Cambridge 302 Gear/Airbrake Warning - How to Test?

[ContestID67[_2_]]

I am in the midst of a project to install a gear/airbrake warning
system on my glider based on the built-in capability of my Cambridge
302. This system is better than the simple "airbrakes open, gear up"
warning system (http://www.wingsandwheels.com/pdf/gear%20warning.pdf)
as it also alerts the pilot to "airbrakes open on tow".

My "sensors" will be strategically placed reed switches and associated
magnets (and tefzel wire of course). My primary question revolves
around how to do a pre-flight test of the system.

From the manual...

"Warnings depend on presence or absence of airspeed as well as the
switch contacts. Here
is the logic: Unlocking the airbrakes connects pin 7 to ground. When
airspeed rises above 25 knots, the
alarm sounds. The alarm is cancelled when the airbrakes are locked.
During flight with the
landing gear retracted, unlocking the airbrakes connects pin 7 to
ground and sounds the
alarm. Lowering the landing gear opens the connection between pin 8
and ground and
cancels the alarm."

Reading from the above it would seem that the alarm system is totally
inactive until the GPS indicates I am moving 25+ knots. If so, how
can I test this system on the ground? Anyone else install this system
and have any experience? This weekend I will experiment to see if
the 302 programming is smart enough to allow testing while I am
standing still.

Thanks, John DeRosa

[Darryl Ramm]

ContestID67 > wrote:
> I am in the midst of a project to install a gear/airbrake warning
> system on my glider based on the built-in capability of my Cambridge
> 302. This system is better than the simple "airbrakes open, gear up"
> warning system (http://www.wingsandwheels.com/pdf/gear%20warning.pdf)
> as it also alerts the pilot to "airbrakes open on tow".
>
> My "sensors" will be strategically placed reed switches and associated
> magnets (and tefzel wire of course). My primary question revolves
> around how to do a pre-flight test of the system.
>
> From the manual...
>
> "Warnings depend on presence or absence of airspeed as well as the
> switch contacts. Here
> is the logic: Unlocking the airbrakes connects pin 7 to ground. When
> airspeed rises above 25 knots, the
> alarm sounds. The alarm is cancelled when the airbrakes are locked.
> During flight with the
> landing gear retracted, unlocking the airbrakes connects pin 7 to
> ground and sounds the
> alarm. Lowering the landing gear opens the connection between pin 8
> and ground and
> cancels the alarm."
>
> Reading from the above it would seem that the alarm system is totally
> inactive until the GPS indicates I am moving 25+ knots. If so, how
> can I test this system on the ground? Anyone else install this system
> and have any experience? This weekend I will experiment to see if
> the 302 programming is smart enough to allow testing while I am
> standing still.
>
> Thanks, John DeRosa
>

Connect a large syringe (ideally with a ballast volume) to the pitot
tube system and use this to carefully increase pressure.

This feature of the C302 is very nice.

Darryl

[Mark]

If your airbrakes "suck open" after you are going faster than 25 knots
it will not warn you, just FYI...

It would work a tad better if the "spoiler open on tow" worked until
the first "gear up" condition before it reverted to the "spoiler
open / gear not down" mode.

[ContestID67[_2_]]

Darryl,

Thanks for the response. Yes, this does seem like a nice system.
Alerts no matter what the volume is set to, brakes on tow warning,
etc.

Questions/comments...

1) While the syringe approach to mimic moving at 25+ knots would
logically work, it isn't optimal as something easily done during each
day's pre-flight.
2) What is a "ballast volume"?
3) Do you know how the 302 determines the difference between a warning
for "brakes deployed while gear down and on tow" and the warning for
"brakes deployed while gear up and landing"? The two states seem a
contradiction. My only thought is that it determines the glider is
descending versus assending.

Thanks again.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 9/8/2011 1:03 PM, Mark wrote:
> If your airbrakes "suck open" after you are going faster than 25 knots
> it will not warn you, just FYI...
>
> It would work a tad better if the "spoiler open on tow" worked until
> the first "gear up" condition before it reverted to the "spoiler
> open / gear not down" mode.

If you install the airbrake switch correctly, the Cambridge 302 will
warn you even before the airbrakes "suck open".

The Cambridge system is designed to work with a switch that detects when
the spoilers are _unlocked_, not after they are extended. It's an
important difference, but it's usually easy to install a switch that
does that. On the gliders I've had, there is at least 0.5" of movement
of the spoiler handle and connecting linkage to unlock the spoilers.

So, it's more accurate to refer to it as "spoiler's unlocked on tow",
instead of "spoilers open on tow".

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Tom Serkowski]

On 9/8/11 1:29 PM, ContestID67 wrote:
> 1) While the syringe approach to mimic moving at 25+ knots would
> logically work, it isn't optimal as something easily done during each
> day's pre-flight.

How about using the spoilers to help aileron control during takeoff and
leave them open until 30 KIAS? ;-)

Actually, mine stopped working a few years ago... Tests just fine on
the bench, and the syringe on the pitot works too. But leaving the
spoilers unlocked to well over 30 KIAS doesn't set off the alarm. Had
Gary, when he was at CAI, check it out during the last calibration and
it worked just fine. Very odd indeed.

-Tom

[Darryl Ramm]

On 9/8/11 1:29 PM, ContestID67 wrote:
> Darryl,
>
> Thanks for the response. Yes, this does seem like a nice system.
> Alerts no matter what the volume is set to, brakes on tow warning,
> etc.
>
> Questions/comments...
>
> 1) While the syringe approach to mimic moving at 25+ knots would
> logically work, it isn't optimal as something easily done during each
> day's pre-flight.

