Paraglider winching aka kiteing

[son_of_flubber]

Here is something completely new to me: Paragliders set up temporary winch sites in interesting places.

A terrific video of a near miss between a power plane and winch line taken from the paraglider perspective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFKsk8mPnPQ

More information about the incident on a UK General Aviation forum http://ukga.com/forum/viewthread?showAll=true&forumThreadId=9299#message145894

Video of a paraglider payout winch equipment and typical launch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH4frJwlrVU

[Soartech]

Hang gliders have been doing this for years. Most are out west where long, unused rural roads are easily found. Usually launch is from the back of a pickup truck using a payout winch controlled by a disc brake. For a view search YouTube for "Truck towing hang gliders".

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:22:46 -0800, son_of_flubber wrote:

> Here is something completely new to me: Paragliders set up temporary
> winch sites in interesting places.
>
Its not that 'interesting'. The winch is at the end of a narrow grass
strip extending from a hang glider field, i.e. its a place where its
probably common to find an operating winch and I wouldn't be surprised to
find that the grass strip is a microlite runway.

I don't know Swedish regs, but in the UK you can't winch, bungee or
autotow to more than 60m unless the site is NOTAMed or (for a permanent
winch site) marked as a winch site on the air navigation maps. There are
UK glider pilots who want round and bungee off suitable hills but those
doing it are, AFAIK, careful not to break that 60m limit. The latest S&G
has a good article about doing it and emphasises that limit, but of
course the object of bungeeing off a hill is airspeed rather than height
gain.

I should add having our field marking in maps as 'cables to 3000ft' does
precious little: we still have GA and helis blundering over the field
below that height, evidently with little idea of where they are and/or
not having looked at the chart in recent years.

One of the comments in the second quoted URL about electronic maps,
including Sky Demon, not showing marked winching glider sites at some
zoom levels or at all is quite worrying. One wonders how they got
approved.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[son_of_flubber]

> On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:22:46 -0800, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
> > Here is something completely new to me: Paragliders set up temporary
> > winch sites in interesting places.
>

On Thursday, January 9, 2014 3:56:11 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > >
> Its not that 'interesting'.

The paraglider is winching to 800 feet and VFR traffic in this area is restricted to 1000 feet and there was no NOTAM.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:24:52 -0800, son_of_flubber wrote:

>> On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:22:46 -0800, son_of_flubber wrote:
>>
>> > Here is something completely new to me: Paragliders set up temporary
>> > winch sites in interesting places.
>>
>>
> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 3:56:11 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> > >
>> Its not that 'interesting'.
>
> The paraglider is winching to 800 feet and VFR traffic in this area is
> restricted to 1000 feet and there was no NOTAM.

Agreed there was no NOTAM, but as nobody has yet said whether Sweden has
the same 60m un-notified launch height restriction as the UK, we don't
know whether Swedes would think this launch was out of order.

I think the location isn't very 'interesting' since its obviously a
permanent microlite site. As such, it should be known to the local
microlite and GA community as a place that should not be overflown low,
especially not straight down the main run.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, January 10, 2014 4:06:35 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:

> I think the location isn't very 'interesting' since its obviously a
> permanent microlite site.

I don't think that word means what I think it means. Inconceivable!

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:27:04 -0800, son_of_flubber wrote:

> I don't think that word means what I think it means. Inconceivable!
>
Which word?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[son_of_flubber]

On Saturday, January 11, 2014 11:09:49 AM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:27:04 -0800, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't think that word means what I think it means. Inconceivable!
>
> >
>
> Which word?

The one in quotes.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 08:48:17 -0800, son_of_flubber wrote:

> On Saturday, January 11, 2014 11:09:49 AM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:27:04 -0800, son_of_flubber wrote:
> The one in quotes.
>
OK. I used it as shorthand for "launch site that's not shown on air
navigation charts and not NOTAMed".

I don't have any Swedish charts or access to their NOTAMs (do you?) so,
as I've said previously, I can't tell whether the field is marked on
Swedish charts or whether winching at this location should be NOTAMed.
Hence I have no idea whether doing so was breaking any regulations.

