Making a Glider Easier to See in the Air

[ContestID67]

I live in a fairly busy area, airplane wise. Just last weekend I
spotted a single engine plane coming more or less straight at me at my
altitude. I quickly banked to 1) get out of the way and 2) be more
visible to the approaching airplane. I didn't notice any reaction so I
don't know if he saw me or not.

Face it, airplanes are difficult to see in the best of times and a
glider is generally white which makes it more problematic. I have
been told that is why European gliders have red wing tips.

This brings up a possible idea. No, not anti-collision lights. How
about reflective tape. Radio Control glider pilots use a hologram like
tape called Sky Sheen to help them spot their ships from the ground. I
was at a RC glider field last summer and saw it in action. I found a
source (but no picture) at;

http://www.newcreations-rc.com/ProductList.aspx?searchtxt=sheen&selection=search

The question is, might this work for us? Is there a worry about
damaging the wing surface? Spoiling the aerodynamics? Others?

[Fred]

This is a question we debated at great length when I was flying with
the Skyline Soaring Club in Front Royal, VA. It was clear to all of us
that having a reflective panel to bounce the sun back at other planes
would make us stand out further away. My addition to the conversation
was that I can remember seeing dugout canoes miles away when I lived on
an African river, and the first thing I would see (they sat very low in
the river) was the sun glinting off their wet wooden paddles. (The
wetness was the reflective part.)

As far as seeing red wing tips, I now fly tow planes or gliders about
29 days a month, and I've never noticed another glider because of it's
wing tip paint -- red, orange or whatever. Usually the first thing I
see is the top of a wing of a circling gider, and for reasons of
avoidance you probably don't want to be showing the top of your wing to
another A/C coming your way in a hurry -- you want to be showing them
your tail! (Joke -- but you certainly want to be getting out of their
way, though).

Since we fly in day VFR conditions, reflective tape seems like
something we should look further into. At Skyline we came up with a
reflective material that is used to make fishing lures, but I don't
think anyone ever stuck it to a wing for fear it would damage the
finish. This reflective tape sounds better than the fishing lure
material, but the same question about damaging gel coat still applies.

Please let us know if you try this, and if so, what you think about it.
This is an important issue and I look forward to more traffic on it.
Fred

[Jack]

I fly gliders and R/C gliders. I have used this hologram tape on
several models and I can tell you that a 10" wing chord almost
disappears at 2000 feet altitude. With the tape, I can see the model to
locate it much easier, but no better to control it. In flying the real
sailplanes, location is what we need. It's paramount that others see
us, as we are in close proximity with each other in haze and froghair
at cloudbase. It's even more important at the closing speeds we can
achieve if flying head-on at high speeds. I would not install this on
my leading edges as I do on my models, but a 2" strip centered from the
nose to the canopy would probably be visible for at least 1/2 mile.
I'll be checking this out a bit better when I receive mine. I'll report
back when I know if it's effective. One caveat, I fly in West Texas
where we can see a pretty good distance, anyway.

Jack Womack

[Jack Daniels]

"At Skyline we came up with a reflective material that is used to make
fishing lures, but I don't
think anyone ever stuck it to a wing for fear it would damage the
finish. "

What about making a reflective finish?



"Fred" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> This is a question we debated at great length when I was flying with
> the Skyline Soaring Club in Front Royal, VA. It was clear to all of us
> that having a reflective panel to bounce the sun back at other planes
> would make us stand out further away. My addition to the conversation
> was that I can remember seeing dugout canoes miles away when I lived on
> an African river, and the first thing I would see (they sat very low in
> the river) was the sun glinting off their wet wooden paddles. (The
> wetness was the reflective part.)
>
> As far as seeing red wing tips, I now fly tow planes or gliders about
> 29 days a month, and I've never noticed another glider because of it's
> wing tip paint -- red, orange or whatever. Usually the first thing I
> see is the top of a wing of a circling gider, and for reasons of
> avoidance you probably don't want to be showing the top of your wing to
> another A/C coming your way in a hurry -- you want to be showing them
> your tail! (Joke -- but you certainly want to be getting out of their
> way, though).
>
> Since we fly in day VFR conditions, reflective tape seems like
> something we should look further into. At Skyline we came up with a
> reflective material that is used to make fishing lures, but I don't
> think anyone ever stuck it to a wing for fear it would damage the
> finish. This reflective tape sounds better than the fishing lure
> material, but the same question about damaging gel coat still applies.
>
> Please let us know if you try this, and if so, what you think about it.
> This is an important issue and I look forward to more traffic on it.
> Fred
>