It is possible to worry too much - You don't pre-flight test your ASI
and that is likely more critical than these warning buzzers. And you can
certainly test behavior of say the gear warning while in the air.

> 2) What is a "ballast volume"?

A bottle/flask connected in series with the syringe so that moving the
syringe plunger has less of an effect on the pressure than if used
directly. You really don't want to blow out instruments connected to the
system. You can disconnect the instruments but then the futzing with
connections itself may introduce problems. And it may just be easier to
just slide a tube over the pitot for these kind of tests.

And remember the manual says to connect the ASI and static ports on the
C302 to the ships pitot and static not that of the TE/triple probe - one
reason is to have these alarms etc. to work properly if the TE/triple
probe is left off

> 3) Do you know how the 302 determines the difference between a warning
> for "brakes deployed while gear down and on tow" and the warning for
> "brakes deployed while gear up and landing"? The two states seem a
> contradiction. My only thought is that it determines the glider is
> descending versus assending.

I believe it is simply state based. If the gear has been raised and the
airspeed is high then it knows its "gone flying" and is ready to detect
subsequent spoiler deployed before the gears is locked down. For example
I've pulled gear up while on tow and later cracked spoilers to handle a
little bit 'o rotor while on tow and had the undercarriage alarm go off
as expected. There is no way altitude or climb rate affects this. The
developers are too smart to do that.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On 9/8/11 9:29 PM, Tom Serkowski wrote:
> On 9/8/11 1:29 PM, ContestID67 wrote:
>> 1) While the syringe approach to mimic moving at 25+ knots would
>> logically work, it isn't optimal as something easily done during each
>> day's pre-flight.
>
> How about using the spoilers to help aileron control during takeoff and
> leave them open until 30 KIAS? ;-)
>
> Actually, mine stopped working a few years ago... Tests just fine on the
> bench, and the syringe on the pitot works too. But leaving the spoilers
> unlocked to well over 30 KIAS doesn't set off the alarm. Had Gary, when
> he was at CAI, check it out during the last calibration and it worked
> just fine. Very odd indeed.
>
> -Tom

Tom well then obviously you need to order a new ClearNav vario... I
expect/hope they are U/C and spoiler switch pinout compatible with the C302.

Darryl

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 8, 12:09*pm, ContestID67 > wrote:
>*If so, how
> can I test this system on the ground? *Anyone else install this system
> and have any experience? * This weekend I will experiment to see if
> the 302 programming is smart enough to allow testing while I am
> standing still.
>
> Thanks, John DeRosa

To test the warning just turn on the 302 with the brakes unlocked and
the gear up. Mine sounds most times I rig the glider. To cancel it
press the 302 knob, or lock the brakes, or lower the gear.

The gear warning does not depend on either airspeed or ground speed,
only the warning for unlocked brakes with gear down does.

Andy

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 8, 12:09*pm, ContestID67 > wrote:

> Reading from the above it would seem that the alarm system is totally
> inactive until the GPS indicates I am moving 25+ knots. *If so, how
> can I test this system on the ground? *Anyone else install this system
> and have any experience? * This weekend I will experiment to see if
> the 302 programming is smart enough to allow testing while I am
> standing still.

The 302 gear warning is fully functional on ground at zero airspeed
and ground speed. It will also sound when the 302 is powered up with
brakes unlocked even if the gear is down and locked. To cancel it
press the knob or lock the brakes.

My gear warning sounds nearly every time I apply power after rigging
the glider as the brakes have to be unlocked for assembly.

For standard class glider using airbrakes for roll control on takeoff
the warning may sound briefly before it becomes time to lock the
brakes.

As has been mention by others, the brake switch should detect the
difference between "closed and locked" and "closed". Unless the gear
won't stay down if not locked, the gear switch should detect the
difference between "down" and "down and locked". (28 gear floats
halfway if not locked up or down so detecting full forward is
sufficient)


Andy

[Dan Marotta]

If your spoilers "suck open" and you don't recognize it, you shouldn't be
flying.


"Mark" > wrote in message
...
> If your airbrakes "suck open" after you are going faster than 25 knots
> it will not warn you, just FYI...
>
> It would work a tad better if the "spoiler open on tow" worked until
> the first "gear up" condition before it reverted to the "spoiler
> open / gear not down" mode.
>
>
>

[glidergeek]

On Sep 8, 12:09*pm, ContestID67 > wrote:
> I am in the midst of a project to install a gear/airbrake warning
> system on my glider based on the built-in capability of my Cambridge
> 302. *This system is better than the simple "airbrakes open, gear up"
> warning system (http://www.wingsandwheels.com/pdf/gear%20warning.pdf)
> as it also alerts the pilot to "airbrakes open on tow".
>
> My "sensors" will be strategically placed reed switches and associated
> magnets (and tefzel wire of course). * My primary question revolves
> around how to do a pre-flight test of the system.
>
> From the manual...
>
> "Warnings depend on presence or absence of airspeed as well as the
> switch contacts. Here
> is the logic: Unlocking the airbrakes connects pin 7 to ground. When
> airspeed rises above 25 knots, the
> alarm sounds. The alarm is cancelled when the airbrakes are locked.
> During flight with the
> landing gear retracted, unlocking the airbrakes connects pin 7 to
> ground and sounds the
> alarm. Lowering the landing gear opens the connection between pin 8
> and ground and
> cancels the alarm."
>
> Reading from the above it would seem that the alarm system is totally
> inactive until the GPS indicates I am moving 25+ knots. *If so, how
> can I test this system on the ground? *Anyone else install this system
> and have any experience? * This weekend I will experiment to see if
> the 302 programming is smart enough to allow testing while I am
> standing still.
>
> Thanks, John DeRosa

Launch, release from tow, open spoilers with gear up, listen for
warning horn.

