Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 10
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845307
Shoestring Flyer wrote:
Cub wrote:
Shoestring Flyer wrote:
The Goodwood trial drones are going to be using 978Mhz!..
So no-one will be able to 'see' them! :evil:


I am no longer directly involved but I don’t believe that is true.


I only hope that you are correct? I would stand corrected if that is so.
I only know what I have read and heard and the only frequency mentioned is 978Mhz which doesn't seem logical me.


The CAA’s Airspace Change Portal contains the latest edition of the Trial Plan
https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/umbraco/Surface/DocumentSurface/DownloadDocument/2833

The only reference to the use of 978 MHz , I can see, remains in relation to the supporting TIS-B and FIS-B transmissions.
Shoestring Flyer liked this
User avatar
By T67M
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845313
Sooty25 wrote:Whilst I'm fully aware of the potential air-to-air benefits, we really must resolve the privacy issues and ensure our data remains air-to-air, air-to-traffic control only. The day it is announced that EC is to become mandatory, will be the same day I petition OfCom to go after every single FR24 et al, receiver station under Section 48 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act.


The problem is that criminals by definition don't obey the law, and we cannot put the Software Defined Radio genii back in the bottle. The problem is that (almost) all of the current EC transmitters are fundamentally insecure from a privacy point of view. Changing the receiving end isn't the solution - it's the sending end which needs to change to achieve what you're looking for.
#1845318
From my own experience as ex-RAF FJ, latterly glider/GA pilot. We were taught to use the mk 1 eyeball first and foremost when looking outside the cockpit. it's called VFR for a reason, but are we heading to a total reliance on electronics in our hobby than 'proper flying?' I'd say so, to the point that I have flown over the last 17 years in gliders as well as a career of 12 years in military aviation from the 80's and beyond that to GA as a hobby and it has changed in most aspects. I own a permit aircraft, I fly other GA types full of electronic wonderment too and have resisted the 'head down' approach as PIC. End of CV.

To highlight more recent events, on occasion a Cessna or something Piper has shot over my glider site below the minimum level and the pilot of said a/c blundered on at a level collision course with other gliders - not using mk1 EB (as discussed earlier), only for glider pilots to notice the potential conflict and abandon the nice warm column of lift and seek safer air. What was he/she/they doing? I hear you say, probably looking at his/her/their electronic devices, head down and clearly not outside, when he/she/they should have been doing just that. Probably, just probably.

Whilst the argument could be used for EC for all, we are FLARM capable, so in gliding terms, we can 'see each other' electronically, but if you are talking about fitting mode S or other higher power EC devices (permanently, not handheld) a glider only has what can be described as a 'burglar alarm backup battery' of some 7-10 ah to deal with all this - not good. Flying through Wales at low level in a clunky old hawk required more than a few fussy warning devices telling me I was going to contact with an object that had deliberately strayed into the LFA on a known route for FJ. fortunately I had a quicker way to relieve myself from the safety of the cockpit if this contact ever happened, with the black and yellow handle, gratefully, I never had to use it and this was some 40 years ago when GA based EC wasn't even a glint in it's parents eyes.

ATC has been interesting over the last 20+ years, after being offered a short term contract job on the evaluation unit at Swanwick, some 20 years ago (I never did take it - not my thing!) it was an eye opener as I realised that central ATC control was the future to everything ATC, remote head units, and even today, remote visual control towers in airports. I suspect that when we go fully to remotely piloted vehicles, the need for humans to support air operations will generally be defunct and my ' inner luddite' is screaming 'I told you that computers would kill of the need for the human race'. Maybe or maybe not, but for now we're stuck in the middle of this muddle.