[rich]

I wonder if a canopy could have a tinted reflective film applied like a
window. It might be more scratch resistant, keep things cooler, and
hopefully be replaceable.
Rich

[dave r.]

There was a 304 on the wings and wheels want-ads a few months ago with
reflective markings on it. As I remember, the owner had a web site
explaining the setup.

You might want to take a look.

dave r.


"ContestID67" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I live in a fairly busy area, airplane wise. Just last weekend I
> spotted a single engine plane coming more or less straight at me at my
> altitude. I quickly banked to 1) get out of the way and 2) be more
> visible to the approaching airplane. I didn't notice any reaction so I
> don't know if he saw me or not.
>
> Face it, airplanes are difficult to see in the best of times and a
> glider is generally white which makes it more problematic. I have
> been told that is why European gliders have red wing tips.
>
> This brings up a possible idea. No, not anti-collision lights. How
> about reflective tape. Radio Control glider pilots use a hologram like
> tape called Sky Sheen to help them spot their ships from the ground. I
> was at a RC glider field last summer and saw it in action. I found a
> source (but no picture) at;
>
> http://www.newcreations-rc.com/ProductList.aspx?searchtxt=sheen&selection=search
>
> The question is, might this work for us? Is there a worry about
> damaging the wing surface? Spoiling the aerodynamics? Others?
>

[JS]

Wasn't there an article in "Sailplane and Gliding" about the
visibility of high contrast and reflective paints a couple of years
ago? I give away old issues so don't currently have it. Anyone have
that article?
....The assumption here is that the power pilot is using that window
thing in front. I used to be in a club at an airport with a VOR on it.
We NEVER assumed that the pilot of a cruising aircraft was looking at
anything other than the instrument panel.
Jim

[Mal]

>> The question is, might this work for us? Is there a worry about
>> damaging the wing surface? Spoiling the aerodynamics? Others?

From my understanding the difference in colour or color if you live in the
USA.

Is temperature difference and this is why the markings should be at a
outboard point of the wing so as structural integrity is maintained.

http://www.mals.net/lksc05/pages/DSC00129.htm

[Stephen]

----- Original Message -----
From: "ContestID67" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:11 PM
Subject: Making a Glider Easier to See in the Air


>
> Face it, airplanes are difficult to see in the best of times and a
> glider is generally white which makes it more problematic. I have
> been told that is why European gliders have red wing tips.


The current thinking is that red wing tips break up the outline of the
glider and really don't stand out, especially when seen against the ground.
That's been my experience as well.

Most newish gliders and those with recent paint jobs, certainly in the UK,
are all white.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

I have orange tips and checkerboard rudder on my LS6. I've been told
that my glider is "easy to recognize". Not sure if that means easier
to see.

I believe military visibility tests indicated that either all white or
all black were the best colors for visibility. Adding color stripes
tends to make the visible high-contrast area smaller, hence less
visible, so they should be relatively small. However, on a white
glider, my preference is to have a small amount of color for the times
we are in the vicinity of clouds, or in hazy conditions where white
doesn't provide enough contrast.

I see that France requires high-vis color stripes on gliders in the
Alps. Any comment from pilots flying there on the utility of those
high-vis markings?

Kirk
66

[Bert Willing]

In the Alps during springtime, a purely white glider is almost impossible to
see against the snow - that's why dayglow stickers are required in the
French Alp. I don't have the impression that it helps enormously, but
anyways...