[Darryl Ramm]

"Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> If your spoilers "suck open" and you don't recognize it, you shouldn't
> be flying.

But those pilots clearly are flying. And are killing themselves and
hurting passengers etc.in depressingly familiar accidents.

In the case of the C302 (and hopefully ClearNav vario) this feature
works very well and I would connect in any glider I owned. The limit
with these things is does having a lots of these alarms just end up
confusing/distractions and can the pilot handle and respond to the alarm
(and given how far behind the aircraft some seem this may be a problem).
But a "it's there problem" attitude and just sitting by while pilots
kill themselves is not going to help this sport or those pilots. And yes
if somebody is clearly having problems with safe spoiler
operation/handling emergencies/distractions etc. my first call would be
time with a good instructor not add a gadget but those gadgets may have
a place as well.

Darryl

[Westbender]

I've been using my 302 warnings this way since I've owned mine. Works
very well. As stated, it's simple to test the gear up/brakes unlocked
while on the ground. The speed-enabled warning requires simulated
airspeed. I don't really test the latter feature very often. My pre-
flight checklist handles making sure the brakes/spoilers are locked on
take-off. My ship has a very solid over-center lock mechanism. They've
never unlocked on me without me explicitly doing it to apply brakes/
spoilers. My pre-landing checklist also covers the gear deployment
before brake/spoiler usage for landing. I've actually never had the
alarm go off because I missed something or the brakes/spoilers
unlocked on their own. There were a few occasions where I deployed
spoilers to stay out of a cloud at the top of some strong lift. That's
the only time I've heard the alarm in flight. Hopefully it stays that
way. It certainly gives piece of mind to know I won't land gear up.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 9/9/2011 8:23 AM, glidergeek wrote:

>> Reading from the above it would seem that the alarm system is totally
>> inactive until the GPS indicates I am moving 25+ knots.

I believe the 302 uses airspeed, not GPS ground speed, to do the
measurement.

> If so, how
>> can I test this system on the ground? Anyone else install this system
>> and have any experience? This weekend I will experiment to see if
>> the 302 programming is smart enough to allow testing while I am
>> standing still.
>>
>> Thanks, John DeRosa
>
> Launch, release from tow, open spoilers with gear up, listen for
> warning horn.

That only tests the gear warning, which can also be done on the ground
with the fuselage in the trailer dolly and the gear up.

To test the "spoilers unlocked" warning, the airspeed must increase past
25 knots while the spoilers are unlocked, and once you have released
from tow, the airspeed won't do that.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 9/9/2011 8:00 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:

>
> "Mark" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If your airbrakes "suck open" after you are going faster than 25 knots
>> it will not warn you, just FYI...
>>
>> It would work a tad better if the "spoiler open on tow" worked until
>> the first "gear up" condition before it reverted to the "spoiler
>> open / gear not down" mode.
>>
> If your spoilers "suck open" and you don't recognize it, you
> shouldn't be flying.

I gotta say, that's a little harsh. I've had mine open twice, and
another time they were unlocked but I noticed it half way through the
tow before they opened. I did recognize it, but not right away. These
incidents happened over 3000 flight hours ago, and I had over 1500 hours
before any of them happened.

I know 13 (thirteen!) ASH 26 E pilots that have taken off with unlocked
spoilers that sucked open, and they did not notice it right away,
either. Every one of them was a very experienced pilot in airplanes,
gliders, or both. Most had at least 1000 glider hours, some were
competition pilots and National record holders, and all were competent
cross-country pilots whose names you often see on the OLC.

This illustrates what many have noticed: it isn't just the students, the
low-time pilots, or the poorly trained that can make mistakes. I do
think it's important how a pilot responds to prevent a problem from
recurring. All the pilots I've mentioned took steps to improve their
procedures, many also installed "Piggot Hook" devices and/or an
"unlocked spoiler" warning systems.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Westbender]

On Sep 9, 2:50*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 9/9/2011 8:23 AM, glidergeek wrote:
>
> >> Reading from the above it would seem that the alarm system is totally
> >> inactive until the GPS indicates I am moving 25+ knots.
>
> I believe the 302 uses airspeed, not GPS ground speed, to do the
> measurement.
>
> > *If so, how
> >> can I test this system on the ground? *Anyone else install this system
> >> and have any experience? * This weekend I will experiment to see if
> >> the 302 programming is smart enough to allow testing while I am
> >> standing still.
>
> >> Thanks, John DeRosa
>
> > Launch, release from tow, open spoilers with gear up, listen for
> > warning horn.
>
> That only tests the gear warning, which can also be done on the ground
> with the fuselage in the trailer dolly and the gear up.
>
> To test the "spoilers unlocked" warning, the airspeed must increase past
> 25 knots while the spoilers are unlocked, and once you have released
> from tow, the airspeed won't do that.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl


Well, you could try the following at altitude. Theoretically it should
work. Lower gear, pull up hard enough to stall with no airspeed
showing, unlock brakes/spoilers at the stall break. Alarm should sound
when gaining speed during the stall recovery. Although the OP wants to
be able to test on the ground. That's the way I would test as well.