Although I can see a very good safety argument for EC, it just gives the 'system' another nail to bang in the coffin for GA. Let me explain: it was mentioned earlier about EV mandating and the fact that we're all going to be driving EV's by 2030/40 (or near as dammit), regardless of whether you want to or not, also the fact that drone operations are going to replace a large chunk of air traffic at the lower levels (that GA currently enjoy) in the near future, it is clearly at odds with a bunch of private pilots who want to fly for fun - this will be cleared out of the way in favour of commercial drones, by mandating all kinds of barriers that we just won't get over (well, for the more budget conscious ones like me, anyway). Our willingness to comply with whatever the 'powers that be' have in store for us will have no bearing on the outcome as we twist turn and dance to tune they want us to play.

I am not normally pessimistic, but have a sneaking suspicion that EC may be contributory to the curtailing of our hobby, all it will take is one infringement too far or a MAC and that'll be the end of the GA hobbyist and added to the fact that all manner of EC/TCAS was being used at the time of the altercation , in fact 'lit up like a Christmas tree' - we just don't stand a chance. 'GA is just too dangerous' will become the mantra and attempts to ban it will be debated by our masters - I hope that never happens. On a parallel, the race towards driverless cars is heating up already to make roads 'safer' - CAT has got the potential capability to provide fully automated flight already, it's just that the tech isn't reliable (read, trusted) enough to convince humans that a robot/remote operator can be equally 'as good as another human' in the cockpit. The jury (for me anyway) is out on that one.

R&T
AndyR liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845326
One aspect of the road to the future that is not really thought about, because it's essentially the stuff of science fantasy in many folks minds, is where we are in software engineering development.

To put it in perspective a bit you can think of it as being where mechanical engineering was when Stephenson built the Rocket. The next 5 decades are going to be amazing , but sadly I'll not be here to admire it.

I did enjoy being in at the invention of the "steam engine" and watching (and even contributing a bit) its development to the point where "the Rocket" is giving reliable service though :-)
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845328
RipAndTear wrote:To highlight more recent events, on occasion a Cessna or something Piper has shot over my glider site below the minimum level and the pilot of said a/c blundered on at a level collision course with other gliders - not using mk1 EB (as discussed earlier), only for glider pilots to notice the potential conflict and abandon the nice warm column of lift and seek safer air. What was he/she/they doing? I hear you say, probably looking at his/her/their electronic devices, head down and clearly not outside, when he/she/they should have been doing just that. Probably, just probably.


Why probably? They could have been folding their map, unsure of position and trying to reorient themselves, attending to a queasy passenger, diagnosing a problem, looking for other traffic which they had momentarily seen and subsequently lost sight of, or one of many other reasons. I'm not excusing flying through a marked winch zone - it's plain stupid - but you are allowing your obvious prejudice to influence your assumption.

RipAndTear wrote:Flying through Wales at low level in a clunky old hawk required more than a few fussy warning devices telling me I was going to contact with an object that had deliberately strayed into the LFA on a known route for FJ.

I have operated in Mid- and North Wales for over twenty-five years, and I had no idea that the airspace was exclusively reserved for fast jets. The AIAA is marked on charts as 2000'-6000' and the ATA as 6000' upwards. It's pretty difficult to fly below Alt 2000' without banging into ground in that area, so the notion of aircraft 'straying' into your playground is not actually one I can support.

The onus on avoiding an MAC in VMC is on both parties.
#1845338
GrahamB: No prejudice or assumptions implied, I did miss out the part of the glider site being in the middle of 3 danger areas, my error. The individual was not in comms with DACS or LARS and not even squawking VFR conspicuity as I also found out, they didn't observe good airmanship at all. Too judgemental?

As you know, operating in Mid/N. Wales, LFA's are clearly notified when they are operating for TTA operations, it takes a moment to glance through the publicly available .gov website if you fly in these areas regularly. I don't like your inference that it was 'our' play ground, if you are straying into notified LFA's, with dedicated slot times, that will be active 500 - 2000ft (TTA), you are more than likely to see military hardware close up and fast, particularly in LFA 7(T). other times you may have a Herc on your lap at 250 ft or to ground level for rotary. I don't understand your argument as I didn't say it was exclusive, just that I flew FJ, if I was rotary or multi FW, then I would have been a bigger pain in the 'arris for GA at even lower levels and un-notified outside of TTA. EC might take the pain away, but it takes two to tango.

