Thoughts on reducing risk of mid-airs.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Glider had had £390 worth of PCAS he would have “seen” the Tutor (assuming it had a transponder. If the BGA encouraged the fitting of Flarm and PCAS and the rest of us fitted Flarm and PCAS we would all be £1000 less well off but much less likely to fly into each other. I am hoping to test a Flarm in my MCR very soon (will report back) and already have PCAS. Collision avoidance which combines detection of Flarm and Transponders is less than 12 months away.
Flarm has a range of 3 - 5km (according to the manual), my PCAS is set to 5nm.
Rod1
Flarm has a range of 3 - 5km (according to the manual), my PCAS is set to 5nm.
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly high - that's the best option.
A parachute is no good if you have passengers, or if you got incapacitated.
IMHO, you will never spot the one that is going to hit you, for reasons already mentioned.
A parachute is no good if you have passengers, or if you got incapacitated.
IMHO, you will never spot the one that is going to hit you, for reasons already mentioned.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we are talking about reducing collision risks with gliders, do not fly in the band from cloudbase to 1000 or so feet below it. That's where the cross country gliders will be
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this whole topic should be broken down into parts:
Firstly, there are various things you can do to reduce the risk of collision that are unrelated to detecting the other aircraft. In short these "things" all revolve around avoiding areas with a high density of traffic - as IO540 says, fly high for example. I gave in my first post a list of other things that will help.
Secondly, developing a scan technique to give you the best chance of spotting another aircraft. However, kid yourself not, if you take the trouble to read all the research, our eyes are really not up to the job. You will get quite a different impression from this and other forum - all I can say is those who punt this are irresponsible and clearly havent read the research.
Thirdly, we can use technology to help. Technology inevitably is the last line of defence. The kids on the chopping block are PCAS, TAS, FLARM and transponders. FLARM is the odd one out because it is only gliders that really use FLARM and even then I personally suspect the uptake is no where near as large as they would have you believe. For that reason, transponders and PCAS or TAS IS the only game in town at the momement, if you have to select one or the other. The alternative is to have both.
Firstly, there are various things you can do to reduce the risk of collision that are unrelated to detecting the other aircraft. In short these "things" all revolve around avoiding areas with a high density of traffic - as IO540 says, fly high for example. I gave in my first post a list of other things that will help.
Secondly, developing a scan technique to give you the best chance of spotting another aircraft. However, kid yourself not, if you take the trouble to read all the research, our eyes are really not up to the job. You will get quite a different impression from this and other forum - all I can say is those who punt this are irresponsible and clearly havent read the research.
Thirdly, we can use technology to help. Technology inevitably is the last line of defence. The kids on the chopping block are PCAS, TAS, FLARM and transponders. FLARM is the odd one out because it is only gliders that really use FLARM and even then I personally suspect the uptake is no where near as large as they would have you believe. For that reason, transponders and PCAS or TAS IS the only game in town at the momement, if you have to select one or the other. The alternative is to have both.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secondly, developing a scan technique to give you the best chance of spotting another aircraft. However, kid yourself not, if you take the trouble to read all the research, our eyes are really not up to the job. You will get quite a different impression from this and other forum - all I can say is those who punt this are irresponsible and clearly havent read the research.
To draw the right conclusions from such research, one has to understand its scope...
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Entire UK gliderfleet airborne on Sunday
David Roberts points out that more than 200 crosscountry flights were logged on the BGA ladder site this day.(Sunday, 14 May) That is only a small proportion of cross country flights actually made. From our club alone, every single seater that could stagger into the air actually got somewhere. One pilot flew 723 kilometers, launching at 10 am and not returning until 8 pm; as I was supervising that day, was about to phone his wife to ask if he had notified her he might be late for dinner, when he arrived over the hedge.
We try to keep track of our people: before leaving they must note their proposed turning points in a Cross Country Book. But trying to contact them by radio from the ground is not done; most likely they are on a different frequency, or switched off in order to concentrate on the flying.
LOOKOUT,---THEN Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.
We try to keep track of our people: before leaving they must note their proposed turning points in a Cross Country Book. But trying to contact them by radio from the ground is not done; most likely they are on a different frequency, or switched off in order to concentrate on the flying.