I have a method for testing my pnuematic lines (static, pitot, te). Go
to any pharmacy and get a syringe (without needle) in the smallest
diameter they have. My local pharmacy gives them to me for free. The
real small narrow ones allow for moderate plunger movement without
fear of damaging your instruments. That's not to say you shouldn't be
extremely careful. The point is the really small diameter syringes do
not move much volume. I keep one in my field box with a piece of
surgical tubing attached for testing. It would be perfect for
connecting to the pitot and applying a small amount of pressure to
test the 302 alarm. Not to mention the ease in which it allows one to
test for leaks throughout the rest of the ship.

[Mark]

On Sep 9, 10:00*am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> If your spoilers "suck open" and you don't recognize it, you shouldn't be
> flying.


Well Dan,

What if the pilot locked the spoilers as part of their using a written
pre-takeoff checklist. Maybe, the detent mechanism was slowly failing
and the first sign of this progressive failure was the first time the
spoilers opened on tow. Maybe they opened in conjunction with some
turbulence after the tow was well under way. Maybe the climb rate was
still 3-400 FPM all the way to release. Do you still agree with your
statement??

Mark

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:00:53 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

> If your spoilers "suck open" and you don't recognize it, you shouldn't
> be flying.
>
Maybe other outfits should adopt my club's new-for-2011 change in launch
procedure: the cable is NOT put on unless the pilot announces "Brakes
locked" before asking for 'cable on'.


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

[ContestID67[_2_]]

I was informed (and verified) that there is a way to easily test the
302 warning system while on the ground.

- Power down the 302
- Unlock the airbrakes with the gear unlocked/up
- Power up the 302

The alarm will then sound (euro siren) after the self test is
complete. A large upwards pointing arrow will appear in the display,
different than the small speed up/down arrows, meaning I suppose that
your gear is up. You can silence the alarm by pushing the button.

Yet another undocumented feature/sound from the Cambridge 302!

- John

[Westbender]

On Sep 9, 7:23*pm, ContestID67 > wrote:
> I was informed (and verified) that there is a way to easily test the
> 302 warning system while on the ground.
>
> - Power down the 302
> - Unlock the airbrakes with the gear unlocked/up
> - Power up the 302
>
> The alarm will then sound (euro siren) after the self test is
> complete. *A large upwards pointing arrow will appear in the display,
> different than the small speed up/down arrows, meaning I suppose that
> your gear is up. *You can silence the alarm by pushing the button.
>
> Yet another undocumented feature/sound from the Cambridge 302!
>
> - John

You don't have to power it down. Simply unlocking the brakes/spoilers
with the gear up will produce an alarm. You can turn the alarm on and
off by locking/unlocking the brakes/spoilers with the gear up.
Powering up/down does nothing different. That does not test the speed
enabled (spoilers unlocked on takeoff) alarm however.

By the way, with the 303, you'll get an appropriate text message on
the screen depending on which alarm it is.

[Westbender]

On Sep 9, 7:23*pm, ContestID67 > wrote:
> I was informed (and verified) that there is a way to easily test the
> 302 warning system while on the ground.
>
> - Power down the 302
> - Unlock the airbrakes with the gear unlocked/up
> - Power up the 302
>
> The alarm will then sound (euro siren) after the self test is
> complete. *A large upwards pointing arrow will appear in the display,
> different than the small speed up/down arrows, meaning I suppose that
> your gear is up. *You can silence the alarm by pushing the button.
>
> Yet another undocumented feature/sound from the Cambridge 302!
>
> - John

It is documented. See page 8 of the 302 manual.

[Dan Marotta]

Why must we continue to try to make everything safe for everyone? Some
people should just NOT be flying aircraft. Or riding motorcycles, or
driving cars. I think we'd all be better served if these folks were told to
stop flying. But then we'd have to ask: "Who certified them as safe and
competent in the first place?"

Sorry if I sound harsh, but there are too many incompetent people in the
world, the result of putting their self esteem above their safety. If they
can't do it, why not just tell them so?


"Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
...
> "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
>> If your spoilers "suck open" and you don't recognize it, you shouldn't
>> be flying.
>
> But those pilots clearly are flying. And are killing themselves and
> hurting passengers etc.in depressingly familiar accidents.
>
> In the case of the C302 (and hopefully ClearNav vario) this feature
> works very well and I would connect in any glider I owned. The limit
> with these things is does having a lots of these alarms just end up
> confusing/distractions and can the pilot handle and respond to the alarm
> (and given how far behind the aircraft some seem this may be a problem).
> But a "it's there problem" attitude and just sitting by while pilots
> kill themselves is not going to help this sport or those pilots. And yes
> if somebody is clearly having problems with safe spoiler
> operation/handling emergencies/distractions etc. my first call would be
> time with a good instructor not add a gadget but those gadgets may have
> a place as well.
>
> Darryl

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 9/10/2011 12:19 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Why must we continue to try to make everything safe for everyone? Some
> people should just NOT be flying aircraft. Or riding motorcycles, or
> driving cars. I think we'd all be better served if these folks were told
> to stop flying. But then we'd have to ask: "Who certified them as safe
> and competent in the first place?"
>
> Sorry if I sound harsh, but there are too many incompetent people in the
> world, the result of putting their self esteem above their safety. If
> they can't do it, why not just tell them so?

Sometimes we do, but it's not an easy task determining who is
incompetent, or if currently incompetent, will become competent. In a
recent post, you wrote:

> If your spoilers "suck open" and you don't recognize it, you shouldn't
> be flying.

