Andrew Horton said: > Not all power pilots necessarily know that >gliders may not monitor the area frequency.
I'd postulate that -most- glider pilots either aren't on the area frequency, and/or don't have a radio turned on anyway - because they aren't required to! (and I don't disagree with this, by the way. A simpler life while learning to fly - and while flying - is one of the appealing, and positive, things about gliding in my view) In a way, this may present a higher risk to the power pilots than to the glider pilots, in that at least the glider pilot is -expecting- (I hope!) to see other aircraft in the sky without prior warning. A power pilot, as a natural human thing, can't help but develop an unconscious semi-reliance on the radio warning him to haul his eyes out of the cockpit. There are other factors in this mix as well in the dynamics of flying in power. Buzzing along the same heading for hours at a time can create a mental form of tunnel vision, and turn the exercise into one of optimising your flying as an exercise in optimising use of the dials in front of you. This is one of the reasons why I welcome the new breed of powered aircraft that use modern engines and have half the number of dials, and (shock, horror) include innovations like electronic ignitions and similar improvements that allow the pilot to spend more time looking out of the window and less time making up for the shortcomings of 30 year old engine design by being a human mixture-control-feedback-loop with that engine. One thing we -know- as glider pilots is that there is a direct correlation between time spent looking out of the window (not at the dashboard) and decreased collision risk. Not that this is worth a damn if a skydiver comes at you from the one place you aren't looking - directly up. An 'interesting' (in a macabre sense) statistic to understand would be whether there is any significant incidence of collision between skydivers and powered aircraft. Since those powered aircraft -are- required to carry (and consult) charts that warn of the presence of skydiving clubs, and -are- required to use (and monitor) the relevant radio frequency, one would suspect that the probability of such accidents would enter the 'freak accident' category. Postulating for a moment that less powered aircraft find themselves breaking the fall of a skydiver (in the worst possible sense), what we wind up with, in those occasional accidents between skydivers and gliders, is a sense of the price we pay for our simpler lives. Its a very small price in global statistical terms, but its obviously a nonzero price, and we aren't the only ones paying it. Of course there are plenty of other flying things in the air at the same time as a skydiver too. Ultralights (but I'm sure they -do- have all the 'right' charts). Hang-gliders (but their lower X/C range means their local club operations probably include a briefing about the local skydiving clubs, and there aren't any remote ones to reach in this context), etc etc. >These charts don't cost all that much and can be obtained from pilot's shops >or from AirServices. Indeed - but in my gliding training, I don't recall this being pointed out to me at all. I (personally) think it should have been. I (personally) have all of these happy charts because I've gained a motor glider touring rating and they're necessary for me as I'm effectively the GFA version of a day-VFR rated pilot. So I'm very much aware of them. What I was trying to point out with the comment about skydiving clubs not being marked on a WAC chart, earlier, was not that these aren't marked on other charts (they usually are), but that I'd assert that most glider pilots on a cross country are carrying only a WAC chart because that is all the GFA system has trained them to expect to carry/need. I wonder what proportion of cross country rated (and active) glider pilots have ever SEEN an ERC Low chart. Which brings us back to how such a horrible accident could be possible in the first place. The answer is that its entirely possible, and probably about the only thing protecting us from the same outcome in Australia *is* the 'big sky' effect. i.e. its not so much 'protecting' us at all, its just lowering the probability of that outcome (substantially - we really don't have a lot of aviation traffic compared to the size of our land mass) So. Every day, the dice still gets spun when aviation gets committed in uncontrolled airspace. I don't disagree with this - I think 'uncontrolled airspace' is a tremendously good thing in the world. But (as with everything in gliding), 'uncontrolled' airspace does carry its own form of risks. I suppose what we, the readers of this list, can take away from this is the notion that cross country planning would be -safer- if it included reference to the ERC low and (where available) VNC charts. There is (in my personal view) a very very good argument for upgrading the level of training that is required for X/C ratings to include a working knowledge of the use of these charts. My idle speculation is that glider pilots (supervised by the GFA system) may just be the only regular users of this airspace that are -not- necessarily trained in the use of -all- of the applicable charts. Maybe in the end the reason why I never had this issue drummed into me when I was doing my initial training and then my X/C training was because my training club is nowhere near a skydiving club. Or anything much else, other than another gliding club. As I said earlier, the club I mostly fly from today, in Monarto, is near multiple skydiving clubs, and all the pilots who operate from Monarto are well aware of them. Being well aware of them, the notions of changing radio monitoring practices etc are less of an issue -for us- (though I still do it) - we just give the skydiving areas a wide berth (at all times, radio equipped or not). Again the risk factor has to do with the person on that once in a lifetime 1000 km cross country, whose planning includes reference to a WAC chart and nothing else. And the risk factor, lets face it, is -exceptionally low-. But it isn't zero. As a -reducable- risk, the advice to try to use those other charts, even if not mandatory, is surely sensible. Just as is the advice to try to use the radio, again despite not being mandatory, because the additional information might just help to save your life. I'm acutely aware that I'm on the edge of stepping on toes here, in being on the edge of stepping on that holy principle that 'we shalt not support additional regulation of our sport'. In so many areas, I agree with this. But in terms of adding a little bit of -education- into the GFA training processes about -all- of the available aviation charts (not just the WAC chart), I can't see this as a bad thing. Also, I'm not suggesting more regulation here. Just a bit more training. Because regulation might not save your life. A little more training just might. Maybe that training onus is already in the MOSP. I don't know, I'm not an instructor, and I haven't read it. Maybe someone that has might comment on what it -does- say about the use of all available aviation charts while planning a cross country flight. Cheers, Simon -- --- Simon Hackett, Technical Director, Internode Systems Pty Ltd 31 York St [PO Box 284, Rundle Mall], Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.on.net Phone: +61-8-8223-2999 Fax: +61-8-8223-1777 -- * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information.