Apart from this scenery, I think that in a usual environment putting colored
pads on the glider is exactly what is required for camouflage.

As to silver-shing tape, or retro-reflectors on non-moving parts - thats
pure nonsense.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I have orange tips and checkerboard rudder on my LS6. I've been told
> that my glider is "easy to recognize". Not sure if that means easier
> to see.
>
> I believe military visibility tests indicated that either all white or
> all black were the best colors for visibility. Adding color stripes
> tends to make the visible high-contrast area smaller, hence less
> visible, so they should be relatively small. However, on a white
> glider, my preference is to have a small amount of color for the times
> we are in the vicinity of clouds, or in hazy conditions where white
> doesn't provide enough contrast.
>
> I see that France requires high-vis color stripes on gliders in the
> Alps. Any comment from pilots flying there on the utility of those
> high-vis markings?
>
> Kirk
> 66
>

[JS]

A friend has a small mirror ball mounted on the kingpost of his hang
glider. That "passive strobe" helps visibility.

[bagmaker]

what about lasers facing forward? The low powered version would hardly be dangerous at a kilometre or so spacing between head-on gliders, I have just tried one in the sunshine and its quite visible, also runs on a couple of tiny batteries for hours.
The nay-sayers may give us the blinding factor, but being so low-powered and so far away, surely its a better option than a collision?

Bagmaker

[Marc Ramsey]

bagmaker wrote:
> what about lasers facing forward? The low powered version would hardly
> be dangerous at a kilometre or so spacing between head-on gliders, I
> have just tried one in the sunshine and its quite visible, also runs on
> a couple of tiny batteries for hours.
> The nay-sayers may give us the blinding factor, but being so
> low-powered and so far away, surely its a better option than a
> collision?

A laser is only bright if viewed directly on axis. If you are a few
degrees outside of the beam, you won't see anything. I suppose one
could use some sort of gyrating mirror to make it visible over a wider
angle, but frankly, the idea seems a bit too disco for my liking...

Marc

[JS]

Nobody has brought up FLARM yet. It's the future of collision
avoidance. Becoming the norm in Europe and rapidly spreading in
Australia...
But I think they're afraid of American ambulance chasing lawyers.
Jim

European web page:

http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html

The demo video:

http://www.flarm.com/product/movies/index.html

Australia:

http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html

[[email protected]]

Except FLARM does nothing to prevent the doctor in his Bonanza from
running you over when he is heads down playing with his new moving map
(or nurse...).

And it requires all participants to have FLARM installed.

Excellent for Europe, perhaps. Not such a good answer in, say, the
midwest of the US.

BTW, strobe lights have been tried on gliders before, but apparently
are not very useful in bright sunlight. A "disco laser" would probably
work great. Might get you shot down, too!

Kirk
66

[André Somers]

rich wrote:

> I wonder if a canopy could have a tinted reflective film applied like a
> window. It might be more scratch resistant, keep things cooler, and
> hopefully be replaceable.

That sounds rather dangerous to me, as it makes it impossible to see inside
the canopy from the outside. When I am thermalling and get another glider
close by, I *allways* try to make visual contact with the pilot of the
other glider, so I am *sure* he has seen me. I see the other pilot looking
in my direction and preferably giving me a short wave, I know he is aware
of my location.

Something silimar is the reason why dark tinted or reflective windows are
illegal in cars around here (the Netherlands): pedestrians and cyclists
have no way of knowing if the driver has seen them.

André

[JS]

<< the doctor in his Bonanza >>

With V-tailed doctor killers, there's no hope. Perhaps the laser idea
(but a 50 Watt or higher unit) could work on them. The water cooling
and huge batteries could be a problem.