Perhaps you missed my earlier response to that statement, but the basic
idea was: I know many competent pilots, including myself, that have had
this happen to them.

As many have pointed out, accidents are happening to pilots that appear
competent and are certainly experienced. It's not just the obvious bozo
that's having accidents.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Dan Marotta]

Yes, I still agree.

If you'll read my statement again, you'll see that I said "If your spoilers
**suck open** and you don't recognize it..." There's a big difference in
the spoilers being unlocked and open.

A slowly failing mechanizm will likely be overlooked, and I understand that,
but the sudden noise, drag, and loss of lift of open spoilers better be
recognized *immediately* or, as I said before, you shouldn't be flying.


"Mark" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 10:00 am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> If your spoilers "suck open" and you don't recognize it, you shouldn't be
> flying.


Well Dan,

What if the pilot locked the spoilers as part of their using a written
pre-takeoff checklist. Maybe, the detent mechanism was slowly failing
and the first sign of this progressive failure was the first time the
spoilers opened on tow. Maybe they opened in conjunction with some
turbulence after the tow was well under way. Maybe the climb rate was
still 3-400 FPM all the way to release. Do you still agree with your
statement??

Mark

[Dan Marotta]

What about the guys who routinely, and with knowledge, begin takeoff with
their spoliers partially opened. I do that when I'm flying the rented LS-4
as it feels to me like it improves aileron control early in the takeoff
roll. I close and lock the spoilers as soon as control is assured. In my
Mosquito, I begin takeoff roll with flaps full negative as I did in my
previous LS-6. Would you deny me a hookup even after I announced to you
that my spoilers are open and why?

I'm talking about the (apparently) sleeping pilots who, at 200 feet fail to
notice that the spoilers have just popped open without command. I've read
of the tow pilot taking that glider pilot to safe altitude, releasing him
within good landing position, and then watching him fail to reach the
airport because he never recognized the problem. And, please, let's not
start another radio discussion.


"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:00:53 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
>> If your spoilers "suck open" and you don't recognize it, you shouldn't
>> be flying.
>>
> Maybe other outfits should adopt my club's new-for-2011 change in launch
> procedure: the cable is NOT put on unless the pilot announces "Brakes
> locked" before asking for 'cable on'.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

[Dan Marotta]

I saw your previous statement, Eric. And maybe I misunderstood what you
said.

I assume you said that you've mistakenly taken off with spoilers unlocked.
That's an oversight that I'm not railing about. Answer me this: Assuming
the spoilers sucked open sometime after liftoff, did you recognize it and
close them, or did you fly blissfully along wondering why it was suddenly so
noisy and your climb rate had diminished, not to mention the sudden drop
causing your head to bang the canopy?



"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/10/2011 12:19 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Why must we continue to try to make everything safe for everyone? Some
>> people should just NOT be flying aircraft. Or riding motorcycles, or
>> driving cars. I think we'd all be better served if these folks were told
>> to stop flying. But then we'd have to ask: "Who certified them as safe
>> and competent in the first place?"
>>
>> Sorry if I sound harsh, but there are too many incompetent people in the
>> world, the result of putting their self esteem above their safety. If
>> they can't do it, why not just tell them so?
>
> Sometimes we do, but it's not an easy task determining who is incompetent,
> or if currently incompetent, will become competent. In a recent post, you
> wrote:
>
> > If your spoilers "suck open" and you don't recognize it, you shouldn't
> > be flying.
>
> Perhaps you missed my earlier response to that statement, but the basic
> idea was: I know many competent pilots, including myself, that have had
> this happen to them.
>
> As many have pointed out, accidents are happening to pilots that appear
> competent and are certainly experienced. It's not just the obvious bozo
> that's having accidents.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email
> me)

[ContestID67[_2_]]

Westbender - Thanks for the comments.

Power testing - You don't have to power up/down to test? Hmmm, that
was not my experience - just deploying the airbrakes with gear up
didn't do it, I had to power cycle. Different vintages of 302s?

Documented Tones - I mis-spoke. After a careful review of the 302
manual all the tones are documented in various scattered parts of the
manual - sometimes within the various screen settings and more clearly
in Section 7 "Flying with the Cambridge DDV". This shows that re-
reading the manual following the euphoria of new-avionics-itis is
important.

I would have preferred a concise review of the tones...something like;

Climb Tone -
In Climb mode, lift is indicated by a broken audio
tone.
The tone's pitch and beep rate are proportional to
the climb rate.
Sink Tone -
Sink is indicated by a continuous tone.
The tone's pitch is proportional to the sink rate.
Speed to Fly Tones -
In Cruise mode, short beeps and the UP arrow mean
you should slow down (pull up).
A continuous tone and the DOWN arrow mean you
should speed up (push over).
No tone indicates correct speed to fly.
Minimum Speed Warning Tone -
A di-di-dah “Slow Alarm” tone will be heard if the
glider's airspeed is below the threshold.
Gear/Airbrake Warning Tone (optional) -
A “European Police Car” sound will be heard when;
1) Unlocking the airbrakes when airspeed rises
above 25 knots.
2) During flight with the landing gear retracted
and the airbrakes are unlocked.

The above should include references to the relevant sections of the
manual.

Thanks again, John

[BruceGreeff]

Things go wrong - sometimes in ways that look like you are incompetent.