All I can say is that the winch appears to be on a permanent microlite/
hang gliding site and that, IMO, makes it a place that should not be
overflown in the way that it was.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[son_of_flubber]

On Saturday, January 11, 2014 1:30:30 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:

> I don't have any Swedish charts or access to their NOTAMs (do you?)

No (the event took place in Norway). I have only hearsay information from internet forums where someone commented that a NOTAM was not required for paraglider winching prior to this event, but the regulatory agency changed the rule consequent to this event.

Since I have no experience with winching, the concept of an errant airplane running into a winch cable is new to me and therefore interesting. It's not something that is often mentioned.

You have experience with winching and therefore see the event from a completely different perspective. Your matter-of-fact comment that errant airplanes commonly enter winch zones was also interesting to me.

[Tom Gardner[_2_]]

On 11/01/14 23:38, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Since I have no experience with winching, the concept of an errant airplane running into a winch cable is new to me and therefore interesting. It's not something that is often mentioned.
>
> You have experience with winching and therefore see the event from a completely different perspective. Your matter-of-fact comment that errant airplanes commonly enter winch zones was also interesting to me.

Have a look at "Airprox Report No 052/07" on p171 of
http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/ukabbk18.pdf
which includes
"Several times each year pilots of ac inbound to Kemble
appear to misidentify Aston Down for Kemble and enter a
circuit or even line up on one of the two RWs, ignoring
the different RW direction; the wind; the winch; the
gliders - both in circuit and on the airfields and a
double-deck control bus parked at the launch point on
the runway. It is often the case that these same pilots
are in communication with Kemble throughout and only
realise they are mistaken when Kemble reports no sight
of them on approach."

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:11:36 +0000, Tom Gardner wrote:

> On 11/01/14 23:38, son_of_flubber wrote:
>> Since I have no experience with winching, the concept of an errant
>> airplane running into a winch cable is new to me and therefore
>> interesting. It's not something that is often mentioned.
>>
>> You have experience with winching and therefore see the event from a
>> completely different perspective. Your matter-of-fact comment that
>> errant airplanes commonly enter winch zones was also interesting to me.
>
> Have a look at "Airprox Report No 052/07" on p171 of
> http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/ukabbk18.pdf which includes
> "Several times each year pilots of ac inbound to Kemble appear to
> misidentify Aston Down for Kemble and enter a circuit or even line up
> on one of the two RWs, ignoring the different RW direction; the wind;
> the winch; the gliders - both in circuit and on the airfields and a
> double-deck control bus parked at the launch point on the runway. It
> is often the case that these same pilots are in communication with
> Kemble throughout and only realise they are mistaken when Kemble
> reports no sight of them on approach."

We have had the same problem at GRL, but with GA traffic for Little
Gransden (3km, 1.6 nm away). Never mind that we have three runways that
form a large triangle while Little Gransden is a single 500m runway. You
really wonder what, if anything, goes on in these guy's heads, especially
the one who made three attempts to land at GRL while we were launching
the grid during a Regionals. And then he got abusive when told he
wouldn't be allowed to leave until we'd finished launching.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Tom Gardner[_2_]]

On 12/01/14 14:21, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:11:36 +0000, Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>> On 11/01/14 23:38, son_of_flubber wrote:
>>> Since I have no experience with winching, the concept of an errant
>>> airplane running into a winch cable is new to me and therefore
>>> interesting. It's not something that is often mentioned.
>>>
>>> You have experience with winching and therefore see the event from a
>>> completely different perspective. Your matter-of-fact comment that
>>> errant airplanes commonly enter winch zones was also interesting to me.
>>
>> Have a look at "Airprox Report No 052/07" on p171 of
>> http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/ukabbk18.pdf which includes
>> "Several times each year pilots of ac inbound to Kemble appear to
>> misidentify Aston Down for Kemble and enter a circuit or even line up
>> on one of the two RWs, ignoring the different RW direction; the wind;
>> the winch; the gliders - both in circuit and on the airfields and a
>> double-deck control bus parked at the launch point on the runway. It
>> is often the case that these same pilots are in communication with
>> Kemble throughout and only realise they are mistaken when Kemble
>> reports no sight of them on approach."
>
> We have had the same problem at GRL, but with GA traffic for Little
> Gransden (3km, 1.6 nm away). Never mind that we have three runways that
> form a large triangle while Little Gransden is a single 500m runway. You
> really wonder what, if anything, goes on in these guy's heads, especially
> the one who made three attempts to land at GRL while we were launching
> the grid during a Regionals. And then he got abusive when told he
> wouldn't be allowed to leave until we'd finished launching.

