual aircraft type and mark would need individual certification at huge cost; I've also mentioned that before. Not only that, the aircraft is not owned by me, I don't pay the bills and I have little say in these issues. It will eventually be decided by EASA / CAA legislation, probably when it becomes enough of an issue in the Sunday papers.

Those who say "well if you don't like it stay on the ground then" are avoiding the issue; if I stayed on the ground someone else would take my place. I have no intention of giving up flying for a living just yet; I've been doing it for 32 years and it's what I'm best qualified to do.

I began the post above that you seem to object to so strongly, by mentioning the fact that pilot was talking to an ATC unit on the radio. In the past you told me that gliders can't speak to ATC, either.

This pilot managed to make intelligent use of his on-board equipment and battery power, whether or not he had it switched on for the whole flight is irrelevant. I was impressed that he seemed so professional and I said so. What do you expect me to say? You don't like it whan folk criticise glider pilots and yet you complain even more strongly because I just praised one.

Perhaps he should have switched everything off, not spoken to ATC and I should have just looked out better? I suggest you give this a break, it seems to be getting to you; it's not your personal responsibility to answer everything posted here, with increasing angst. I'm going to comment no more, I've got some flights to plan.

“Maybe everything changes when the weekend comes and suddenly all the non-transponding pilots climb to great heights?”

This is true; the aircraft get above 0 feet! At my strip, it is unusual to find anybody flying Monday – Thursday 8am to 6pm and Friday 8am to 1pm. On a good weekend everything is up. Most gilding clubs operate one day during the week and at weekends. I occasionally fly during the week and the situation is hugely different. It is normally possible to get a traffic service, the airspace is much less crowded and some classes of aircraft are almost entirely absent from the sky. Even at a weekend, at significant altitude, say 6 – 10k, there is less traffic, but CAS normally makes this impractical. I regularly fly my LAA machine at 7 – 10k over the more remote parts of the UK (with mode C).

I am not anti transponder; I have mode c and have helped several people fit second hand units to LAA type aircraft. However, with the current regulations and the current fleet most flying machines will not have one for the foreseeable future. Try to get the BGA to push transponders and you will get “not technically possible”. Try to get them to recommend FLARM + PCAS and you have a chance as it is both technically feasible and much less expensive. As collision systems come onto the market which will combine the two, we are moving in a positive direction.

Rod1

Rod

In the very long thread "Flying out of CAS IMC now dangerous?" which was started by myself a lot was made that the chances of collision with gliders in or out of IMC was negligable.

It was stated by a number of the gliding fraternity that a VMC glider collision would be between gliders only and NOT powered aircraft.

Ironically during the course of my thread a collision has occurred between a powered aircraft and a glider with tragic loss of life.

In my case the near collision was at between 5000 and 6000 feet in IMC. So where do we go from here?

There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by the gliding fraternity clinging onto unwarranted excemptions that gliders enjoy to what the rest of us have to comply with.

Sadly we have loss of life in a VMC collision I really hope we are not in these forums in the future discussing a collision with a glider and CAT with a large loss of life as then all our freedoms will go faster than a blink.

No one will care whether this or that is capable of being fitted in a glider as there will then be NO choice for any of us.

Pace

While I agree with you, and when I can I always fly above 5000' (6.5-9.5k is a good altitude), many places in the UK you can't. For example along the Solent everyone is squashed to below 2000' unless you manage to get a clearance from Solent to go higher. Invariable everyone then decides to fly at 1700-1900' in any direction!! Scary stuff, and I sometimes wonder whether you'd actually be safer flying at sub 1000' (say 800') in these areas or ask Solent if you can fly at 2100' (or higher if they will clear you - I reckon a 2100' clearance should be no problem). Perhaps there should be advisory altitudes "Aircraft heading west do so at 1500', aircraft heading east fly at 2000'"? You are unlikely to find many other aircraft that low, most going into Bournemouth will be at 1700-1900 too.

May I also remind you that very sadly there has been another middar this year, again in VMC, and resulting in the lose of 4 lives. No gliders were involved in that one.

'clinging on to exemptions' had nothing whatsoever to do with the first middair (it didn't involve a glider), and since the second was in VMC I doubt very much it had anything to do with that either. Hopefully the AAIB will produce informative reports on both, hopefully PDQ. In the meantime, if you are so concerned, there are a number of suggestions in the thread about how you can mitigate the risk to yourself that are either free or pretty cheap. Implement at least some of them. Otherwise the rest of us will have excellent grounds for complaining that:

There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by Pace

Pace

“There appears to be a reluctance to do anything and nothing but excuses by the gliding fraternity”

I am no longer a glider pilot, but I do understand gliding. I have experience of fitting Transponders in “low” electric aircraft. I was involved in the aircraft interoperability consultations (from an LAA POV) and am aware of the BGA’s case and the CAA reaction to it.