LOOKOUT,---THEN Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji, there is no central source of figures for gliders with Flarm, because they are getting them from different places at different times. My guess is well over 200, of say 2300 gliders, and growing along an S-shaped curve – slow to start, then a rapid acceleration until most have them, then slow for the last few. It is a bit like the first few people who got telephones – not much use until a lot more got them, except for the few in an immediate communication circle who talked to each other. As the largest gliding club in the country has several dozen based there, and have fitted them to all their club fleet, my guess is that the rest at that club will rapidly follow except for the last few.
Similarly, it will happen at other clubs, probably the largest at first, and those hosting competitions, and those hosting lots of visiting pilots for mountain wave expeditions etc..
The experience of last Sunday has, I believe, added a lot more potential buyers of Flarm in the gliding community. I see quite a few people talking about it now. Maybe, just maybe, some of the other GA people will take more interest in it too.
After trying PCAS (the Zaon MRX), I took delivery of mine today. That will help detect transponder–equipped, GA, particularly the low level ones who insist on flying over glider winch-launching sites (in breach of Rule 12) and those when I am soaring at lower levels before getting higher than most GA flies at. (On a flight to try Rod’s PCAS which I borrowed, all the contacts but two were lower than me. One of the two exceptions was probably a Stansted departure. The other was when I was on the ground, and a spamcan flew over our winch launch area at about 1000 feet.)
In the short/medium term, only lookout will help with non-transponder equipped GA unless/until they become sold on the idea of Flarm too. As Rod says, £1000 buys PCAS and Flarm, and gives IMHO a huge leap without needing EASA and other obstacles to be overcome. Not perfect, not 100 percent, but a big improvement.
By the way, I expect my experience on Sunday was similar to many glider pilots. During a 7-hour flight between East Anglia and the Welsh border, the first hour was at 1-3000 feet and I saw a few spamcans (mostly in the choke area of class G just outside the Stansted CTA), including at least one that I saw over our winch launch site (my friends on the ground saw several more during the day); the middle 5 hours was mostly at 3-5000 feet, and I saw lots of gliders at my height range, but all the power GA I saw was lower; and the last hour was much quieter. When I was working Cambridge Approach, all the power GA I heard about was well below me.
So the greatest power/glider risk was mainly in the early part, before I could get high. After that, and for 80-90 percent of my flight, it was mostly glider/glider risk.
I have lost hope of convincing the anti-glider and/or pro-transponder brigade that Flarm (now Flarm + PCAS) is the most cost-effective and as well as the only widely practicable technology to reduce collision risk, but that’s where I am at.
Chris N.
Similarly, it will happen at other clubs, probably the largest at first, and those hosting competitions, and those hosting lots of visiting pilots for mountain wave expeditions etc..
The experience of last Sunday has, I believe, added a lot more potential buyers of Flarm in the gliding community. I see quite a few people talking about it now. Maybe, just maybe, some of the other GA people will take more interest in it too.
After trying PCAS (the Zaon MRX), I took delivery of mine today. That will help detect transponder–equipped, GA, particularly the low level ones who insist on flying over glider winch-launching sites (in breach of Rule 12) and those when I am soaring at lower levels before getting higher than most GA flies at. (On a flight to try Rod’s PCAS which I borrowed, all the contacts but two were lower than me. One of the two exceptions was probably a Stansted departure. The other was when I was on the ground, and a spamcan flew over our winch launch area at about 1000 feet.)
In the short/medium term, only lookout will help with non-transponder equipped GA unless/until they become sold on the idea of Flarm too. As Rod says, £1000 buys PCAS and Flarm, and gives IMHO a huge leap without needing EASA and other obstacles to be overcome. Not perfect, not 100 percent, but a big improvement.
By the way, I expect my experience on Sunday was similar to many glider pilots. During a 7-hour flight between East Anglia and the Welsh border, the first hour was at 1-3000 feet and I saw a few spamcans (mostly in the choke area of class G just outside the Stansted CTA), including at least one that I saw over our winch launch site (my friends on the ground saw several more during the day); the middle 5 hours was mostly at 3-5000 feet, and I saw lots of gliders at my height range, but all the power GA I saw was lower; and the last hour was much quieter. When I was working Cambridge Approach, all the power GA I heard about was well below me.
So the greatest power/glider risk was mainly in the early part, before I could get high. After that, and for 80-90 percent of my flight, it was mostly glider/glider risk.
I have lost hope of convincing the anti-glider and/or pro-transponder brigade that Flarm (now Flarm + PCAS) is the most cost-effective and as well as the only widely practicable technology to reduce collision risk, but that’s where I am at.
Chris N.