R&T
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845347
@RipAndTear
Thanks for clarifying your first point; the pilot was either a numpty or lost, that we agree on, and either way it’s all our responsibility to maintain a good lookout whatever the circumstances. I’ll maintain your ‘probably’ is still a step too far for me, though.

On the second point, I owe you an apology in that I read LFA as AIAA. Whilst the LFA system may be well known about by pilots based in the area, it’s not something that is necessarily equally understood by those from further away.

I have had hard experience of the failure of the system as I was underneath the C152/Jaguar MAC when it took place in Carno back in the early 90s (although the Cessna pilot was absolutely at fault that day, IMO).
#1845349
One of those forever debates.

I suspect we will see far more drones operating in our airspace, so in this respect this will be a change.

Means of traffic detection has also become cheaper and lighter.

As matters stand I think there can be little doubt the risk of a collision due to lack of TA is incredibly small.

I think there may be a small increase in risk, and I think in combination with improvements in the equipment, in reality there will be a gradual transition to more pilots having this fitted, and at some point it will become manadatory for all, I just dont see there is enough impetus yet.

What percentage of the total fleet has TA of some sort? Do we actually know?

How many aircraft is their no viable equipment due to weight, power or modifications?
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845354
RipAndTear wrote:on occasion a Cessna or something Piper has shot over my glider site below the minimum level and the pilot of said a/c blundered on at a level collision course with other gliders - not using mk1 EB


I read the recent EC/Near miss thread where the RAF crew flying a jet at 250+kts "blundered through" a busy GA circuit and was reminded of these kind of glider pilot annecdotes. But dont forget as various (ex-mil?) posters pointed out, "the falcon jet crew were visual" so it was all safe, right?... I wonder if said cessna/piper type was visual and also considered it safe? What was the comment in the report "from our experience we didnt think it was busy because there was no ATZ"... Maybe said cessna/piper pilot has a similar experience of various marked glider sites which are generally not active and dont have a ATZ?

I cant help but think there is a bit of a trend to think "geez look at THAT guy (numpty?), doesnt he understand what WE're doing here? Thats pretty dangerous that he hasnt avoided us by a few miles." Where "THAT guy" doesnt do what "WE" do.

And WRT the Danger Area thing, in most parts of the world DAs are not Restricted Airspace or Controlled Airspace, the UK seems to have a uniquely variable interpretation on how to treat them, again, depending upon who you are and where you are.

Just sayin'...

SD..
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845385
MattL wrote:
patowalker wrote:Paul chose to accept the risk, which should be reflected in his pay grade. Peter should not be obliged to equip his aircraft to mitigate a statistically insignificant risk to himself.


Wow, well it’s certainly a view. I suspect Peter is going to be disappointed at which way the world is going to go over the next few years.


The key word is 'obliged'. Peter is not opposed to fitting EC voluntarily (and already has).
#1845401
skydriller wrote:
RipAndTear wrote:on occasion a Cessna or something Piper has shot over my glider site below the minimum level and the pilot of said a/c blundered on at a level collision course with other gliders - not using mk1 EB


I read the recent EC/Near miss thread where the RAF crew flying a jet at 250+kts "blundered through" a busy GA circuit and was reminded of these kind of glider pilot annecdotes. But dont forget as various (ex-mil?) posters pointed out, "the falcon jet crew were visual" so it was all safe, right?... I wonder if said cessna/piper type was visual and also considered it safe? What was the comment in the report "from our experience we didnt think it was busy because there was no ATZ"... Maybe said cessna/piper pilot has a similar experience of various marked glider sites which are generally not active and dont have a ATZ?

I cant help but think there is a bit of a trend to think "geez look at THAT guy (numpty?), doesnt he understand what WE're doing here? Thats pretty dangerous that he hasnt avoided us by a few miles." Where "THAT guy" doesnt do what "WE" do.

.....

SD..