I had my airbrake over centre adjusted wrong at an annual inspection.
First tow there was much excitement and rudder waggling. Every time I
locked the lever back, every time they popped open 20 seconds later.
Eventually just wedged them and flew, the aerotow was slower to climb
because I could not hold the brakes entire ly closed with my thigh - but
at least I was not having 20foot excursions the whole time.

Lots of comments when I landed.

Geometry checked and overcentre load adjusted correctly. Suddenly pilot
competence increased substantially...

So - yes we try to make things safe because things can go wrong. There
is a fine line before sanitising to the point of pilots becoming dangerous.

Unfortunately some folk just can't ever get safe. In our club operation
they then have the choice of continuing with a safety pilot, or going
back to being a spectator. Fortunately there are very few who fail to
recognise their own limitations. It is one of the reasons folk drift away.

Hard call to make, but it is better to have someone alive and resentful
of your decision than dead.

On 2011/09/10 9:47 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 9/10/2011 12:19 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Why must we continue to try to make everything safe for everyone? Some
>> people should just NOT be flying aircraft. Or riding motorcycles, or
>> driving cars. I think we'd all be better served if these folks were told
>> to stop flying. But then we'd have to ask: "Who certified them as safe
>> and competent in the first place?"
>>
>> Sorry if I sound harsh, but there are too many incompetent people in the
>> world, the result of putting their self esteem above their safety. If
>> they can't do it, why not just tell them so?
>
> Sometimes we do, but it's not an easy task determining who is
> incompetent, or if currently incompetent, will become competent. In a
> recent post, you wrote:
>
> > If your spoilers "suck open" and you don't recognize it, you shouldn't
> > be flying.
>
> Perhaps you missed my earlier response to that statement, but the basic
> idea was: I know many competent pilots, including myself, that have had
> this happen to them.
>
> As many have pointed out, accidents are happening to pilots that appear
> competent and are certainly experienced. It's not just the obvious bozo
> that's having accidents.
>

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 9/10/2011 1:04 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I saw your previous statement, Eric. And maybe I misunderstood what
> you said.
>
> I assume you said that you've mistakenly taken off with spoilers
> unlocked. That's an oversight that I'm not railing about. Answer me
> this: Assuming the spoilers sucked open sometime after liftoff, did
> you recognize it and close them, or did you fly blissfully along
> wondering why it was suddenly so noisy and your climb rate had
> diminished, not to mention the sudden drop causing your head to bang
> the canopy?

In one cases, I did tow along blissfully for a while, but it wasn't
noisy, my climb rate did not diminish, and there wasn't any sudden drop.
It would be great if those things happened, but they don't happen on an
ASW 20 B when the spoilers slowly extend under tow. At some point, I
realized I was flying at a higher than usual AOA for the speed I was
being towed at. That perception was delayed because I was at a contest,
flying with water, behind a fast, powerful towplane (twice the climb
rate of the one in our club), and so was not familiar with the correct
attitude.

In the other case, they opened about 10' off the ground, a few seconds
after liftoff. There was no extra noise, there was no reduction in climb
rate, but I did notice a drop (but not sudden) that I first attributed
to a sinking air or wind shear, but after "a few seconds" (5? 10?) I
realized something was wrong, checked the spoilers - oops - and closed
them. Again, being towed by a powerful tow plane.

At high speeds, spoilers will act like you wrote (sudden opening, noisy,
big drop), but at tow speeds, they can open so gently it's not
immediately evident. My guess: this is probably what happens a lot of
times when the spoiler suck open during the tow, and why the pilot
doesn't recognize it immediately, and sometimes not at all.

> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 9/10/2011 12:19 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>> Why must we continue to try to make everything safe for everyone?
>>> Some people should just NOT be flying aircraft. Or riding
>>> motorcycles, or driving cars. I think we'd all be better served
>>> if these folks were told to stop flying. But then we'd have to
>>> ask: "Who certified them as safe and competent in the first
>>> place?"
>>>
>>> Sorry if I sound harsh, but there are too many incompetent people
>>> in the world, the result of putting their self esteem above their
>>> safety. If they can't do it, why not just tell them so?
>>
>> Sometimes we do, but it's not an easy task determining who is
>> incompetent, or if currently incompetent, will become competent. In
>> a recent post, you wrote:
>>
>>> If your spoilers "suck open" and you don't recognize it, you
>>> shouldn't be flying.
>>
>> Perhaps you missed my earlier response to that statement, but the
>> basic idea was: I know many competent pilots, including myself,
>> that have had this happen to them.
>>
>> As many have pointed out, accidents are happening to pilots that
>> appear competent and are certainly experienced. It's not just the
>> obvious bozo that's having accidents.
>>
>> -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us"
>> to email me)
>


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[Dan Marotta]

Well, then, I agree with you Eric, and understand your position.