We can always install FLARM and PCAS devices, neither of which up the
need for battery power too much or break the bank. $1000 US and no need
to certify every two years. Coupled with a good look out the window,
you're laughing.
The FLARM is also a GPS data logger. In Australia there's talk of
using them exclusively for contest scoring, so they know you flew with
one. At least two recent Australian competitions (at Lake Keepit and
Gawler) have been flown with FLARMS in every glider. GFA has published
results of user polls.

http://www.gfa.org.au/Docs/ops/FLARM%20trials%2005-06.doc

<< Excellent for Europe, perhaps. Not such a good answer in, say, the
midwest of the US. >>

Not sure what the difference is between flying in Europe and Midwest
USA. Both crowded places with generally bad visibility.

Jim

[Bill Daniels]

"JS" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> << the doctor in his Bonanza >>
>
> With V-tailed doctor killers, there's no hope. Perhaps the laser idea
> (but a 50 Watt or higher unit) could work on them. The water cooling
> and huge batteries could be a problem.
>
> We can always install FLARM and PCAS devices, neither of which up the
> need for battery power too much or break the bank. $1000 US and no need
> to certify every two years. Coupled with a good look out the window,
> you're laughing.
> The FLARM is also a GPS data logger. In Australia there's talk of
> using them exclusively for contest scoring, so they know you flew with
> one. At least two recent Australian competitions (at Lake Keepit and
> Gawler) have been flown with FLARMS in every glider. GFA has published
> results of user polls.
>
> http://www.gfa.org.au/Docs/ops/FLARM%20trials%2005-06.doc
>
> << Excellent for Europe, perhaps. Not such a good answer in, say, the
> midwest of the US. >>
>
> Not sure what the difference is between flying in Europe and Midwest
> USA. Both crowded places with generally bad visibility.
>
> Jim
>

It strike me that no single system will be optimal. A multilayerd system
would be much better. Visibility enhancement is good but you have to be
looking in the right direction for it to work. Adding a simple system like
the transponder receivers or a more elaborate system like FLARM to alert the
pilot that an intruder is nearby makes the high visibility systems work
better.

bildan

[[email protected]]

Jim,

Where I've been flying lately (Southern Illinois, East of St Louis) I
can probably count the gliders within 100 km of me on any given day on
the fingers of one hand - and most of those are trainers in the
pattern!. OTOH, I see lightplanes droning along pretty much at my
altitude all the time. So FLARM would be pretty useless, while a
transponder detector would be nice (I'm waiting for one that is small,
reliable, and has an aural cue).

Europe, on the other hand, has a lot of gliders crammed into tight
airspace, but relatively fewer VFR bugsmashers not talking to anyone.
So FLARM becomes a real player.

Now having all contestants carry FLARM at a big US regional or better
contest - that could be useful. Not likely, though, if the ELT example
is anything to judge by!

Kirk
66

[HL Falbaum]

Please educate me on FLARM.
Does it spot individuals or just that one is nearby?
A contest "minnow pack" would be alarming each other all the time, if it
does not count individuals.
Thanks

--
Hartley Falbaum

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jim,
>
> Where I've been flying lately (Southern Illinois, East of St Louis) I
> can probably count the gliders within 100 km of me on any given day on
> the fingers of one hand - and most of those are trainers in the
> pattern!. OTOH, I see lightplanes droning along pretty much at my
> altitude all the time. So FLARM would be pretty useless, while a
> transponder detector would be nice (I'm waiting for one that is small,
> reliable, and has an aural cue).
>
> Europe, on the other hand, has a lot of gliders crammed into tight
> airspace, but relatively fewer VFR bugsmashers not talking to anyone.
> So FLARM becomes a real player.
>
> Now having all contestants carry FLARM at a big US regional or better
> contest - that could be useful. Not likely, though, if the ELT example
> is anything to judge by!
>
> Kirk
> 66
>

[ventus2]

And now, for some light hearted tom-foolery!

> It strike me that no single system will be optimal. A multilayerd system
> would be much better. Visibility enhancement is good but you have to be
> looking in the right direction for it to work. Adding a simple system
like
> the transponder receivers or a more elaborate system like FLARM to alert
the
> pilot that an intruder is nearby makes the high visibility systems work
> better.