BTW major congrats to whoever did the 700k, and of course to everyone else who did anything.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should have added that I have borrowed Chris’s Flarm.
At the Weekend almost all the Gliders were up, a very large % of the Micros and the LAA fleet were also likely to be airborne. We all need to work on our lookout, but a practical traffic alerting solution is possible with current tec at a fraction of the cost of a transponder.
Rod1
At the Weekend almost all the Gliders were up, a very large % of the Micros and the LAA fleet were also likely to be airborne. We all need to work on our lookout, but a practical traffic alerting solution is possible with current tec at a fraction of the cost of a transponder.
Rod1
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following on from the various 'collision threads' I have done some eyesight checking -- and am depressed.
At every opportunity when I have had another aircraft on collision course (normally following someone on a departure - so not a big threat), I find it very difficult to see that stationary dot more than about 1.5 NM away. Even at 1 NM, I need to 'know' where the target is to see it. On the other hand, if a target has relative motion, I can usually pick it out up to about 4-5 NM.
In every case traffic has been called to me, I can only see it after relative motion has started to be noticeable.
The conclusion, I can't see en-route traffic in time to do anything about a collision - If I can see it, I am going to miss it anyhow!
Obviously coming near the circuit is different as everyone is changing course all the time, so you have a good chance to spot most traffic and avoid turning into someone.
At every opportunity when I have had another aircraft on collision course (normally following someone on a departure - so not a big threat), I find it very difficult to see that stationary dot more than about 1.5 NM away. Even at 1 NM, I need to 'know' where the target is to see it. On the other hand, if a target has relative motion, I can usually pick it out up to about 4-5 NM.
In every case traffic has been called to me, I can only see it after relative motion has started to be noticeable.
The conclusion, I can't see en-route traffic in time to do anything about a collision - If I can see it, I am going to miss it anyhow!
Obviously coming near the circuit is different as everyone is changing course all the time, so you have a good chance to spot most traffic and avoid turning into someone.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
Did the pilot flying the 700km plus set a new record? Any more details, please?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
Good for him, any idea of his route?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was being approached head on by traffic at same height....I'd drop down 100'. That is the thing I like about flying with a ZAON XRX - the azimuth data is pretty good but so long as there is a vertical offset no collision.
One thing though, very rarely does a collision happen in S&L flight. Normally it is caused by one or both aircraft manoeuvring - makeing turns, climbing, descending.
Regarding FLARM - if it is interfaced to the Garmin x96 GPS's then you can have audio warnings as well as position displayed on the GPS screen. I interface the ZAON through the 496 and it displays the traffic on the GPS and tells me when there is dangerous traffic about as I also have the 496 wired into the intercom. If I could somhow get a FLARM box without built in GPS (cheaper), then inject the NEMA position into the FLARM box from the 496, then interfece the FLARM box back to the 496 to display the traffic on the screen then one could have a very neat FLARM installation which could be hidden behind the panel - possibly just having a hull mounted antenna installed (is that a Mod?)....Would be great if you could do the same with a ZAON type box and have a hull mounted antenna for that.
One thing though, very rarely does a collision happen in S&L flight. Normally it is caused by one or both aircraft manoeuvring - makeing turns, climbing, descending.
Regarding FLARM - if it is interfaced to the Garmin x96 GPS's then you can have audio warnings as well as position displayed on the GPS screen. I interface the ZAON through the 496 and it displays the traffic on the GPS and tells me when there is dangerous traffic about as I also have the 496 wired into the intercom. If I could somhow get a FLARM box without built in GPS (cheaper), then inject the NEMA position into the FLARM box from the 496, then interfece the FLARM box back to the 496 to display the traffic on the screen then one could have a very neat FLARM installation which could be hidden behind the panel - possibly just having a hull mounted antenna installed (is that a Mod?)....Would be great if you could do the same with a ZAON type box and have a hull mounted antenna for that.
Dave Robert's post on the previous page mentions the Daily Scores website:
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ml#post4999839
As Mary said, loads and loads and loads of flights for Sunday, and many more that weren't put on the ladder, plus many more soaring instructionals. It's going a tad far to suggest that every glider in the UK flew as conditions further north were horrible, but well over 1,000 seens not unreasonable.
Someone at Lasham declared just over 1,000k, he didn't quite make it.
The north-most launches seem to be Rufforth, Pocklington & Sutton Bank, and they tasked to the south.