The only reluctance on this thread has been yours to listen.:ugh: Transponders in the existing glider fleet are not going to happen. Had the glider in the collision recently had a transponder, it would, I suspect, have made no difference.

A workable anti collision system has been proposed and some of us are busy testing it. Had BOTH the aircraft in this tragic incident had FLARM and PCAS, I suggest it is most unlikely it would have happened. I am in touch with a manufacturer who has a prototype box which will provide collision avoidance for both FLARM and transponder aircraft. If my FLARM test is ok, I will give details on how to help this along.

Now, are you going to carry on winging, or help with a practical solution?:rolleyes:

My thanks to Chris for testing my PCAS (has yours turned up now?) and for loaning me his FLARM.:ok:

Rod1

I have the required licences to fly in IMC as well as in CAS. The aircraft I fly which do not belong to me all have Mode C or S, some have TICAS.
I would not consider flying any aircraft in IMC without a transponder.

So as long as your happy to do what I do Im happy too.

Pace

Pace, you have made your feelings clear on another thread.

I can find no statement there that a VMC collision WOULD be between glders, only that it was more probable.

Your concern was IMC, and to drag your arguments into an entirely different subject is (in my opinion) in poor taste. I understand the Tutor does not carry PCAS, and therefore carriage of Mode C/S (as you insist should be the case) would not have been useful.

'Unwarranted' is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. If you would like to reduce universal risk, entering into a discussion on affordable and effective traffic information systems (they exist but are deemed not acceptable by the regulatory authorities) would be (again in my opnion) a more rational approach. There has been much more than 'nothing but excuses' from other sections of the aviation community if you would only listen.

Rod

If you read my previos threads I am all for Flarm and PCAS as a solution.

I note in your section pasted above you post this Would you be in favour of getting a system worked out and then compulsory fitting of the above. If that is the case then this would be a workable solution and I would be happy to persuade my owners to fit the kit in their aircraft on top of Transponders and TICAS.

But if its not unilateral or at least nearly a majority use we are all wasting our time.

Pace

Pace has a valid point. How does one protect themselves and their passengers when you simply have to rely on the Mk1 eyeball and all it's failings? In a Jet at 250kts at 6000' in receipt of a radar service, but HAVING to be outside CAS, one would feel pretty pissed off if one then slams into a glider because no one knew it was there (ref. Hawker 800XP and Glider outside Reno last year). I say Glider because chances are a Light aeroplane with engine may show a primary return on a radar.

There are several solutions to this: a) Increase CAS to keep people out, b) Mandate that everyone fit transponders so that the likes of Pace in his Citation can have fair warning of someone doing steep turns at 6000 just below the airway he is about to pop out of, or c) Come to a compromise, for example all aeroplanes in IMC MUST transpond? or d) make aeroplanes ighly radar visible without having to have a transponder fitted (i.e. radar reflectors) or e) have Transponder mandatory zones in certain busy areas.

I'd vote for e) myself.

Pace

“But if its not unilateral or at least nearly a majority use we are all wasting our time.”

The vast majority of Transponder fits in UK SEP aircraft are not mandated. Most people think it is a good idea, if their aircraft is capable, it gets fitted (out of there own pocket). I fall into this category, as do many other pilots and owners who are restricted to VFR by aircraft type (in my case) or pilot qualification, or both.

If we can prove that Flarm / PCAS works well then lets try and persuade the BGA to recommend it on Gliders, and the LAA / BMAA to recommend it where possible on their aircraft (weight shift may not work). There may be no point in some vintage and training machines fitting it, but if the majority “go any distance” aircraft had it we would all be a bit safer. As we are talking about portable battery powered devices you could even get your own, so you would always have it with you…

This is an argument we can probably win. Trying to push transponders is doomed, and of almost no help unless you have some form of CAS as well, which 90+% of aircraft do not have.

Rod1

Rod

That makes a lot of sense and thanks for your input.

To the others who feel i am being arrogant or not listening my apologies.

having had a glider flash past the wing in IMC and a realisation of what the consequences nearly were does make you focus on the problem and maybe more motivated on my opinions.

Hence maybe I of all the posters here have come across as dictatorial on the subject. thats not my intention so apologies.

Pace

Pace,

I think Rod's suggestion has some merit. What I object to, is the "fit a transponder or keep out" mentality. I've always thought FLARM has a place, and if a compromise has to be made, it is at least affordable, small, light and portable (so no CAA/EASA probs).

SS

Englishal: I think your suggestion about different inbound & outbound heights from an airfield is a good one. Funnily enough, the local training organisations at Bournemouth do in fact have their own "voluntary" system of 1700' outbound & 1300' inbound (I think...) - someone can confirm.