Therefore, a couple of disco lights like they have on the top of cop and
ambulance cars, high power lasers coupled into the FLARM (so you know where
they are) to make the offending ignoramus's wings look like swiss cheese
(thereby increaseing visibilty by letting more sunlight through and creating
a lovely shadow effect), all linked into the OLC with a prize winner at the
end of the month. That might get people looking out the window!!

haha (so much bottle left at the end of the red...damn)
Sorry, couldn't resist, even though I should know better....

[Graeme Cant]

wrote:

> Now having all contestants carry FLARM at a big US regional or better
> contest - that could be useful.

It doesn't quite work like that. The only situation where everybody
needs FLARM is if nobody is looking out. Any level of FLARM use greater
than one is useful. Obviously more would be better but quite low levels
of FLARM usage significantly improves your chance of detecting - and
avoiding - an impending collision.

Wanting 100% fitment before it's useful seems to indicate you feel you
could then relax - like a doctor in a Bonanza - but I'm sure you don't
see it that way.

FLARM is directed see and avoid. It's to direct your lookout, not
replace it. Making it mandatory would waste the money of the vigilant
few and encourage the worst habits of the complacent. We have enough
bureaucracy, lets leave it optional. The element of uncertainty will
help keep us all looking.

Graeme Cant

>
> Kirk
> 66
>

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

> Does it spot individuals or just that one is nearby?

FLARM-equipped aircraft broadcast their position once every second.

Other FLARM-equipped aircraft when in range can track individual
targets and sort them by likelihood of collision. The software takes
into account soaring special cases like thermalling.

If there is a high chance of collision an audible warning is given,
increasing in volume and general air of urgency with decreasing time
to impact. The display gives the direction to the target in a very
clear way.

Hear the beep, check the display, look out to spot. Very easy and
intuitive.

If flying in areas that are covered by the internal database you get
added warnings for hard to see obstacles like cables strung across
valleys.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"I sog' Ich, er sogt I. I sog' Ei, er sogt egg. I sog' Eck,
er sogt corner. I sog' koana, er sogt nobody."

[Robert Hart]

Graeme Cant wrote:
> FLARM is directed see and avoid. It's to direct your lookout, not
> replace it. Making it mandatory would waste the money of the vigilant
> few and encourage the worst habits of the complacent. We have enough
> bureaucracy, lets leave it optional. The element of uncertainty will
> help keep us all looking.

Although seriously perverted in the detail, this is correct in so far as
FLARM is directed see and avoid.

Where this analysis falls off the rails is the assertion that an element
of uncertainty will "help keep us all looking out".

Were that true, then we would have devices fitted to our parachutes that
would randomly disable them so to encourage us to avoid their use after
a collision! I certainly am not aware of any such device, but perhaps
the author of the above remarks can sell you one as he, of course,
always flies with such a device.

Back in the real world, those of us who have now flown many competition
and club hours with FLARMs are convinced of their value by our experience.

I - and indeed every single pilot I have spoken with about using FLARM -
have experienced FLARM pointing out a glider too us before we had
acquired it through our scan.

Of course, it would be possible to claim that this just proves that our
scans were inadequate - which obviously they were as we did not see the
gliders before FLARM pointed out to us. However, this entirely misses
the point that, for competition pilots, we are talking about probably
the most collision and look out aware group of pilots in Australia. If
their scan is missing gliders, what about the average club pilot?

The simple fact of the matter is that no scan is ever going to be
perfect (even allowing for blind spots, which all gliders have). FLARM
augments our scan, it can never replace it.

Even if every glider was fitted with FLARM (and ignoring the possibility
of FLARM failures from whatever cause), we would still need to maintain
an excellent scan: I see no evidence that wedge tailed eagles (or other
large birds) are under any evolutionary pressure to evolve FLARM units
(to name but one of many non-FLARMed airspace users).

FLARM is a great way of augmenting our lookout, as it helps us find
those airspace users that are proven to present the highest collision
risk: other gliders (and glider tugs).

--
Robert Hart
+61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au