Flying at 250 Kts in E,F and G airspace.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Midlands
Age: 50
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Methinks that we need a bit of co-operation here.
Ultimately if a heavy jet collides with a passenger aircraft we all lose out.
Glider pilots need to realise that the rules of the air won't always keep them alive because they are reliant on the see and be seen principle. In the interests of safety they should avoid situations where they may be likely to come into conflict with commercial traffic. However, the problem here relates to uncontrolled airspace and so surely it makes sense that the notams system could help address this. Gliders can travel some distance from the site, so notamming the site is only the start of it. Airlines operating flights in uncontrolled airspace should be made aware of potentiol conflicts brought out by good wave soaring or thermalling conditions in the vicinity of their flight path. For the glider pilot self preservation must also include being aware of commercial operations taking place in your vicinity.
Airline pilots must appreciate that when they are not in controlled airspace, they must maintain a thorough look-out. Gliders are difficult to spot, but most are painted white because of their glassfibre construction. The white colouring minimises the damage caused to the glass fibre by the UV rays of the sun and so the structure retains its strength and longevity. I dread to think what ATC or TCAS would do if 40 to 50 thermalling gliders equipped with lightweight transponders were in one area with constantly changing headings and altitudes(as can be had at competitions), the headaches just don't bear thinking about! Gliders thermalling may only be doing 45 to 50 knots and their options for collision avoidance are limited. They gain speed at the expense of height so if you are descending towards them they have even fewer options left. I also dread to think what wake turbulance would do in the event of a nearmiss.
With such limited airspace in the UK, segregation is not the way ahead, but more communication about each others activities has to be a step in the right direction.
Anyone know why gliders couldn't be fitted with a battery powered strobe light? Anything is better than nothing surely.
Ultimately if a heavy jet collides with a passenger aircraft we all lose out.
Glider pilots need to realise that the rules of the air won't always keep them alive because they are reliant on the see and be seen principle. In the interests of safety they should avoid situations where they may be likely to come into conflict with commercial traffic. However, the problem here relates to uncontrolled airspace and so surely it makes sense that the notams system could help address this. Gliders can travel some distance from the site, so notamming the site is only the start of it. Airlines operating flights in uncontrolled airspace should be made aware of potentiol conflicts brought out by good wave soaring or thermalling conditions in the vicinity of their flight path. For the glider pilot self preservation must also include being aware of commercial operations taking place in your vicinity.
Airline pilots must appreciate that when they are not in controlled airspace, they must maintain a thorough look-out. Gliders are difficult to spot, but most are painted white because of their glassfibre construction. The white colouring minimises the damage caused to the glass fibre by the UV rays of the sun and so the structure retains its strength and longevity. I dread to think what ATC or TCAS would do if 40 to 50 thermalling gliders equipped with lightweight transponders were in one area with constantly changing headings and altitudes(as can be had at competitions), the headaches just don't bear thinking about! Gliders thermalling may only be doing 45 to 50 knots and their options for collision avoidance are limited. They gain speed at the expense of height so if you are descending towards them they have even fewer options left. I also dread to think what wake turbulance would do in the event of a nearmiss.
With such limited airspace in the UK, segregation is not the way ahead, but more communication about each others activities has to be a step in the right direction.
Anyone know why gliders couldn't be fitted with a battery powered strobe light? Anything is better than nothing surely.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SV Marie Celeste
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To go back to the Tanker/sailboat comparison. A sailboat enforcing his right of way on the approaches of a busy habour would be foolish, likewise we do not expect a tanker steaming into a little cove. If an operator uses a small uncontrolled airport because it is: cheaper, quicker,etc he must accept the cost of longer/ slower approaches. Likewise if I insist in flying my PA28 into Gatwick I will have to put up with some serious delays.
A viable solution would be an approach corridor from defined airway points into the circuit/ILS with mandatory speeeds. Gliding traffic can then keep out of the way. Competitions can be organized away from the corridors.
To make a different comparison, pedestrians have a right of way in cebra crossings. I duly stop to let them pass, rather than say : "well it is two tons of metal you are against". Some days it is raining, perhaps I am distracted, the visibility is poor... I miss somebody waiting to cross and I don't stop. He/she waits a little longer, comon sense prevails. This doesn't excuse me from my responsability to stop.
I realize that the view is not great over the nose of a 737 (I fly one most days) but minimum clean speed is 210kts or less (NG) The responsability must lie with us if we operate into uncontrolled GA airfields.
A viable solution would be an approach corridor from defined airway points into the circuit/ILS with mandatory speeeds. Gliding traffic can then keep out of the way. Competitions can be organized away from the corridors.
To make a different comparison, pedestrians have a right of way in cebra crossings. I duly stop to let them pass, rather than say : "well it is two tons of metal you are against". Some days it is raining, perhaps I am distracted, the visibility is poor... I miss somebody waiting to cross and I don't stop. He/she waits a little longer, comon sense prevails. This doesn't excuse me from my responsability to stop.