I've watched a light aircraft shimmy down the side of our main
runway (while we were winch launching) rocking his wings from
side to side, before disappearing off to one side. Clearly his
thought processes were "this doesn't look right, where the hell am I"

Less authoritatively...
neilmac 19th May 2007, 11:58
GA plane joining Kemble from the NW last week,
A/C "Confirm by your threshold you have gliders"?
FISO "Last time I looked they were 747s"
A/C "Ahh Roger ..............I ll reposition for your overhead again"
Plane making approach to a nearby gliding site
NM
from http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-59309-p-4.html

Or the pilot that doesn't believe we're not Kemble until he is led
out to look at the 6ft "AD" letters in the grass by the clubhouse.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 15:17:11 +0000, Tom Gardner wrote:

> On 12/01/14 14:21, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:11:36 +0000, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/01/14 23:38, son_of_flubber wrote:
>>>> Since I have no experience with winching, the concept of an errant
>>>> airplane running into a winch cable is new to me and therefore
>>>> interesting. It's not something that is often mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> You have experience with winching and therefore see the event from a
>>>> completely different perspective. Your matter-of-fact comment that
>>>> errant airplanes commonly enter winch zones was also interesting to
>>>> me.
>>>
>>> Have a look at "Airprox Report No 052/07" on p171 of
>>> http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/ukabbk18.pdf which includes
>>> "Several times each year pilots of ac inbound to Kemble appear to
>>> misidentify Aston Down for Kemble and enter a circuit or even line
>>> up on one of the two RWs, ignoring the different RW direction; the
>>> wind;
>>> the winch; the gliders - both in circuit and on the airfields and
>>> a double-deck control bus parked at the launch point on the
>>> runway. It is often the case that these same pilots are in
>>> communication with Kemble throughout and only realise they are
>>> mistaken when Kemble reports no sight of them on approach."
>>
>> We have had the same problem at GRL, but with GA traffic for Little
>> Gransden (3km, 1.6 nm away). Never mind that we have three runways that
>> form a large triangle while Little Gransden is a single 500m runway.
>> You really wonder what, if anything, goes on in these guy's heads,
>> especially the one who made three attempts to land at GRL while we were
>> launching the grid during a Regionals. And then he got abusive when
>> told he wouldn't be allowed to leave until we'd finished launching.
>
> I've watched a light aircraft shimmy down the side of our main runway
> (while we were winch launching) rocking his wings from side to side,
> before disappearing off to one side. Clearly his thought processes were
> "this doesn't look right, where the hell am I"
>
> Less authoritatively...
> neilmac 19th May 2007, 11:58 GA plane joining Kemble from the NW last
> week,
> A/C "Confirm by your threshold you have gliders"?
> FISO "Last time I looked they were 747s"
> A/C "Ahh Roger ..............I ll reposition for your overhead again"
> Plane making approach to a nearby gliding site NM
> from http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-59309-p-4.html
>
> Or the pilot that doesn't believe we're not Kemble until he is led out
> to look at the 6ft "AD" letters in the grass by the clubhouse.

Our 'Regionals visitor' went very quiet when our chairman, having found
out where the guy had come from, said that he would be down there on
business next week, that he knew their CFI very well and would be telling
him all about the incident.

That was in 2000. We've had fewer incursions recently except during the
Olympics when the airspace extension forced all the GA pilots who
normally follow the M25 round London to route further north. Most ended
up following the B428 past us, with some of the east-bound lot blasting
through our overhead rather lower than the 3K marked on the charts.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Ridgewell gliding site (UK) is just outside the controlled airspace for Stansted Airport. This is a choke point for traffic transiting from South East UK to the midlands or points west (some of which goes on to overhead Martin G’s site).