Saw the same when I was flying from St Cyr under the Paris TMA (terrain 300-500 AMSL below) & TMA @ 1500'QNH above, where we operated 1300' & 1100' QNH respectively along strict in/out routes. There you really needed to separate vertically as they passed within less than a km of each other!

One other major thing we could do: GET RID OF OUR INSANE O.H.J.!!

Nothing is better designed to put lots of unfamiliar aircraft in:
(i) a jumbled mess in the same piece of sky,
(ii) not knowing from which direction they're coming,
(iii) followed by a disorientation by putting them in an artificial turn that bears little relationship to the underlying circuit,
(iv) dumps them out potentially somewhere in the middle of downwind meaning the appropriate checks get rushed.

Unless there's something I'm missing, either the French-style "rectangular" OHJ or US-style "45 degree join" must be immeasurably simpler & safer for all concerned.

BFA

In another place on another thread on the same subject a glider pilot in Holland points out that it is nonesense gliders cant be fitted with transponders and goes on to say the whole fleet at his gliding club with the exception of a very few vintage models is fitted with transponders.

Someone is not telling the truth.

battery power
 

Fuji wotsit

Cloggies are a bunch of light weights! Have any Dutch pilot done 1,00km in the Netherlands? There are few ridges, no mountain waves and they are limited to thermals only. Few glider pilots fly long cross countries in the Netherlands and many are forced into Germany to fly sensible cross countries, thus no need to run transponders for lengthy periods. The Amsterdam TMA is over large and has an unacceptably low base, this is environmental vandalism at its worst and excludes much of the flying activity in the local area. Last Sunday one UK glider pilot was airborne 10 hr 50 min (he is working on flying faster next time!) Do the sums, 1.6 AH for 11 hrs exceeds his battery power by over 40 %.
Besides the cloggies have been banned from using their transponders near the TMA
b b

I wonder how many gliders fly for more than 5 hours?

There are always exception - but the exceptions do not enable you to evade the point - if gliders in clogg land as you put it can and do fit transponders under EASA why cant the same gliders do so in roast beef land?

In defence of the MK 1 Eyeball:

--It is not the MK 1....... I make no apologises to the Creationists amongst you.

--they are incredibly powerful versatile visual sensors; and the good news is that if you are a pilot and reading this you are very lucky to have a pair in good condition (possibly only needing refractive assistance).

--they are FREE. When you won Life's Lottery and found your consciousness awakening in the body of a human being you didn't have one but two at NO COST.

-- yes like all equipment they have shortcomings which have to be appreciated.

With respect to the shortcomings these mainly centre around the difficulty in detecting threats with no relative motion ,as most are aware. Back to my query concerning the use of lights / beacons call them what you will. If I can stand at the threshold of Birmingham Airport (don't ask) staring back up the approach; see an aircraft on its 30 degreee intercept (rel motion); not see it on the glideslope (constant bearing no rel motion); then see it on the glideslope as soon as it switches on its' landing lights. That's 10nm + and these lights are constant not flashing which I suspect would grab the eyes attention even more.

Okay so the lights are a "billion candelera" but surely if is possible to engineer a Light Aviation sensible equivalent........or maybe not?

TIM

Why should they?

Unfortunately, not.

1, they are high power, so would flatten a battery in minutes, and burn out an alternator. CAT has much higher power available.

2. They are directional, being primarily the equivalent of headlights, and the threat is 3 dimensional.

Strobes have peak brightness as high as possble, and experiments show that you can identify an aircraft (in daylight) that has a strobe once you have visually acquired it. The presence of the strobe has no statistically significant effect on the range of acquisition. (Cranfield University conspicuity test flights).

But let's keep thinking - FLARM is not the only solution, but it is one that exists and works. If regulatory authorities permitted 10 times the transmit power (which would have only a small effect on unit power, since transmit time is very short) then range in the 10s of Kms is possible, allowing sufficient time for faster traffic to be aware. Of course, the regulators would probably want gold plated certification, multiplying the price by 10, but if united political effort was put into pushing the safety angle, who knows what is possible.

Fuji, for the record, I asked a Dutch glider pilot who has the same type of glider as mine how he was able legally to fit a transponder, when under EASA there was at that time no approved scheme as far as I could find out.

I had hoped to be able to do what he did.

He sent me a drawing, and implied that they just did it without EASA approval. As far as I could find out, there was no EASA approval for installing one of any make at that time in this glider type. As I have posted before, there is now, but limited to three specific models of transponder which does not include Trig.

I don’t know which model transponder he fitted, but I don’t think Trig was available then. Without a major instrument panel change – and even then I don’t know how I would make more room – the Trig TT21 appears to be the only one I can fit, and it is not covered by an EASA approved modification for my glider. Other people with different instrument levels and specifications may have more room for other transponders. The Trig is the only one I am reasonably sure will fit in mine.


Chris N.