I think you are right .... we need to understand both points of view. We recently had a Cessna overfly us at 1300AGL, about 2 minutes before a winch launch went off. We were able (courtesy of ATOM/GRID) to trace and contact the pilot so we could have a chat - he was most apologetic and had assumed we would not be operating due to the showers around that day (in fact the training team was timing launches in the clear slots) - so a case of improved understanding is all that is needed.

My only thought was that with something that received Flarm he might have noticed the two gliders on the ground at the launchpoint and realised we were active. Similarly for other small non-ATZ strips a common EC system would improve things.

It's all class G so "share and share alike" .......
#1845407
skydriller wrote: I wonder if said cessna/piper type was visual and also considered it safe? What was the comment in the report "from our experience we didnt think it was busy because there was no ATZ"... Maybe said cessna/piper pilot has a similar experience of various marked glider sites which are generally not active and dont have a ATZ?

I cant help but think there is a bit of a trend to think "geez look at THAT guy (numpty?), doesnt he understand what WE're doing here? Thats pretty dangerous that he hasnt avoided us by a few miles." Where "THAT guy" doesnt do what "WE" do.

And WRT the Danger Area thing, in most parts of the world DAs are not Restricted Airspace or Controlled Airspace, the UK seems to have a uniquely variable interpretation on how to treat them, again, depending upon who you are and where you are.

Just sayin'...

SD..


Fair comment SD, as I was in the air at the time and one of the 'scattering' glider pilots, I don't think the assumptions by the cessna/piper incident actually holds water as an enquiry would be unlikely to back any case that 'it looked safe' if physical contact had been made with another aircraft. It's a good job gliders don't have many 'onboard toys' to play with and a good lookout is essential.

Danger Areas, ah yes..that old chestnut - the direction the aircraft came from was due West, heading about 090 so this mean that he came through D125 which has a SFC to 50000 + limit when active or 3000 when not. The height was reported at 2000 or thereabout on airfield QFE, add on site elevation and you get approx 2600 QNH, D125 was active so the negligible 3000 ft amsl transit if the DA was inactive, has water poured on it straight away. D128 is SFC to 1400 amsl but the a/c ignored the glider site indication of winch launching to 3600 amsl - you couldn't miss the gliders on the ground either. I've seen footage of near misses with winch cables and light aircraft, but then again it only takes one individual to spoil everyone else's day - to put it lightly.

Usual story on this occasion, nobody got his reg and therefore he/she managed to get away to fly another day. This occurred over 10 years ago, but would onboard EC have made a difference today?

Who knows.

R&T
#1845414
IMCR wrote:Whilst I understand the rational, I struggle to see the sense in non compatible TAs. This has always seemed to me counter intuitive.


I completely agree....you would think that they could at least communicate with each other and tx/rx the data!! You could still have market competition based on the functionality and layout etc of the products but to have various different ways of doing the same thing is a bit bonkers!!

I did a bit of research on this in my last group as we were thinking of buying an EC system and found that, while there were devices that covered MOST of the different varieties (such as Air Avionics AT-1,) there was no single piece of equipment that covered ALL bases (i.e proprietary stuff like PAW).

Personally, I dont see why EC shouldnt be mandated.....The CAA have already stated their preferred method is ADS-B so, in the interests of enhanced safety and SA, I think they should demend that all aircraft fit EC as long as said equipment was sensible money. It does make me smile when folks bang on about not wanting to be seen and/or tracked. I've yet to hear a rational argument as to why, as a pilot, you would actually give a damn....


SD
IMCR liked this
#1845422
Spamcam - absolutely agree.

I will say that in my years of flying my biggest "fear" is gliders. Now please dont misunderstand me, I love to see gliders up. However, I am vey well aware they are easy to miss, and, while I am not sure this statistically makes sense, they do tend to congregate in small areas of airspace, at a variety of levels and , of course, often around the cloud base. Whilst this is often over gliding sites, which makes their activity predictable, it isnt always and often we all come across groups soaring along ridge lines.

If I had one wish it would probably be that I would like to be able to see gliders on TA.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 10