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/10/2011 1:04 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> I saw your previous statement, Eric. And maybe I misunderstood what
>> you said.
>>
>> I assume you said that you've mistakenly taken off with spoilers
>> unlocked. That's an oversight that I'm not railing about. Answer me
>> this: Assuming the spoilers sucked open sometime after liftoff, did
>> you recognize it and close them, or did you fly blissfully along
>> wondering why it was suddenly so noisy and your climb rate had
>> diminished, not to mention the sudden drop causing your head to bang
>> the canopy?
>
> In one cases, I did tow along blissfully for a while, but it wasn't noisy,
> my climb rate did not diminish, and there wasn't any sudden drop. It would
> be great if those things happened, but they don't happen on an ASW 20 B
> when the spoilers slowly extend under tow. At some point, I realized I was
> flying at a higher than usual AOA for the speed I was being towed at. That
> perception was delayed because I was at a contest, flying with water,
> behind a fast, powerful towplane (twice the climb rate of the one in our
> club), and so was not familiar with the correct attitude.
>
> In the other case, they opened about 10' off the ground, a few seconds
> after liftoff. There was no extra noise, there was no reduction in climb
> rate, but I did notice a drop (but not sudden) that I first attributed to
> a sinking air or wind shear, but after "a few seconds" (5? 10?) I realized
> something was wrong, checked the spoilers - oops - and closed them. Again,
> being towed by a powerful tow plane.
>
> At high speeds, spoilers will act like you wrote (sudden opening, noisy,
> big drop), but at tow speeds, they can open so gently it's not immediately
> evident. My guess: this is probably what happens a lot of times when the
> spoiler suck open during the tow, and why the pilot doesn't recognize it
> immediately, and sometimes not at all.
>
>> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 9/10/2011 12:19 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>>> Why must we continue to try to make everything safe for everyone?
>>>> Some people should just NOT be flying aircraft. Or riding
>>>> motorcycles, or driving cars. I think we'd all be better served
>>>> if these folks were told to stop flying. But then we'd have to
>>>> ask: "Who certified them as safe and competent in the first
>>>> place?"
>>>>
>>>> Sorry if I sound harsh, but there are too many incompetent people
>>>> in the world, the result of putting their self esteem above their
>>>> safety. If they can't do it, why not just tell them so?
>>>
>>> Sometimes we do, but it's not an easy task determining who is
>>> incompetent, or if currently incompetent, will become competent. In
>>> a recent post, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> If your spoilers "suck open" and you don't recognize it, you
>>>> shouldn't be flying.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you missed my earlier response to that statement, but the
>>> basic idea was: I know many competent pilots, including myself,
>>> that have had this happen to them.
>>>
>>> As many have pointed out, accidents are happening to pilots that
>>> appear competent and are certainly experienced. It's not just the
>>> obvious bozo that's having accidents.
>>>
>>> -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us"
>>> to email me)
>>
>
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
> http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[Dan Marotta]

And yet another good example! You guys have opened my eyes some on
not-so-obvious malfunctions. My harsh comments were for those who don't pay
attention. I can think of two glaring examples: One in which an open
canopy resulted in a low release, failed turn back, broken glider, and two
injured people, one of whom was a paying passenger. The pilot was a CFIG!
The other, also an open canopy, resulted in the pilot towing to a safe
release altitude while holding the canopy down, then unable to deploy the
spoilers (didn't have 3 hands), and being unable figure out how to slip or
extend the pattern, flew the length of the 8,000+ foot runway and crashed
beyond the end. The pilot survived with, IIRC, minor injuries, but the
glider was damaged.

Since the second mentioned accident, the club has emphasized training on
slips to landing. Frankly, I would have slipped in the direction of the
canopy hinge (I think it was side-opening), momentarily released my hold on
the stick, locked the canopy, and continued the flight.


"BruceGreeff" > wrote in message
...
> Things go wrong - sometimes in ways that look like you are incompetent.
>
> I had my airbrake over centre adjusted wrong at an annual inspection.
> First tow there was much excitement and rudder waggling. Every time I
> locked the lever back, every time they popped open 20 seconds later.
> Eventually just wedged them and flew, the aerotow was slower to climb
> because I could not hold the brakes entire ly closed with my thigh - but
> at least I was not having 20foot excursions the whole time.
>
> Lots of comments when I landed.
>
> Geometry checked and overcentre load adjusted correctly. Suddenly pilot
> competence increased substantially...
>
> So - yes we try to make things safe because things can go wrong. There is
> a fine line before sanitising to the point of pilots becoming dangerous.
>
> Unfortunately some folk just can't ever get safe. In our club operation
> they then have the choice of continuing with a safety pilot, or going back
> to being a spectator. Fortunately there are very few who fail to recognise
> their own limitations. It is one of the reasons folk drift away.
>
> Hard call to make, but it is better to have someone alive and resentful of
> your decision than dead.
>
> On 2011/09/10 9:47 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> On 9/10/2011 12:19 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>> Why must we continue to try to make everything safe for everyone? Some
>>> people should just NOT be flying aircraft. Or riding motorcycles, or
>>> driving cars. I think we'd all be better served if these folks were told
>>> to stop flying. But then we'd have to ask: "Who certified them as safe
>>> and competent in the first place?"
>>>
>>> Sorry if I sound harsh, but there are too many incompetent people in the
>>> world, the result of putting their self esteem above their safety. If
>>> they can't do it, why not just tell them so?
>>
>> Sometimes we do, but it's not an easy task determining who is
>> incompetent, or if currently incompetent, will become competent. In a
>> recent post, you wrote:
>>
>> > If your spoilers "suck open" and you don't recognize it, you shouldn't
>> > be flying.
>>
>> Perhaps you missed my earlier response to that statement, but the basic
>> idea was: I know many competent pilots, including myself, that have had
>> this happen to them.
>>
>> As many have pointed out, accidents are happening to pilots that appear
>> competent and are certainly experienced. It's not just the obvious bozo
>> that's having accidents.
>>
>
> --
> Bruce Greeff
> T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

[Dave Hoppe[_2_]]

On 9/10/2011 3:45 PM, ContestID67 wrote:
> Westbender - Thanks for the comments.
>
> Power testing - You don't have to power up/down to test? Hmmm, that
> was not my experience - just deploying the airbrakes with gear up
> didn't do it, I had to power cycle. Different vintages of 302s?
>



John,

Something is amiss. If you were entering the landing pattern with your
gear up and you open your spoilers, you definitely should not have to
power cycle the 302 to get the alarm. That would kind of defeat the
purpose. My 302 is 6 years old, however it had the latest firmware
installed this last winter.