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ml#post4999839
As Mary said, loads and loads and loads of flights for Sunday, and many more that weren't put on the ladder, plus many more soaring instructionals. It's going a tad far to suggest that every glider in the UK flew as conditions further north were horrible, but well over 1,000 seens not unreasonable.
Someone at Lasham declared just over 1,000k, he didn't quite make it.
The north-most launches seem to be Rufforth, Pocklington & Sutton Bank, and they tasked to the south.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus Design developed special colour paints (took quite a lot of effort and time) to break out of the "Got To Be White" tradition.
Look at Photos: Cirrus SR-22 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Perhaps the RAF will in future be saying to any training aircraft supplier that "Got To Be White" doesn't hold true anymore and we're not buying any more of them...?
Maybe the glider manufacturers could approach Cirrus to see about how to get some of this paint, assuming suitable, onto gliders too.
The colour paint is relatively new technology. Personally from an 'avoiding mid-airs' I would like to see it used as widely and often as possible, considering how much 'got to be white' we are collectively capable of putting in the sky on a nice day.
Look at Photos: Cirrus SR-22 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Perhaps the RAF will in future be saying to any training aircraft supplier that "Got To Be White" doesn't hold true anymore and we're not buying any more of them...?
Maybe the glider manufacturers could approach Cirrus to see about how to get some of this paint, assuming suitable, onto gliders too.
The colour paint is relatively new technology. Personally from an 'avoiding mid-airs' I would like to see it used as widely and often as possible, considering how much 'got to be white' we are collectively capable of putting in the sky on a nice day.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thoughts on Lookout
Several posters have noted the relaitive difficulty of spotting a static (ie real risk of collision exists) target as against one where there is relative movement across the canopy (and low/no risk of collision)
However gliders rarely fly in straight lines and very few GA aircraft are required to.
To avoid the dots staying static before your eyes, first, move your head: a moving-head scan (IMHO) picks up more than a long stare. Second, manoever the aircraft. Pre aeros/spins checks recognise the need for 'clearing turns' to get a good view in blind spots above/below/behind; well why not do some in normal flight? They don't have to be knife-edge manoevres to panic the pax, just avoid sustained stright-line flight - every change of heading (with its instinctive associated extra lookout) increases chances to acquiring a target.
Not rocket science, but every little helps
'Simples!'
BTW, I question the contributor who reckons greatest risk of collision is in the circuit: with everyone going the same direction, with the same intention and on the same frequency, all these factors reduce collision risk.
My top candidate for a collision black spot is a recognisable landmark, suitable for use as a glider or GA cross country turning point, especially if it also marks a choke point between areas of controlled airspace. The combination of the controlled areas squeezing non-IFR traffic into smaller spaces and the landmark attracting them multiplies the dots on the canopy amazingly!
However gliders rarely fly in straight lines and very few GA aircraft are required to.
To avoid the dots staying static before your eyes, first, move your head: a moving-head scan (IMHO) picks up more than a long stare. Second, manoever the aircraft. Pre aeros/spins checks recognise the need for 'clearing turns' to get a good view in blind spots above/below/behind; well why not do some in normal flight? They don't have to be knife-edge manoevres to panic the pax, just avoid sustained stright-line flight - every change of heading (with its instinctive associated extra lookout) increases chances to acquiring a target.
Not rocket science, but every little helps
'Simples!'
BTW, I question the contributor who reckons greatest risk of collision is in the circuit: with everyone going the same direction, with the same intention and on the same frequency, all these factors reduce collision risk.
My top candidate for a collision black spot is a recognisable landmark, suitable for use as a glider or GA cross country turning point, especially if it also marks a choke point between areas of controlled airspace. The combination of the controlled areas squeezing non-IFR traffic into smaller spaces and the landmark attracting them multiplies the dots on the canopy amazingly!
It would be fine to have new aircraft painted with the Cirrus paints assuming they are suitable and Cirrus will release the technology. But, there are large numbers of 'legacy' aircraft which are white because they are composite, and buying Flarm and TCAS is far, far cheaper than getting a glider refinished or (I imagine) an aircraft painted...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not arguing against FLARM. TCAS etc. Highlighting "Got To Be White" ain't necessarily so anymore.
If I were RAF AEF I would be interested in at least a costing for putting some of this paint on an existing GRP aircraft. And FLARM, and TCAS.
If I were RAF AEF I would be interested in at least a costing for putting some of this paint on an existing GRP aircraft. And FLARM, and TCAS.