A recent airprox report included the following:
---------
Summary

An Airprox occurred in Class G airspace overhead Ridgewell gliding site between an ASW20 glider and an A210; both aircraft were flying VFR.

PART B: SUMMARY OF THE BOARD’S DISCUSSIONS

The gliding and GA members opined that the A210 pilot appeared to have either planned his flight to pass over the gliding site (through the circuit and well below the winch height), or that he had not planned well enough and was unaware of the gliding site. Both options were seen as equally dangerous and a fatal crash would almost certainly have been the result of his aircraft hitting the winch cable or a launching glider. [snip]

The Board opined that the annotation of Glider RTF on VFR charts and within the AIP ENR5.5, would greatly assist in this respect by providing a readily available contact frequency for those GA pilots who planned to fly close to glider sites, and who wished to determine their levels of gliding activity.

[Chris N note – many small UK gliding clubs do not have site base radios, or if they do, they are often not manned. There is no legal requirement for such radios. Nor is there a legal requirement for gliders or GA aircraft to carry or operate radios when flying in class G in the UK, though increasing numbers do. ]

[snip] . . . It was also noted that many of the larger gliding sites can have winching up to 3000ft agl.

Ridgewell is marked as a gliding site on the 1:250,000 and 1:500,000 series charts and so it is reasonable to expect the A210 pilot to have known of its presence; he would have been prudent to have given the site a wider berth, especially as he was flying at around normal circuit height. In addition, the onus was on the A210 pilot to give way to the glider, although the lack of any enhanced conspicuity features on both aircraft would have made visual acquisition by both pilots more difficult. Although there was likely to have been around 200ft between the aircraft, the A210 flew directly over the gliding site and over the ASW20, whose pilot had few options to avoid the other aircraft. The A210 pilot did not see the glider; the glider pilot saw the A210 and assessed that his flight path would keep him clear, albeit with safety margins much reduced below the normal. The Board concurred and assessed the Risk as B.

---------------

I have seen many similar airprox reports over the years. There are typically a few every year (about 5 in 2009, the last year for which I found an analysis I did for the BGA). Interestingly, most of the infringing powered aircraft in recent years had transponders on and working. If gliding clubs invested in Zaon MRX or similar transponder detectors at the launch point or the winch, they would almost always give more warning of incoming infringers before the lookout person at the launch point could see them coming. We have one at Ridgewell, which I have tested on the ground and seen nearby traffic indicated several miles away. Unfortunately, no other UK gliding club has copied this (AFAIK), in spite of frequent incidents such as Martin and I have mentioned; our own unit has seldom been deployed, though some of us are trying to change that, but Zaon are now closed, I understand, so another manufacturer would be needed before any new transponder detectors could be so deployed.

Chris N

[kirk.stant]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 11:51:54 AM UTC-6, Chris Nicholas wrote:
If gliding clubs invested in Zaon MRX or similar transponder detectors at the launch point or the winch, they would almost always give more warning of incoming infringers before the lookout person at the launch point could see them coming. We have one at Ridgewell, which I have tested on the ground and seen nearby traffic indicated several miles away. Unfortunately, no other UK gliding club has copied this (AFAIK), in spite of frequent incidents such as Martin and I have mentioned; our own unit has seldom been deployed, though some of us are trying to change that, but Zaon are now closed, I understand, so another manufacturer would be needed before any new transponder detectors could be so deployed.
>

Chris, a PowerFLARM would accomplish the same thing (and more), albeit at a significantly higher cost. You would get the same Mode A/C transponder detection as the MRX, along with Mode S and ADS-B (actual position, not just range); plus any FLARM-equipped glider or tug in the vicinity.

If overflying traffic is a concern, that would be my approach - would be like having your own ATC radar on the field.

Kirk
66

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Kirk, thanks. Yes, I know about PF, but if I could not persuade clubs to spend 400 Sterling/600 USD on the MRX, there is no hope that they would buy PFs.

Actual collisions between gliders and unrelated power (i.e. excluding tugs) are very few in the UK – 5 in the last 43 years as far as I can tell from all known record sources, and only one of those was with a glider during winch launch. Although that one was fatal (2 glider pilots killed), clubs don’t see it as a big enough problem to spend money and effort on, beyond the usual lookout.

Chris N