I realize that the view is not great over the nose of a 737 (I fly one most days) but minimum clean speed is 210kts or less (NG) The responsability must lie with us if we operate into uncontrolled GA airfields.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fleetwood
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at both sides of the argument it is pretty clear that what is needed is some means of providing additional 3D situational awareness with sufficient resolution and range to let you see conflicting traffic.
The problem of collision avoidance is not just confined to gliders and heavy metal, but all users of the air from Balloons and airships upwards to heavy metal. There are also the personality issues to overcome of the tanker driver and yachtie type.
We all know the Mk1 eyeball is not perfect, it and the brain also get confused.
I noted a couple of posts mentioning Transponders, and Mode S, whilst these are a start, a basic altitude encoding transponder is realy of any use if the platform is also carrying a radar reflector. Also (from memory because its a couple of years since I was involved in researching collision avoidance) I believe that TCAS azimuth resolution isn't that fantastic. Indeed someone else pointed this out already.
There are really two ways of technically achieving collision avoidance, co-operative and self sensing. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Self sensing -
advantages - You dont need anyone else to tell you they are there, so it matters not if their transponder is U/S or not
disadvantages - costly, heavy, likely to be only fitted to larger platforms
Co-operative -
advantages - proably get em light enough to be of use to all, might be cheep enough to make people think they are worth the money
disadvantages - everyone needs to be in on the game or they are worthless. Legislation needed to get em in use!
Something like ADS-B looks like the sort of way to go, it a co-operative system. The FAA are conducting ADS-B trials in Alaska, Safeflight 2001 I think they are called, which appear to have been progressing well.
As an Avionics Systems Engineer (not a pilot, but would love to be (GA) when I get the weight off
) I can see that there are many many technical issues to overcome.
However one solution might be a device, similar to ADS-B mandated to be fitted to EVERY airborne platform that would be:
* capable of transmitting information such as altitude, position, heading, ground speed and maybe platform type.
* It would also need to be capable of receiving such information in a densly populated airspace such as round Oshkosh it would need to be pretty good at data management too
* capable of calculating collision threats for each of the targets it receives
* capable of providing the operator of the platform collision threats probably prioritised,
* Cheap and affordable
* Reliable
* lightweight (Mobile phone sized) for GA use
* If portable have a prolonged battery life
Any technical solution would need to be universally accepted and would really still only be advisary because things will and do fail. I believe that safe separation is a multi layered thing with the Mk1 eyball being its last layer of defence.
The above outline is just my view and does not constitute a design
Anyway just my spanner in an already confusing works. Sorry for such a long ramble
The problem of collision avoidance is not just confined to gliders and heavy metal, but all users of the air from Balloons and airships upwards to heavy metal. There are also the personality issues to overcome of the tanker driver and yachtie type.
We all know the Mk1 eyeball is not perfect, it and the brain also get confused.
I noted a couple of posts mentioning Transponders, and Mode S, whilst these are a start, a basic altitude encoding transponder is realy of any use if the platform is also carrying a radar reflector. Also (from memory because its a couple of years since I was involved in researching collision avoidance) I believe that TCAS azimuth resolution isn't that fantastic. Indeed someone else pointed this out already.
There are really two ways of technically achieving collision avoidance, co-operative and self sensing. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Self sensing -
advantages - You dont need anyone else to tell you they are there, so it matters not if their transponder is U/S or not
disadvantages - costly, heavy, likely to be only fitted to larger platforms
Co-operative -
advantages - proably get em light enough to be of use to all, might be cheep enough to make people think they are worth the money
disadvantages - everyone needs to be in on the game or they are worthless. Legislation needed to get em in use!
Something like ADS-B looks like the sort of way to go, it a co-operative system. The FAA are conducting ADS-B trials in Alaska, Safeflight 2001 I think they are called, which appear to have been progressing well.
As an Avionics Systems Engineer (not a pilot, but would love to be (GA) when I get the weight off
) I can see that there are many many technical issues to overcome. However one solution might be a device, similar to ADS-B mandated to be fitted to EVERY airborne platform that would be:
* capable of transmitting information such as altitude, position, heading, ground speed and maybe platform type.
* It would also need to be capable of receiving such information in a densly populated airspace such as round Oshkosh it would need to be pretty good at data management too
* capable of calculating collision threats for each of the targets it receives
* capable of providing the operator of the platform collision threats probably prioritised,
* Cheap and affordable
* Reliable
* lightweight (Mobile phone sized) for GA use
* If portable have a prolonged battery life
Any technical solution would need to be universally accepted and would really still only be advisary because things will and do fail. I believe that safe separation is a multi layered thing with the Mk1 eyball being its last layer of defence.
The above outline is just my view and does not constitute a design
Anyway just my spanner in an already confusing works. Sorry for such a long ramble