[Westbender]

On Sep 10, 7:18*pm, Dave Hoppe > wrote:
> On 9/10/2011 3:45 PM, ContestID67 wrote:
>
> > Westbender - Thanks for the comments.
>
> > Power testing - You don't have to power up/down to test? *Hmmm, that
> > was not my experience - just deploying the airbrakes with gear up
> > didn't do it, I had to power cycle. *Different vintages of 302s?
>
> John,
>
> Something is amiss. If you were entering the landing pattern with your
> gear up and you open your spoilers, you definitely should not have to
> power cycle the 302 to get the alarm. That would kind of defeat the
> purpose. My 302 is 6 years old, however it had the latest firmware
> installed this last winter.

I should mention that the update did not change the alarm behavior.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 9, 5:23*pm, ContestID67 > wrote:
> I was informed (and verified) that there is a way to easily test the
> 302 warning system while on the ground.
>
> - Power down the 302
> - Unlock the airbrakes with the gear unlocked/up
> - Power up the 302
>
> The alarm will then sound (euro siren) after the self test is
> complete. *A large upwards pointing arrow will appear in the display,
> different than the small speed up/down arrows, meaning I suppose that
> your gear is up. *You can silence the alarm by pushing the button.
>
> Yet another undocumented feature/sound from the Cambridge 302!
>
> - John


The power up alarm sounds with brakes unlocked with the gear DOWN and
locked.

After power up test execution the gear warning is as expected - the
gear alarm only sounds if the brakes are unlocked and the gear is not
down locked.

The alarm may also sound on power up with the brakes unlocked and the
gear not down and locked but I can't be sure of that as my assembly
routine has gear down and glider pushed back from trailer before the
batteries are fitted.

Andy

[Tom Serkowski]

On 9/9/11 3:56 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> the cable is NOT put on unless the pilot announces "Brakes
> locked" before asking for 'cable on'.

And if the pilot uses spoilers to get better aileron control at the
start of the takeoff?

Or the wheel brake is on the spoilers and the pilot wants to prevent a
rope overrun?

-Tom

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:39:46 -0700, Tom Serkowski wrote:

> On 9/9/11 3:56 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> the cable is NOT put on unless the pilot announces "Brakes locked"
>> before asking for 'cable on'.
>
> And if the pilot uses spoilers to get better aileron control at the
> start of the takeoff?
>
Doing standard UK CBSIFTCBE preflight checks, accepting the cable before
opening the brakes and keeping a hand on the brake lever allows the pilot
to accept the cable with brakes locked, so the confirmation can be made
correctly.

Of course, if you are flying somewhere that doesn't teach a preflight
check which includes opening, visually checking, and then locking the
brakes, doesn't include the checks in every flight under instruction and
which tolerates launches for pilots who skip the preflight check then you
should expect launches with unlocked brakes as well as any consequent
crashes.

> Or the wheel brake is on the spoilers and the pilot wants to prevent a
> rope overrun?
>
Totally unlikely on our field, which is, if anything, always slightly
uphill since it has a small hump (on a winch launch the wing runner can
see the winch flashing but the pilot usually can't).

I've only flown on one field where that was necessary, the Wasserkuppe,
and again that's a bit special since you take off downwind and downhill
on a hard runway which is steep enough to require a small wooden wedge in
front of the main wheel to stop the glider running forward while the pilot
(s) get in.

In any case in the UK and other places where the CBSIFTCBE preflight
check is taught the pilot will have cycled the brakes AND DONE A VISUAL
CHECK before unlocking and opening them if the glider needs that for a
successful launch, so the announcement "Brakes locked: cable on, please"
should be redundant.


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

[ContestID67[_2_]]

On Sep 10, 7:18*pm, Dave Hoppe > wrote:

> Something is amiss. If you were entering the landing pattern with your
> gear up and you open your spoilers, you definitely should not have to
> power cycle the 302 to get the alarm. That would kind of defeat the
> purpose. My 302 is 6 years old, however it had the latest firmware
> installed this last winter.

Dave - The power cycle testing I refer to is perform on the ground
during/after assembly...not in the air during the landing cycle.

Thanks.

[Westbender]

On Sep 11, 8:25*am, ContestID67 > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 7:18*pm, Dave Hoppe > wrote:
>
> > Something is amiss. If you were entering the landing pattern with your
> > gear up and you open your spoilers, you definitely should not have to
> > power cycle the 302 to get the alarm. That would kind of defeat the
> > purpose. My 302 is 6 years old, however it had the latest firmware
> > installed this last winter.
>
> Dave - The power cycle testing I refer to is perform on the ground
> during/after assembly...not in the air during the landing cycle.
>
> Thanks.

I see, I guess I misunderstood. When you posted "just deploying the
airbrakes with gear up didn't do it, I had to power cycle.", I assumed
you weren't able to sound the alarm by unlocking spoilers with gear up
on the ground. Glad to hear it's all working for you.

[jacksonstephenson]

Well,I think that one should not ride a heavy vehicle at a high speed because anytime there will be emergency brake,So,the pilot or the person can easily can slow the speed of that vehicle.